Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Silvaco: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [29] ~ A412 talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk ) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Silver Cup (band): The most noteworthy coverage the group has received is the interview in V Magazine . The rest of the sources are student and community newspapers that probably do not meet the reliable sources bar. Iago Qnsi ( talk ) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the creator, I'd personally disagree. The coverage in V Magazine , their entry in the SLC public library , and coverage in local papers meets WP:SIGCOV in my eyes (criteria 1 of WP:BAND ). I get that the bar must be high, but I caution from putting it too high. WP:RS doesn't exclude local sources (or even university articles, with the caveat of WP:BAND criteria 1), just says that you must verify a level of editorial standards. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom. A relatively obscure band that doesn't meet notability standards; though the amount of coverage included in the article does seem decent, and therefore the reason for my "weak" ! vote. CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is filled with promo spam, including: 7. ^ ""Aquafeed.com | Silver Cup becomes Skretting US"". www.aquafeed.com. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-24." "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow" Spam ref >> 9. ^ Klaper, Rebecca; Rees, Christopher B. ; Drevnick, Paul; Weber, Daniel; Sandheinrich, Mark; Carvan, Michael J. (2006).  "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) after Dietary Methylmercury Exposure".  Environmental Health Perspectives.  114 (9): 1337–1343.  doi:10.1289/ehp.8786.  ISSN 0091-6765.  PMC 1570078.  PMID 16966085. but these three sources: 13. ^ "LDS singer David Archuleta tells LGBTQ youths at LoveLoud Festival: 'It's a beautiful thing to be queer'".  The Salt Lake Tribune.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 10. ^ Jump up to:a b Fuller, Whit.  "Silver Cup's Debut EP is a Dreamy Reflection".  The Daily Utah Chronicle.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Family Band Silver Cup Talks Musical Inspirations and Growing Up in Utah".  V Magazine.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. Show some level of notability. #4 is partly interview, but there is some independent content. Article needs cleanup, but I suspect there are more sources to go with the three above. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yamini Aiyar: May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Organizations , Delhi , and United Kingdom . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research ; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF . — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No longer the head . Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [13] . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun ( talk ) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: The person is not elected representative, representing government at any level and sources are also scarce. Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Allahabad High Court is an WP:NPOL qualifying position: specifically, judges who have held... state/province–wide office. They're a judge on the highest court of a state with 241 million inhabitants, this is an easy keep. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan.Judge of the Allahabad High Court is a WP:NPOL qualifying position. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NJUDGE. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 12:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per others above, a clear-cut WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Elsa Mars: WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show , sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Glamour , ScreenRant , Bustle , The Atlantic , EW . There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP , which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN , so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios ( talk ) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show : Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens ( talk ) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 talk to me 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Trap (carriage): This page only defines the term Trap (as a carriage). The only reference is to a phrase finder. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Horse racing . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Blatant WP:NOTDICT violation. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Keep I think there may be the content and sourcing available to expand the article to more than just a dictionary definition. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references that are way more than a dictionary definition. They cover a range of designs for traps. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you added six sources to verify the dictionary definition in the article, but the deletion proposal is not based on any doubt that a pony-trap is a type of carriage. The problem with this article is it is very clearly just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is the wrong wikiproject for that. I also note that your sources include two glossaries of terms (just reinforcing WP:NOTDICT arguments), a for-sale listing of a trap, and a stock photo of a trap. I suppose these were all added to reinforce the fact that such carriages are called traps, but they are not WP:RS (clearly) and they are reinforcing something over which there is no doubt. The article still fails per WP:NOTDICT . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. It is more than just a dictionary definition. Consider Coupe or Pickup truck . Both are types of motor vehicle, but there are many variations of both. The same is true of Trap (carriage) . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a nomination based purely on a current thin state of a stub article and that is not the point of DICDEF. The word is widely used, at least in "pony and trap" as both vehicle and propulsion. Yet what is a "trap"? Does it have 2 wheels or 4? How does it differ from other types of cart? What was it used for? We may not be there as yet, but there is certainly scope here for an encyclopedic article more than a DICDEF, just as we've done for other cart and carriage types. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:HEY . The article now passes WP:GNG per the included sources. There is probably scope for a general reorganisation of all of the articles on similar types of carriages, but there is no particular reason to delete this page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

McKinsey Quarterly: Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you please explain how this is self-promotion, an advert, and out-of-date? Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself. It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK ( talk ) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world. To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD . RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK. Passes WP:BKCRIT . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Wizardzz: While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for WP:BAND . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and United States of America . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As is almost always the case with bands reviewed by Pitchfork, there are multiple published works covering the band; for instance, Tiny Mix Tapes reviewed the album, and there is a short bio and a substantial review at Allmusic . Meets WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Death of Anatoly Klyan: WP:BIO1E says: When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Russia , and Ukraine . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep But this article, Death of Anatoly Klyan , is about the event, as recommended by WP:BIO1E . The event is clearly notable as evidenced in the article. Thincat ( talk ) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You are saying 'Journalist Dying' is a major role in the event 'Death of Journalist', which is obvious an can be said about pretty much any WP:NOTNEWS topic. Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT : Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths , celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena ) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. All the sources in the article are from exactly June 30, 2014, so it has no lasting coverage. And like written above, deaths/crimes/political news are not notable "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:BIO1E is already refuted above. And this article clearly passes WP:GNG . And his death isn't just one of those "most deaths" mentioned; it provoked a global response - from the Russian government and UNESCO. That, plus the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [...] the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article The reporting was exactly during one day , June 30, 2014. No more articles after that. Saying "it helps the case" words things in a way as to not consider the other majority of WP:EVENTCRIT which it clearly fails. Namely: 1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). 3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. 4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Looking at things, not much "helps the case for an article", per WP:EVENTCRIT . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you're accusing ME of wikilawyering... In any case, 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources is satisfied by the multitude of different RS cited for this article - from The Guardian to Al Jazeera. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not a biographical article, It is completely fine to keep the article under the present title and scope. Segaton ( talk ) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's not a biographical article Then why is there a subheading called Personal life ? बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with EVENTCRIT. MLee1957 ( talk ) 00:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shubham Sharma: -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : No reason to delete valid dab page just because there is a dab page for the given name. Pam D 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, are you saying that it's exceedingly unlikely for an average English reader to ever search for "Shubham Sharma"? Because otherwise this is useful. Also, you can use {{ transclude list }} to reduce duplication between those two lists. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's more than one article about a person called Shubham Sharma. If there's no primary topic for "Shubham Sharma" then there needs to be a way to disambiguate, and a given name list article isn't good enough (note Shubham is a given name WP:Set index article as opposed to a disambiguation page). See, for example, Kevin Newman doesn't redirect to Kevin ; John Quested doesn't redirect to John . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Kermet Apio: Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Hawaii , and Washington . Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only website with more than a passing mention is My Edmonds News [1] ; has several articles about this person. I'm not sure that's enough Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I see consistent coverage in several local outlets ( Kitsap Sun , Salt Lake Tribute , Tri-City Herald , Hawaii Public Radio ) that suggest he meets GNG, if narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per user WhinyTheYounger. Subject was more of a regional comedian but has performed in 47 states and Canada, as well as Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, and Pakistan , and on Sirius/XM satellite radio. Subject is considered a headlining comedian and has been on Comedy Showcase with Louie Anderson . -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per user WhinyTheYounger. His Comedy special on Youtube has 900K views, suggesting notability. BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Catherine Willows: Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable. A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability. I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today , Deadline , CBS , ET , CBR (also here ), Screenrant , The Wrap , Collider , and Slate . And that is a preliminary search. I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters. However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources. Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search. On whether the article reaches WP:GNG , well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . The reception section in the article is bad. Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews. This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report. USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence. deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show. So-so. CBS reads like a press release. Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse. It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here. This is bad AFD practice. The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad. For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters. Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote. But right now the sources found seem weak. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I will. Okay, I did. That was neat. I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. Good to stay sharp! Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you. I will improve it! Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it. To address what @ Spinixster : says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said. Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia. See WP:FICTION . Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own. Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own. I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom . Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful. "A lot of people would like this" is not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage. Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list. The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent. But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own. The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character. As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it. Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article. The article just needs some fixing. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself. USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability. CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show. First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character. Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character. While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable. (also MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article. Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series. Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability. I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are. Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself. I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent summary. I found a few hits on Google Scholar. I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage. However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way. It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender . Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach. I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION . In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT . The article also lacks references. If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content . Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION. Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted? Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred. I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable. I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct. Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

VFL Development League: The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex ( talk ) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T · C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Tera tix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports . Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian ( talk ) 07:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rising Shore Roanoke: Skyerise ( talk ) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This novel did not get wide distribution, but it is a book that was discussed on radio shows and had some circulation. I would think this meets the guidelines for an article. I updated the article to include interviews with the author and reviews of the book. Klok000 ( talk ) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That review you added, "Bookpleasures" is not the kind of source that we should cite. Interviews with the author don't help either. The novel is self-published, though the article doesn't say that, and I don't think the author can make a claim for notability. Delete . Drmies ( talk ) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Bird-Guilliams, Mary Kay (August 2007). "Homsher, Deborah. The Rising Shore--Roanoke" . Library Journal . Vol.  132, no. 13. p. 68. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Gale . The review notes: "The invented portions are believable, including the ending--you can debate the details, but it seems quite logical. ... Lots of violence and tragedy in this version of early American history; most public libraries will want to purchase for readers who enjoyed Jane Smiley's The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton." Riddle, Mary Ellen (2007-08-24). "Author's Lost Colony solution is intriguing" . The Virginian-Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "What truly sings in Homsher's work is her amazing ability to understand life. On every page, she analyzes it with a powerful voice. One is astounded to find that the words are unique and apt. ... Homsher writes about women like Elenor who have been involved in American adventure and faced violence. In the end, she crafts a solution to The Lost Colony. It flowered in the mind of a gifted writer." Jacobs, Meredith (2008-03-09). "Tangled love, a Christian trilogy" . The Fayetteville Observer . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "Deborah Homsher, a journalist and author, has written “The Rising Shore — Roanoke.” The novel tells what two women might have experienced as members of the Lost Colony. The story is told from the viewpoint of Elenor Dare, the mother of the first English child born in North America, and her servant, Margaret Lawrence." "The Fiction Shelf: The Rising Shore Roanoke" . Small Press Bookwatch . Vol.  6, no. 4. Midwest Book Review . April 2007. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "The Rising Shore Roanoke is a novel of the famous lost American colony, from the perspectives of two women who sailed from London to the shore of Virginia's wilderness in 1587. The adventurous daughter of the expedition's leader chafes at the societal restraints placed upon her gender, while her female servant dares to walk an independent path among the struggling colony. Their journey will take them through the Caribbean and climax in the Outer Banks region of North America. An enthralling saga of a colony presumed doomed, due to historical record of its founder's return from a three-year supply trip to find nothing left of the settlement except the word "Croatoan" carved on a post." Newman, Janis Cooke (2008-01-20). "Faye Dasen: Novel About Mary Lincoln Is a Keeper" . The Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "Homsher's historical fiction tells the story of the voyage and settlement via the points of view of Elenor White Dare and Margaret Lawrence, her servant. Elenor, who is an intelligent woman, marries Ananias Dare simply so she can make the journey with her father, John White. She and Margaret both have dreams of bettering themselves in some way. ... Homsher has a way with words." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Rising Shore – Roanoke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 05:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources provided by @ Cunard are sufficient for WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources located. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I don't do book deletion discussions as a rule, but I note that the article ought to be at The Rising Shore — Roanoke , which is the actual title of the book. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in line with the references so wonderfully found and added, and support renaming per Mangoe. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd probably avoid using the Midwest Book Review source given the criticisms in the Wikipedia article, notably that they were basically accused of being a positive review mill. Other than that, I think that there are enough reviews to establish notability. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Abideen Olasupo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Deeper search revealed nothing. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 15:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and recent changes to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I'm gonna go keep on this one. Appears to meet WP:NBASIC . Policy-based rationale follows. The rules: Per NBASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. WP:SIGCOV clarifies that "significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As we are ultimately here to decide collectively whether an administrator should use the extraordinary power of deletion to remove this article from the wiki, we must as always be mindful to resolve all doubts against deletion , and to apply the rules flexibly in support of our encyclopedic purpose . The sources: It should be noted at the outset that search results may have been skewed by West African naming practices -- as in the article itself, the subject's name is written "Abideen Olasupo" about as often as "Olasupo Abideen". I'm seeing three categories of potentially relevant sources: (1) actual profiles, one unusable and one possibly usable; (2) interviews and mentions that are largely irrelevant to NBASIC but tend to show the subject's encyclopedic significance and likely relevance to readers, which may be relevant at the margins; (3) coverage of various political and journalistic initiatives in which Olasupo has played significant roles, containing coverage of the subject that is significant although perhaps not substantial and can be combined under NBASIC. 1. Profiles: the first source is the worst. The "Foundation for Investigative Journalism", which might easily be confused with other orgs with similar names, appears to be a project of Fisayo Soyombo with, at best, no clear track record of reliability. That delightfully thorough profile must therefore be cast aside. However, Olasupo has also been the subject of another profile, this one in the The Nation Online . Weighing in at 366 words, it contains substantial biographical information. However, as the "hook" for the profile is Olasupo's past work as a reporter for that newspaper, some might prefer to disregard this source as insufficiently independent. (I do not believe that is warranted, but let's move on.) 2. Neither substantial nor significant, but still illuminating: cited by CNN as a public policy analyst , interviewed by the (UK) Guardian on world youth poll , profiled by Tony Elumelu Foundation for COVID19 fact-checking initiative in 2020 , interviewed on his election fact-checking work in 2023 . 3. Significant though not substantial: Numerous independent reliable sources discuss Olasupo in the context of his FactCheck Elections initiative: [1] , [2] , [3] . Earlier, he received frequent attention as a leader of the Not Too Young To Run initiative in Kwara state: [4] , [5] (contains but is not limited to quotes), [6] . There was also some coverage of his attendance at COP26 : [7] , [8] . Various outlets have covered his appearance at the UN ECOSOC Youth Forum in 2023: [9] , [10] . (I have not attempted to compile a complete list.) None of these require OR to extract the content, and all can therefore properly be combined under NBASIC. Conclusion: Olasupo has been the recipient of sufficiently widespread coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, that it is appropriate and consistent with our encyclopedic purpose to combine the available sources under NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Visviva . I am also agreeing to Keep this per basic . Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Emily Piriz: Fails WP:NSINGER . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Florida . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If she only placed 12th on American Idol , then I could understand redirecting this. But she also placed on La Voz . I don't believe that redirecting is the right course for subjects that have gained notability for participating in multiple series. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't access the Telemundo article but reading the headline I think it may amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and Jpace's decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per norm Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shaun Collier: I do not believe that Ajax's mayoralty is significant enough to automatically award its holder sufficient notability, nor that Collier has otherwise garnered sufficient notability. SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He has a lot of articles covering his work as mayor including sustained controversies and actions taken during COVID. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Ajax is a large enough city (over 100K) to qualify its mayor as notable. Lots of independent reliable sources referenced in the article. And even if that's not enough to deem notability, his controversies have made national news; the sources in this article are not just local. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Earl Andrew Population alone does not make a city of that size politically notable enough to afford their mayor instant notability by virtue of their office. SecretName101 ( talk ) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, judge the article by its sources, of which there are plenty, are reliable sources, significant, and many in national scope. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliability of sources does not transfer notability. reliable sources publish stories every day that cover subjects that don’t meet notability standards. You have to parse the substance of WHAT the stories/coverage assert about the subject and whether that distinguishes them as having notability. I am pretty unconvinced that the stories cited in this article do that. SecretName101 ( talk ) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think such mayor's are automatically notable - but he was getting national mentions two decades ago when he was elected to council. More significantly is the recent national coverage related to his opposition to Doug Ford 's misuse of Minister's Zoning Orders . I'm surprised this was nominated given the nationally-covered controversy over the Duffins Creek wetland. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bruno Holzträger: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads per WP:NOLY . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @ Nenea hartia : Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times. As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul , and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries. Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nenea hartia : That book source is a nice find - with 49 mentions of him, it's almost certainly significant coverage on Holztrager; as for the others, looking at the one clipping, it seems to be mainly an interview? Unfortunately I don't think it would help much. Do any of the other matches for his name cover him in-depth? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : There are a couple. Please use the same link , I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee. There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the great finds by Nenea hartia, especially the book that mentions him on 49 pages and the last two newspaper articles; his obit mentions that he was one of the "greatest handball players in the world in the 1930s" and the other one is an in-depth piece on his life almost 20 years after he died. We've got enough for a pass of WP:GNG . @ Geschichte and FA Myn J : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , he is clearly notable. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Birds of Prey (1973 film): The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews. Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and Utah . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it meet WP:NFILM ? At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them? Both are significant coverage. I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4. One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia. SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention." Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace. Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now [61] — siro χ o 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is a review at DVD Talk [62] Donald D23 talk to me 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Have enough references of reviews with good coverage. Strivedi1 ( talk ) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I have added a couple more references. There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers. — siro χ o 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Otto Spoerri: Almost 100% of the Google results for him are of his obituary. There is only one Google result from before his death, a passing mention in a 1999 Entertainment Weekly article . There have been only three passing mentions of him ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) in reliable sources since his death per Google. There is absolutely no depth to any of this "coverage," if it can be called that. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , and Entertainment . Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Who said obituaries did not count??? Substantial coverage in Los Angeles Times , The Denver Post , The Times , The Wall Street Journal , The Philadelphia Inquirer , The San Diego Union-Tribune , Variety (magazine) .... .and that’s only a one-click list.... Please.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's not the first time I've seen complaints about obituaries, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them (at least in the context of notability). Especially when it's a RS. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Incest in literature: WP:NOTTVTROPES . If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Popular culture , Sexuality and gender , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The subject is absolutely notable, without the faintest doubt. There are scholarly books on the subject [42] [43] , the subject is of interest to very reliable newspapers (The Guardian) [44] which makes the point that this goes back to Sophocles and Oedipus Rex. I can see that the current article is basically an extended list and needs drastic sorting-out, but I don't think the existing information is of zero use to anyone who wants to make improvements, so I cannot recommend a TNT delete. This is one of those situations where the encyclopaedia would benefit from more improvement and less deletion. Finding good sources on this is ridiculously easy. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Best case scenario, the utterly ridiculous example farm that is spread across three different articles should be removed, and a singular article on the topic of "Cultural depictions of incest", or something like that, should be generated instead, using the sources like the ones Elemimele presented. The current state of the articles are such a mess, though, that there's not a super simple way to do this. As both the nom mentioned, and backed up by Elemimele's comment, this one is in marginally better shape than the other two, so I suppose my suggestion would be to Redirect the other two articles here, and use this one as the base of a rewrite. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been rewritten, therefore I am changing to Keep per WP:HEY . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. I support Rorshacma 's scenario. The topic is notable as shown by Elemimele , and therefore does not fail WP:NLIST / WP:GNG . There are some references/referenced comments to preserve here. Daranios ( talk ) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No criteria or scope. Purely list cruft. ScriptKKiddie ( talk ) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I agree that this is pure listcruft. There is almost no prose in it whatsoever outside of bullet points. But the title in no way indicates that this is a list article, so it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to stubify it. We can leave a link to this historical version of the article on the talk page for anyone who thinks the lists would be helpful for future expansion. Any objection to handling it in this way? I'll happily write up a stub about the topic in general, but I don't want to do that unilaterally while the AfD is ongoing. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering : Sounds fine to me and in the vein of Rorshacma 's suggestions. Thanks! But please be aware of this parallel discussion . Daranios ( talk ) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that. I'll get on it a bit later today unless anyone has an objection in the meantime. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go for it, that's the constructive way of applying WP:TNT . If you wait, this could be hard deleted (I prefer soft delete myself, some tidbits from history might be useful for someone). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ps. To be constructive, I volunteer to translate the referenced seciton on Japanese literature from Japanese Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be out of scope for literature but it is only about novels and manga, not about anime or other media as I initially thought, so it should fit into the 'literature' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've stubbed it. Unfortunately I don't have online access to that contemporary lit book Elemimele found, so I couldn't use it as the basis for a stub. There's much more that can be done, obviously, but I've got to take a break for now. Honestly, I don't think there's much useful at all in the previous version; I grabbed the only examples that I thought would be useful in an overview article. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering That book seems accessible through Wikipedia Library: link (if it does not work, go to WL, OUP collection, and just seearch for the book title). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and rewritten, addressing all of my concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Aviv String Quartet: - Altenmann >talk 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per the following significant coverage in reliable sources: Kozinn, Allan (2007-10-23). "A Substitute Steps Up, an Ensemble Settles In" . The New York Times . (Concert review) Adams, Martin (2000-05-12). "Aviv String Quartet Masonic Hall, Molesworth Street, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Dervan, Michael (2001-06-08). "Aviv String Quartet Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Ashley, Tim (2004-01-07). "Aviv String Quartet" . The Guardian . Retrieved 2024-01-11 . (Concert review) There's more, but that's more than enough to establish notability. Jfire ( talk ) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concert reviews are not significant coverage. They say almost nothing about ensemble itself. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree. Concert reviews often contain analysis and critical commentary, which does constitute significant coverage, particularly in the genre of classical music, where concert reviews are one of the primary venues for music criticism. Here's an excerpt from the Guardian review: Aviv String Quartet, founded in 1997, is rapidly emerging as one of today's finest chamber ensembles. Rich, warm and distinctive in sound, their playing combining technical exactitude with instinctive emotional intensity. Their methodology is often striking. With many quartets, the first violinist tends to be the principal figure. Here, however, the second violinist Evgenia Epshtein and viola player Shuli Waterman are predominant, anchoring their performances in rhythmic and harmonic density and gradually prising the music open from within, while the leader, Sergey Ostrovsky and cellist Rachel Mercer weave gracious tendrils of sound around them. Not only is this significant coverage, the fact that this ensemble has concert reviews in major general-audience newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times is strong evidence that it will have also been covered in specialist publications such as The Strad -- and hey, look: [49] , [50] . Jfire ( talk ) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What you cited is an advert. The only fact is that it was founded in 1977. - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The excerpt I posted was written by Tim Ashley , a classical and opera critic for The Guardian . It is not an advertisement. Jfire ( talk ) 03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Examples provided by Jfire are sufficient to establish notability. Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Substantial coverage through critical reviews. Also, the intro does not contain a valid reason to delete. Instead of after the fact inisting that a critical review is an advertisement, why not do a solid BEFORE ahead of nomination? It's not the case that there are insufficient AfD nominations! WP:SNOW outside and here. gidonb ( talk ) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : easily meets GNG. A search shows up plenty more concert reviews and other good sources, but those above already meet GNG. Additionally, I found this quite substantial programming of Shostakovich quartets on BBC Radio 3 , which aired the quartet's recordings over several days on a national radio station. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 10:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Heer Da Hero: We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer : Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . Coverage in Daily Times ( [2] ) and Dawn ( [3] ) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 ( talk ) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 188.29.129.61 , I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn , signed by Sadaf Haider , and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": " This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show. .- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib ( talk ) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib ( talk ) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 ( talk ) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177

keep

Cyriac Abby Philips: Most of the sources cited have only his tweets and the controversy surrounding it. A Google search mostly returns articles with only his tweets in it. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , and Kerala . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is someone who got in-depth coverage from ThePrint , and whose alleged professional misconduct was covered by an article in The Hindu . Yes, it is true that some of the news articles cited as sources are about claims that the subject made in his tweets, but The Hindustan Times and Mint (newspaper) are good sources who wrote about his tweets because either (a) he is significant or (b) what he is saying seemed to be significant. It is also interesting that his paper in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology was withdrawn because "the scientific methodology, analysis and interpretation of data underlying the article were insufficient for the conclusions drawn, and, with its removal, the article can no longer be relied upon." Being the subject of an article in Wikipedia is not meant to be a mark of approval or praise. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as "The Liver Doc" (Twitter: @theliverdr) is a clinician scientist, senior consultant and certified liver disease specialist based at The Liver Institute, Rajagiri Hospital, Kochi, Kerala. His core clinical work and research focus is on severe alcoholic liver disease and drug induced liver injury in the context of Indian traditional systems of medicine. His pioneering work has been the introduction of stool transplant for salvaging patients dying from severe alcohol-related hepatitis and also disruptive peer-reviewed publications that showcases the adverse impact of traditional Indian healthcare practices such as Ayurveda, Siddha and also Homeopathy on public health. Dr. Abby currently is the most published research on Indian systems of medicine related liver injury (called Ayush-liver injury) in the world and has been invited to faculty position on the Guidelines Committee of the Asia-Pacific Association for Study of the Liver (APASL) - Drug Induced Liver Injury consortium. He uses social media to promote evidence based medicine, empathetic care and improve scientific temper on informed healthcare decisions by using his own disruptive peer reviewed medical publications. He is also the winner of the President of India Gold in Hepatology, awarded by the Late (Hon) President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi in 2016. Dr Abby is a three-time American Association for the Study of Liver (AASLD) clinical research plenary and four-time AASLD Young Investigator Award winner, the only Young investigator Hepatologist to do so from India and Asian continent. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology awarded the National Award (Om-Prakash Memorial Rising Star) to Dr Abby in 2022. Dr Abby is a prolific researcher with over 170 peer-reviewed publications in major Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals with over 2300 citations. Dr Abby has been extensively featured by almost all major Indian Media and prominent International Media on his professional, personal and academic work including Germany’s news media behemoth Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider. The Week Magazine featured him as the top “Influencer Doctor” from India in their special feature, and The Hindu featured him on their Special issue on “People Waging War on Medical Science Misinformation.” 49.37.226.196 ( talk ) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly mention the sources for the claims you have made. It will be useful for other editors to make a decision on this. I still think he is a mere internet personality than a notable one. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read what he/she wrote, you will see that he/she did. Some of the sources he/she mentioned are already cited in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read it and that's why I asked for the source(s). Whatever he/she has written apart from what already exists on the article looks like original research to me. I did look for "Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider, but only found the insider which is a trivial mention once again. And an IP editor with no other contributions comes and drops 3 paragraphs with 0 refs? Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is an article from Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in the references in the article. Maybe that is the one the IP editor is talking about. Though it is possible that the South China Morning Post has done more than one article about Cyriac Abby Philips. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I may be wrong here but the South China Morning Post's article revolves around a controversial tweet by him. He has significant coverage just from controversial tweets as a whole. Also, I just checked Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) and feel he may pass one of the criteria listed on it. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep – might be the Heymann Standard in action again based on what I have seen so far. The sourcing is very extensive from locally mostly-reputable sources, clearly demonstrating fulfillment of the GNG to me. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please can someone do a source analysis Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Soso Baike: No zh interwiki, no Chinese name. English name appears in a few places according to my BEFORE but only in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Basic confirmation it exists [6] and [7] . Most hits in Google are wiki mirrors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to Soso_(search_engine) which briefly references it. In Chinese Wikipedia this redirects to Sogou Baike [8] but we don't have an article for that. Oblivy ( talk ) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : From zh:搜狗百科 , it sounds like this was a former name of Sogou Baike , which is surely notable. If that's right, then the article should be moved to Sogou Baike , or at worst redirected to Sogou . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep and rename to Sogou Baike @ Mx. Granger 's suggestion makes sense. In fact, the Chinese version was moved from Soso Baike to Sogou Baike in 2014 [9] . Changing my vote to keep and rename. If a consensus was to emerge around merging with Sogou with a redirect I'd be OK with that too. Comment . Interwikis have now been added by User:Yinweiaiqing . I will be happy to see it rescued, although the sources in the zh article don't seem to be very strong - one is Baidu, one is the company itself, the two others are, well, hard to judge for me b/c of the language barrier. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to the Sogou Baike article is ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Sogou Baike , although I remember it under its original branding. First source at zh:搜狗百科 (the 163 article) is fine; the rest are basically OR. The permanent dead link on the zh.wp article also just needs a domain name update, but I haven't fixed it. It's a primary source anyway. Folly Mox ( talk ) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of private schools in San Jose, California: Incomplete and uncited article. 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists . 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a list of nine Wikipedia articles. Articles are assumed notable until deleted when it comes to list inclusion. Basically, it is just a category in list form, and those are usually kept per WP:NOTDUP . If it drops down to below four or five entries, then I would probably support deletion. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 03:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets the purpose criterion of NLIST as a navigational list. — siro χ o 05:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 9 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. D r e a m Focus 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moral delete (or redirect to the category page, since this has nothing beyond a bare listing) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization . No navigational purpose is served by its existence. Why can't public and private schools be on the same page? Why make a list at the city level instead of the county level? Too many arbitrary decisions to warrant keeping. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Lists of schools in California All of these wouldn't fit well on a single page. If the private and public schools in a county fit together, then by all means merge them. D r e a m Focus 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Useful navigational aid. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Basehor-Linwood High School: Article and BEFORE showed no independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Routine local news mentions, database records, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Kansas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I need to look longer at this, but initial searches show it mentioned in 11 research papers, multiple books (although initial thoughts are these are mostly directories) and many newspaper articles (but per nom, these could be routine). There's a lot of reading to do. But I will just make a point now that this page was only created today. Yes, it was not exactly created in a good state, but couldn't something have been put on the talk page in the first instance? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A quick look at newspapers.com finds that Basehor-Linwood High School was the result of a merger of Basehor High School and Linwood High School in approximately 1966. Newspapers.com shows approximately 3700 results for Basehor High School, dating back to at least 1930. It shows about 2500 for Linwood High School (limited to Kansas), also dating back to 1930. If shows approximately 1700 articles for Basehor-Linwood High School. It would be very surprising if these nearly 8,000 newspaper articles didn't provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Jacona ( talk ) According to this non-reliable source, Basehor High School has roots back to 1885 under the name Prairie Gardens, so we're talking about nearly a century and a half of history to peruse. Jacona ( talk ) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . After wading through a small portion of the material available on newspapers.com, it is readily apparent that there is significant coverage in WP:RS which WP:NEXISTs to meet WP:GNG . I've added a very small portion of this to the article. There are currently 13 references. Many more are available. The difficulty is that there are so many references to wade through to find the ones that are useful. In 150 years, there are probably a lot more sources offline than there are online. These count, but they are hard to find. Jacona ( talk ) 02:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Jacona, and WP:HEY as the article is already in much improved state and passes WP:GNG . There is a lot to wade through, but there clearly are multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of strong, non-transactional sources. Easy meet on GNG. Thanks to Jacona for the HEY , and I think a withdraw from TimothyBlue would be very appropriate. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 03:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HEY. Great job. Bearian ( talk ) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Datangshan: The location itself is not notable. DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND . Does Datangshan pass WP:GEOLAND ? Datangshan is a hill and village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , where it is mentioned. Xiaotangshan, Beijing is a possible redirect target if Datangshan found to be non-notable. Here are two sources I found: "北京小汤山，热气腾腾的疗愈之地" [Xiaotangshan, Beijing, a steaming place of healing]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). 2022-01-25. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: "北京城北约40里，有一座由三个山峰组成的独立小山，山形如笔架，因有温泉泉眼，被古人命名为“大汤山”。大汤山以西约一千米处，有三个低矮山丘，也有温泉，被称为“小汤山”。在因抗疫而被载入史册之前，小汤山就是著名的疗愈之地，并受到多位皇帝青睐，也是民国时的旅游胜地。" From Google Translate: "About 40 miles north of Beijing, there is an independent hill composed of three peaks. The mountain is shaped like a pen stand. It was named "Datang Mountain" by the ancients because of its hot springs. About one thousand meters west of Datang Mountain, there are three low hills and hot springs, which are called "Xiaotang Mountain". Before it was recorded in history for its anti-epidemic work, Xiaotangshan was a famous healing place and was favored by many emperors. It was also a tourist attraction during the Republic of China." Wang, Jiucheng 王久成 (2023-06-23). "北京小湯山" [Beijing Xiaotangshan]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: 小湯山村發展成小湯山鎮，幾乎人所共知；殊不知還有一個鮮為人知的大湯山村，明代已經形成村落。 村北有一個一百三十餘米高的山丘，與小湯山村一樣因山丘得名。 原來大湯山村水資源豐富，山腳下有多處泉眼，泉水常年流淌不斷，溫度攝氏二十度左右，足以供村民生活和灌溉附近的農田所用。 曾有諺語說：「大湯山好地方，山清水秀好風光。 蔬菜四季有，花果滿山崗；池塘黑泥藕兒白，山下熱水稻兒香。 」自然資源並非無窮盡，一九六○年代水源枯竭。 大湯山村隸屬小湯山鎮，距小湯山村很近，雖然也有些企業單位入住，但村的境況遠不如小湯山村。 From Google Translate: Xiaotangshan Village developed into Xiaotangshan Town, which is almost known to everyone; but little-known is that there is also a little-known Datangshan Village, which was already formed as a village in the Ming Dynasty. There is a hill more than 130 meters high in the north of the village. Like Xiaotangshan Village, it is named after the hill. It turns out that Datangshan Village is rich in water resources. There are many springs at the foot of the mountain. The spring water flows continuously all year round. The temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius, which is enough for the villagers to live and irrigate nearby farmland. A proverb once said: "Datang Mountain is a good place, with clear mountains and beautiful scenery. Vegetables are available all year round, and the hills are full of flowers and fruits; the ponds are black and the mud is white, and the rice is fragrant in the hot water at the foot of the mountain." Natural resources are not endless. In the 1960s, Water sources dry up. Datangshan Village is affiliated to Xiaotangshan Town and is very close to Xiaotangshan Village. Although some corporate units have moved in, the village's situation is far inferior to that of Xiaotangshan Village. Cunard ( talk ) 10:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND per Hzh's rationale below. Cunard ( talk ) 05:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 04:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second opinion on these new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Datangshan looks to be an officially recognized and populated village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , [55] [56] therefore should qualify under WP:GEOLAND which, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything against the inclusion of a village. If anyone disapprove of a village being considered notable, then that should be taken at the talk page at WP:Notability (geographic features) . Hzh ( talk ) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Hzh . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dan Reisner: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5 and 9 are about a sculpture he made, seems to pass as an artist. Just notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Oaktree is correct. Reliable sources currently in the article giving significant coverage include The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and The Jerusalem Post. Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Okatree. Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes the WP:GNG . New user. Not sure why they chose to nominate a notable sulptor. gidonb ( talk ) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm having trouble finding notable museums that have collected his work, but it isn't necessary; the sources in the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:GNG by providing reliable independent in-depth coverage of him. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independent coverage is more than adequate. Kablammo ( talk ) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The editor who started this AFD has a ... bizarre editing history to say the least and I've blocked them as an obvious sock (the quacking is deafening). Graham87 ( talk ) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking action, Graham87 ! Can you also snow keep? There are two more discussions in the Israel queue that can use a speedy snow delete. At one I haven't ! voted, just miss the button. gidonb ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb : Didn't think of that; will do. Graham87 ( talk ) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh: Unreferenced for 17 years and fails GNG. Would reconsider if someone found coverage in Hindi or Marathi. LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maharashtra . LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, what WP:BEFORE was performed here? There is certainly sufficient material available in English to establish notability. Take for example, Hindustan Times , "Apart from a rise in wages, the union also demanded the scrapping of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a law that allowed only one trade union – Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) – to function. For long, industrial workers had accused RMMS of being hand in glove with owners. " Economic and Political Weekly , "...Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which has enjoyed the right of being the sole bargaining agent for all textile workers in Bombay, [...]" Indian Express , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS),the recognised union of mill workers." The Western Political Quarterly (1958) "...governments for their existence. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. (RMMS) of Bombay City serves as the major exception to this dual classification and thus constitutes a third type of textile union . In comparison with the “ weak areas " the RMMS is thoroughly entrenched in its legal "representative " status and enjoys a significant degree of independence from political ties ." Economic Times , "The Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills cleared the last tranche of its dues amounting to Rs 3 crore payable to workers belonging to the company’s Mahalaxmi unit. The mill has 3 units in Mumbai at Mahalaxmi, Dadar and Prabhadevi. Following an agreement signed with the official union the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) in ‘02, around 2,000 workers opted for VRS." India Today , "But Salunke is steadfast in his support for firebrand union leader Datta Samant, the one man most responsible for the unprecedented strike. "We are prepared to go back to work even if our monetary demands are not conceded," he says. "But the Government must recognise Samant's union as the legitimate one, and kick the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) out of our lives." DNA , "The Congress party had nurtured its “chamcha” union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), and mill owners colluded with it to engineer ... [...] the Khatau saga that had “all the ingredients of a ‘Mollywood’ blockbuster, replete with guns, gangland killings and the subversion of unions." Rediff , "In November 2000, a final agreement on a voluntary retirement scheme was arrived at between the Indian National Trade Unions Congress-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the managements of the Standard Mill (Prabhadevi) and New China Mill (Sewri). Naik and 3,550 others took VRS but got the money only after two years" Hindustan Times , "Ahir, who began his career as a trade union leader, once led the powerful Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), the only recognised union of ..." Economic Times , "While the officially-recognised Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) is supporting the land development plans, the Left-leaning unions have ..." The Indian Labour Year Book (1948) , ""The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, handled 218 cases during the year 1948 and realised Rs. 90,911 as compensation. Both the unions have opened special branches to attend all matters relating the claims and to render assistance to all workers whether members of the Union or not", p. 347 indicates a membership of 20,462. The Politics of Labor in a Global Age: Continuity and Change in Late , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (National Mill Workers' Union). Under the corporatist Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, a single trade union is ..." Outcaste Bombay: City Making and the Politics of the Poor , "... Bombay Industrial Dispute Act of 1946. The RMMS thus became an important presence in the lives of the workers by the end of the 1940s." The Power of Place: Contentious Politics in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Bombay , "... Bombay shut down and 250,000 workers (full-time and badli) went out on strike. The Maharashtra government declared the strike illegal. Labor officials and mill owners refused to discuss terms with any union other than the RMMS." Organising Labour in Globalising Asia , "... RMMS is the most extreme example of this phenomenon in Bombay.7 The power of the RMMS was first created by recognition under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, but was boosted by legislation restricting the closure of mills that ..." The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India , "... RMMS is shaped by its legal status under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ( 1946 ) . The view is frequently put forth by government , labor , and management officials in Bombay that the RMMS would even collapse without this ..." A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India , "... ( R. M. M. S. ) , Bombay -- the name the organization bears today . The Sangh started a determined effort to remove the Red Flag organization from its position of leader of the Bombay textile workers . Its prestige was greatly enhanced by ..." Bombay Brokers , "... Bombay mill workers to lead them in a conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association and the union: the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which had represented the mill workers for decades. This led to a complete shutdown of the ..." Workers Education in Asia , "THE WORKERS ' EDUCATION ACTIVITIES OF THE RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH ( RMMS ) , BOMBAY ( INTUC ) ( a ) Aims and objectives of workers ' education pogrammes for 130,000 members of RMMS ( INTUC ) are as follows : ( i ) To prepare ..." India Today , "... ( RMMS ) , which repre- sents the city's over one- lakh textile mill workers ... " Labour and Unions in Asia and Africa: Contemporary Issues , "discrimination against non-RMMS workers , and arbitrary dismissals . It is these phenomena that gave ... RMMS began to lose its autocratic control over the workers . The alliance between ..." Also here on a scheme for illegal resale of subsidized apartments... perhaps can explain adverts like this one ? All, in all, I think there is sufficient material available to conclude that RMMS is a notable organization and that there is material for the sourcing and expansion of the article. -- Soman ( talk ) 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mr. Soman's sources. The article must be expanded though, it contains nothing. MrMkG ( talk ) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would have draftified it rather than taking it to Afd. Grab Up - Talk 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup : That's not an option for articles older than 90 days without consensus from an AfD discussion. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh , Thanks for the information. Grab Up - Talk 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Challaghatta metro station: Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) if this cannot be expanded. Members of notable sets that are not individually notable should be merged and redirected to the article about the set in almost all cases, and there is no evidence that this should be an exception. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ Thryduulf , @ Spiderone and @ Timothytyy , Sorry to have forgotten to tag you to my reply. Hoping to see response from your end. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thryduulf , I've expanded the article. Would you mind taking another look to see whether in your opinion there's now enough for its retention? Rupples ( talk ) 03:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pls let me know what more useful information is needed for this metro station as well as the Benniganahalli metro station. Cause the information which is required for the audience is given. I don't seem to perform the task of adding more information that are not needed for the audience to know more about the above mentioned stations. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy ( talk ) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations . S5A-0043 Talk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:GNG already, and given it's only just opened will doubtless soon meet it even more. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide some SIGCOV? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. WP:SIGCOV is a matter of individual assessment. There's not a fantastic amount of coverage but there's enough at present to write a brief yet informative article on the station. Rupples ( talk ) 22:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's only one RS that seems to provide some degree of individual coverage for the subject. Can you provide more? Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See what you mean. Running through the sources in the article most are about the line rather than the station. I'd include both the new sources I put in, including the article on the access because it relates specifically to the station, but I'll run a further search. Thanks. Rupples ( talk ) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further material now added. Rupples ( talk ) 23:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given expansion of the article. Source assessment would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above - as discussed several times in other AfD debates, I struggle to believe that metro stops which have only been in operation a short time can be considered notable. In time, I'm sure things will happen on the new Bengaluru lines which will be reported in the news. But right now the only coverage is routine. On a personal note, I've traveled on the Namma Metro and quite enjoyed it. I hope it continues to expand and improve. JMWt ( talk ) 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A further reason I'm favouring keeping this article is the potential for expansion from adding a paragraph or two on the new train depot that's being constructed adjacent to the metro station (which is the western terminus of the Purple Line). I came across a couple of articles on the depot but there may not be sufficient coverage for a separate article. I'd support changing the title of this article to Challaghatta metro station and depot . Rupples ( talk ) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ TimothyBlue , This needs to be kept as a proper article since all information has been mentioned in the wikipage. Kind request to remove the deletion bar from the page. Santosh4118 ( talk ) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Santosh4118 The problem is not about the amount of info, it is about the notability of the subject. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean like the notability issue with Yuyuan station (Shenzhen Metro) ? Rupples ( talk ) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples 1. I don't understand why you are linking to another article 2. There are 3 sources providing independent coverage on the subject 3. Yes, this article isn't notable due to the lack of sources. 4. There was an SNG years ago that was deprecated as the consensus was train stations do not have inherited notability without enough SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not just a train station, it is a metro (rapid transit) station. I am sure all of them have enough coverage to pass the notability threshhold. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , we seem to be going in circles. Another similar discussion has been just closed as no consensus, there are sufficient sources in this article, and it would be odd if some of the articles in the line get redirected and some not given the same coverage. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OTHERSTUFF . Timothytyy ( talk ) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothytyy , I don't think you need to remind an administrator who has been editing for 12 years about this essay. L iz Read! Talk! 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do you think "some... and some..." is a constructive comment? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found out this metro station was part of a recent bundled AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station and kept seemingly on the proviso to check the individual metro stations for sources and expand the article, if possible. It depends on sourcing as to whether the article can be progressed from a stub. If it can't, then yes a redirect/merge solution to a list of metro stations is appropriate. If it can, and I believe that's been demonstrated here, then the page should be kept. I don't see why there shouldn't be a mix of some stations being kept and others redirected/merged. Rupples ( talk ) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Still waiting on an assessment of the expansion of this article by User:Rupples rather than general statements on metro stations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Rupples' expansion work has turned up a good number of sources, and even the ones that are mainly about the Purple Line expansion still discuss the station as a matter of necessity, since it's the new terminus of the line. It's already longer than what I'd consider a stub, and it looks like there's still potential for expansion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Elements of Moral Philosophy: No inline sources and a quick online search found no significant coverage. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:TEXTBOOKS . This book is the most popular philosophy textbook according to open syllabus, it clearly meets the requirement of "whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - car chasm ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ( edit conflict ) I have found the following sources which are sufficient for GNG: [6] , [7] , [8] . I would also note that this review of another of Rachels's book begins with: James Rachels's The Elements of Moral Philosophy is one of the most popular philosophy textbooks ever written. At one point nearly a third of all ethics classes in the United States were using this book . WJ94 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reviews in Teaching Philosophy (1993) [9] , (2000) [10] ; review in Personnel Review (1993) [11] ; obituary of author noting its bestseller status [12] , a "popular textbook" that "contains one of the best-known critiques of moral relativism" [13] , a "widely used textbook" [14] , a "famous textbook" [15] . Jahaza ( talk ) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion. Clearly fulfills WP:TEXTBOOKS and reliable sources exist. ULPS ( talk ) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Andre 🚐 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace: For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries . Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , Lists , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it. There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There would be as good players. People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Don’t make rules by your own. It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not. The minimum threshold of 25 int. centuries is an informal guideline. The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles. Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST , particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage. 103.121.36.100 ( talk ) 03:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Note that other wars also don't have "children in... x" articles. The choice of topic dooms this article to be a POV fork, because a country that is very rich can afford to not send its children to war (e.g. by using drones) or when they do they can afford advanced weaponry and armor. Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article. I've removed this photo from the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How is this a POV fork? There is far more material here on the topic than there is in the alleged parent. The rest of this nomination reads like a political speech, what are the policy reasons for deletion? Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't think its a bit weird to have a photo from the IDF that shows Palestinian children with cancer on a ski trip in an article about " Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict "? This kinda stuff would get reverted in milliseconds on the main article. Its just one example, there are many examples of POV in the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NPOV problems are not a reason to delete. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both content and articles get deleted for being POV all the time. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two editors already cannot agree which is the parent article, because there isn't one. Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is more than one. This is not uncommon for POV forks (or so I'm told). Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Palestinian child cancer patients on a ski trip organized by Israeli soldiers Merge - “Other stuff doesn’t exist” has never been a good argument at AFD. The article is well sourced and potentially viable as a topic. However, I do have concerns about the Neutrality of the article as it currently exists. While AFD is not for article clean up, I think it best to merge it back to the parent article (where it will get more eyes) and improve its flaws… then, perhaps, split it off again. Blueboar ( talk ) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multi-merge and split : [EC] I don't agree the article will be necessarily a POV fork. (It is already a topic area that is in a state of constant POV chaos, the removal of one photo says little -- I removed another shortly after it was posted for similar reasons -- at least this article is not WP:OWNed the way so many others in this topic are.) However, it is currently an unspecific jumble of topics only related by being in the same multigenerational conflict -- everything from child terrorists to child war victims to propaganda to child welfare and education in the respective states. The content should instead be merged into the main article and appropriate sub-articles ( Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict , Category:War crimes in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (which is an absolute mess if you want to find something in need of TNT) and others apparently not categorized or that need to be created regarding welfare and education in the Israeli state), and parallel articles such as child soldiers and terrorists. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To this point, on article splits with nonspecific titles, see my suggestion for the only appropriate image lead for "Children in X conflict". On the other hand, for a properly scoped fork of longstanding conflict, see for example Child soldiers in Sri Lanka , Healthcare in the State of Palestine vs Healthcare in Israel (could be improved certainly), Education in Afghanistan , etc. "Children" on the other hand is not a specific policy topic from which to split a geopolitics article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The image I'm referring to is nonfree, but it's the one in Think of the children § Lovejoy's Law . I bothered with the meme to make it clear that I am mocking the title and scope of this article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and work to improve it. The OP's main argument is fallacious. We don't have "Children in the X war" articles because that wasn't a focus of RS coverage. For example, there are not many RS about children in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But children victims in Gaza have certainly been a focus of RS coverage in this case. For good reason, in my opinion (I'm disclosing that I'm not "neutral" about this war.). NightHeron ( talk ) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is clearly untrue. Look at the sources used in the article. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sure there are news articles about specific incidents that involve children, sources that include a portion about children, and sources that talk about Palestinian children. But where are the sources that are about this specific topic (children on both sides of this particular war)? Also, there *are* RS that discuss children during WW2. Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: On the subject of WP:PAGESIZE , this page has a readable prose size of 68kB, while the parent page is 74kB, so anyone suggesting a merge back into the parent is suggesting something entirely impractical: it would cause an immediate, glaring WP:TOOBIG issue, in addition to immediately unbalancing the parent page with undue, overweight child material. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case its probably best to get rid of it. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bad nom of a page that is clearly not a POVFORK of anything, but a sub-topic/child article on the conflict. The suggestion to merge is meanwhile nonsensical given that the substantial body of material here (extant since 2004) would clearly bloat the parent and be undue there. It is also clearly a viable standalone topic. Aside from the existing body of sourcing here, there are scholarly sources out there that even more expressly address the topic, making it unlikely that WP: BEFORE was done. Examples include: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Meta-analysis of exposure and outcome relations for children of the region , The impact of conflict on children: The Palestinian experience , Young children in intractable conflicts: The Israeli case , The effect of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance in the West Bank , The Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Effects on youth adjustment, available interventions, and future research directions , The age of conflict: Rethinking childhood, law, and age through the Israeli-Palestinian case , etc. It's a bit of an endless river on Google Scholar . This sub-topic likely has its own fair share of sub-topics - not least, for example, a page on child detention in the conflict, as per the sources already on the page, such as the book: Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iskandar323 : If you do a WP:BEFORE you'll find that these links are NOT about the topic of the article: 1) A meta-analysis of studies. The studies focus on one of the sides. 2) The Impact of Conflict on Children - The Palestinian Experience 3) The article examines the political socialization of young Jewish-Israeli children 4) In this paper we analyze the impact of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance of Palestinian children in the West Bank 5) "updated review of research". Again, the studies focus on one of the sides. 6) The studies focus on one of the sides. 7) That's just google scholar. 8) incarceration of Palestinian children. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, so two sides, which makes one whole, so no NPOV issue. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The POVFORK is a NPOV issue. And a BEFORE search clearly shows that the article topic does not meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being right isn't how this works; the issue is that there appears to be no obvious cause for deletion, merging, or anything else here. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except the fact we are dealing with a WP:POVFORK that does not meet WP:GNG Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can keep repeating that but it doesn't improve the argument any. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge individual sections with corresponding existing articles. The main problem with this agglomeration of unrelated topics with the theme of "children" isn't POV, but WP:SYNTH. The provided sources do not link the use of child soldiers with, say, child victims among civilians, and rightly so. The connection made in this article is an artifact created by the WP author. That said, the article does suffer from an NPOV issue, albeit not the usual one. The choice of 18 as the threshold age for the term "child" reflects a specific POV. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas have both said that they consider children of 16 to be adults, as does Israel in the occupied territories. By us labelling 16- and 17 year olds as "children", we are forcing our Westernized PoV on events where participants consider these people to be adults. To the credit of the article, it does mention this discrepancy in the "Legal issues" section, but plum ignores the issue in the rest of the article. The statistics quoted would be dramatically different if the term "child" was defined as under 16. I don't believe there is a clean way to resolve this problem without splitting the article into separate, topic-based pages, which we need to do anyway to resolve the SYNTH issue. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Won't the parts suffer from the same criticism you are making of the whole? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would they? WP:SYNTH opens with the instruction, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source . Once we've separated the material that was improperly combined by the article, it will no longer suffer from SYNTH. The POV issues can then be fixed per section. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the POV issues can be fixed in the parts, then they can be fixed in the whole. That leaves the SYNTH (original research) assertion but with sources like Children as Victims and Activists in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Book Chapter) , as well as those above, I don't see that assertion as convincing, at any rate not sufficiently convincing that some judicious editing of the article won't fix. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is just a chapter of a book with that title. The book is actually called: "National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"... And the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues can't be fixed without at least splitting the article in two parts. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty more if one actually looks, Children in Palestine and Israel continue to suffer as international law is routinely ignored , splitting into two parts is something you just made up. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Imagine if we find a source that actually is about the topic of the article, after ~310 attempts, that still does not fix the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR (whatever you wanna call it) and WP:POV problems. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Selfstudier : the Conversation article you linked to specifically talks about children as victims of military violence. Not a word about child soldiers or children being used as suicide bombers. This further supports what SamuelRiv , Polygnotus , Blueboar and I have been saying about the need to split this article. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure you can somewhere find a book that talks about the challenges children face in Israel/Palestine holistically. It would just be either a young adult motivational/inspirational/guide book, or else a teachers or parents manual. Not the kind of reference for positing that "children in X" form a coherent topic for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. It's not worth trying to make up some objective lawyery RS argument here though -- it's just how to do expository (i.e. encyclopedic) writing. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 20:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a technical nitpick: the hodgepodge of unrelated children-related topics into a "Children of X" article isn't SYNTH, it's a MOS issue of article titles and organization. While an example like this isn't spelled out in the rulebook (it's sorta alluded to in WP:PRECISE and WP:REORGANIZE ), it shouldn't have to be since this is a pretty straightforward mess. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you're right, SamuelRiv . Either way, I think we both agree on what the solution is. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the solution is to clean up the mess, btw, if your views hold sway, are y'all going to do the work? Y'know, splitting it up and parking the parts wherever, cleaning up? Probably not, right? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an AfD. Merge has always been a viable consensus option in such discussions. Don't you think it would be a bad form to start merging the article while the AfD is ongoing, for less than a day even? SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TNT Polygnotus ( talk ) This article was created in 2004, good luck with that. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Articles on this topic enjoy massive editor participation. But in the unlikely event that no one else does the split/merge job, then yes, I'll be happy to jump in and do the work. I'd also love it if you, Selfstudier , helped with the mergers, seeing as you have ample experience editing articles on this topic, and can probably do a better job than I could with this one. There's really no need to be adversarial about this. We both want the content to stay here, we just need to find a better spot for it. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the goal is to make something better then I'm down of course. I don't know how to split/merge but I can take a critical look at the result. Polygnotus ( talk ) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have listened to the arguments and find them wanting. The idea that an article with a 20 year history suddenly becomes a deletion candidate is entirely ridiculous. If over time, the article has lost focus, presumably due to random additions not strictly speaking within scope, then the remedy is to undo that, not start ripping up an otherwise perfectly good article. Selfstudier ( talk ) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally all articles are candidates for merging or deletion. The problem isn't just that the article "lost focus". The problem is more fundamental than that. Polygnotus ( talk ) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is an encyclopaedic topic with clear and persistent sourcing. The article needs cleanup, but WP:DINC . Easily meets WP:GNG on all points. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. This is a POV fork with serious neutrality issues. Coretheapple ( talk ) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iskandar323. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 16:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This is very clearly a WP:NOTABLE topic with a lot of coverage, and the scope is broad enough where WP:NPOV issues can be addressed through standard editing. Deleting this article outright is completely unnecessary. I also agree with the WP:DINC argument. XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Due to the significant media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are already articles about some very specific sub-topics of the conflict, for example: school airstrikes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war , attacks on health facilities during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war , etc. Moreover, saying that other wars don't have an article about the affected children misses the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't just a war, it's something much wider and children are being affected also when there is no active war at all, for example by Administrative detentions . The topic of children being affected from the conflict, is heavily discussed as well, some examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] . Moreover, this article presents the topic in a very neutral way, discussing the affected children in both sides. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HilbertSpaceExplorer : School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is, of course, also a WP:POVFORK and should also be deleted for that reason. If you click on those 4 links you see that none of them are about the topic of the article (children in the conflict as a whole, in both Israel and Palestina, since the beginning of the conflict till now). They are about Gazan children. Based on your choice of links I am surprised that you vote keep; do you really want Wikipedia to keep an article that by its choice of topic is automatically biased against Palestinians and pro-Israeli? Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you believe School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is a WP:POVFORK that's completely fine, as right now we discuss another article. I mentioned those 2 articles, to emphasize the fact, that creating articles that discuss specific aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common thing, and that claim by itself doesn't justify deletion. I agree that theoretically, this article could have been merged into other articles, but that's not making it a WP:POVFORK . This article's topic is mentioned in researches, for example: [10] , [11] . I can't see why this article is biased against Palestinian children - I find it balanced, and that's one of the reasons I ! voted keep. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 09:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "Other wars also don't have children in x articles" isn't a very policy-based argument. The article clearly has citations to numerous reliable sources, with sources documenting actions by both sides of the conflict. There is more than enough material specifically covering how children are affected by and used in the conflict to justify its own article. While legitimate concerns may be raised on whether the article is NPOV, as well as about the quality of the article, there is nothing that can't be addressed by rewriting the article, the nom's NPOV concerns alone are not sufficient reason for deletion. Take for example the argument 'Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article.' If you really believe indoctrination by one side wasn't covered by the article, just go look up reliable sources documenting said indoctrination and cite them in the article. Also if you think the article doesn't talk enough about children who are victims of the conflict, you could easily add that in - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering that. Combustible Vulpex ( talk ) 12:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Neutrality issues should be addressed, rather than serving as a reason to remove articles. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think it is credible to call an article that has existed since 2004, has been edited 1619 times by 445 different users and has 261 incoming links from article space a POVFORK. POVFORKs are normally made by individuals or very small groups of people and are either stomped on quickly or fly under the radar for a while before being detected and dealt with. This is not an under the radar article! Sure, people have had concerns about its neutrality since 2004, and those need to be addressed, but wiping the whole subject out and pretending that it doesn't exist is not a way towards neutrality, or anything else of value. I'm neutral to mildly sympathetic towards a merge but I don't think this AfD is the best place to choose that. It would be better to keep this and then let somebody put together a coherent merge proposal and then to discuss that separately. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep an article with this title. I do not know if the current text is NPOV, but that's not what XFD is for. Andre 🚐 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Andre. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan: I couldn't find any reliable sources online. A PROD was contested. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Pakistan . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Coverage exists: The Express Tribune , Daily Times , Daily Ausaf (in Urdu) , Radio Pakistan , APP , mentioned in the book The Snow Leopard and the Goat: Politics of Conservation in the Western Himalayas . Insight 3 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Insight 3 : Thank you for bringing up the sources. I have no clue how I didn't see them. That being said, I had a look through the sources (JSTOR was being really laggy for me so I couldn't see the book source) and most of them seem to be either passing mentions or people from the department speaking. I'll wait until a few more editors input. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong KEEP Plenty of news coverage exists as shown above by Insight 3 plus the article already has 3 working government websites references. Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yakuza (band): No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources . AllMusic citations not ideal . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Japan , and Illinois . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17). "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade" . Chicago Reader . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence" . Pitchfork . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band. I retract this AfD nomination. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant coverage. Fulmard ( talk ) 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Joseph R. Volpicelli: Mason ( talk ) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Psychiatry , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC with one article cited over 2300 times, and others cited > 500 times. Lamona ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't sure that that meets the criteria for highly impactful, as my impression was that they were a middle author on those highly cited papers . facepalm, I clearly missed this one Mason ( talk ) 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a way to withdraw a nomination? (I'm still new to new page reviewing) Mason ( talk ) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Gryzelda Konstancja Wiśniowiecka: Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nom who failed to do WP:BEFORE and whose nomination is just a WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE assertion. The subject is notable, by the virtue of, among others, being a subject of a dedicated biography in Polish Biographical Dictionary , which is even linked from our article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, by the way, her article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (translated into English) seems to be mostly about (not particularly interesting) palace intrigues/tensions. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article indicates nothing about subject but whose daughter, wife, and mother she was. Obviously, I can read the tea leaves on the way this is headed but I stand by redirect proposal based on the article as it is written not how it could be written. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expand article to tell us abou the portrait, from the sources shown which don't seem to convey much. Pam D 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per Piotrus. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO . And Polish version of the article is lengthy. —Kaliforniyka Hi! 04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously, per everything that was said Marcelus ( talk ) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above. Nobody ( talk ) 09:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep fall into WP:ANYBIO . I'm glad that Piotrus gave a speedy keep vote, even though Piotrus rarely votes to keep in AfD discussions. 1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 05:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Surprise! (film): The notability claim here, that it won an award at a regional film festival, would be fine if the article were properly sourced -- but the "awards" criterion in NFILM is looking for top internationally-prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists, so winning an award at the Seattle film festival isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from actually having to have any sources. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll try to find a source for that; SIFF is about one level down from the aforementioned. It is certainly not a "regional film festival". - Jmabel | Talk 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source for a film festival award cannot be said film festival's own self-published website about itself, as that isn't independent of the statement — the source has to be a journalist-written newspaper or magazine article, or a book, that shows that the film festival's award announcements are considered newsworthy and/or historically significant by people other than the film festival's own staff. (The awards at the top-level likes of Cannes or TIFF make films notable because those are awards that get reported by media as news — they're special because media tell us they're special by treating them as newsworthy , not just because we like them more than we like smaller film festivals.) But so far the source you've added is SIFF's own website, not a piece of GNG-building third-party coverage — and even if you can find a more GNG-worthy source for that, we would still need to see other GNG-worthy sourcing about the film alongside that anyway. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not citing for the importance of SIFF. We are citing for whether they gave the award. An instutition's own site is the preferred source for an an official action by that institution. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . A lot of the material here is in German, and a lot of it appears to have come narrowly too early for widespread digitization. Here is unquestionably relevant coverage in a German film studies book. I believe this Google Books snippet view is actually of a magazine article reviewing its release as part of a DVD. Finally, I only have a citation so I can't evaluate the source, but there appears to be a Spanish-language scholarly article about this short film: Meier, A. "Sorpresas educativas en Surprise de Veit Helmer." Posibilidades del análisis cinematográfico (1era ed., Vol. 1, pp. 365-373). Secretaría de Educación del gobierno del Estado de México (2015). Lubal ( talk ) 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added another citation (from shortfilm.de) for the film having had 48 festival invitations and 26 awards. Surely that is enough. And, no, I'm not working on this further. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : new sources added and mentioned; awards. A redirect to the director should be considered anyway, so, opposed to deletion. (Will try to add things) (added coverage in various languages including English, more exists)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer): One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN , failed WP:BIO . He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , Oregon , and North America . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TOOSOON . That guys been a prosecutor for a long, long time. It maybe created once notability has been established, but at this point, no. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] withdrawn Graywalls ( talk ) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media ( AP , New York Times , New York Times , Oregonian , Willamette Week ). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico . The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. It would be ridiculous to say he's not notable until the moment he takes office in six months now that he's won. Therequiembellishere ( talk ) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus ( talk ) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject is very notable. His win and the election as a whole have been reported on national news (AP, NY Post, other local sources, etc). PortlandSaint ( talk ) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE , local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling • talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Midwest Schools: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.. source two is malformed: newspaper with no url or title even so cannot confirm if an article exists or mentions the school. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Wyoming . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments News coverage about this school was not hard to find. You can read the USA Today story referenced under "Wyoming" on page 4b here [5] . Here's an AP story about the subsequent reopening of the school after a gas field leak [6] . There's a long write up of the incident in Inside Energy [7] . Another story in the Casper Star Tribune [8] . KGAB [9] , a different AP story [10] , another in the Casper Star Tribune [11] . It's an important policy point that with a publication, date and page number, it doesn't actually matter that there's no link, because sources don't have to be published online. In the past I would have argued for the deletion of this under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT , but in practice, those policies seem to have fallen by the wayside to a large degree. Jahaza ( talk ) 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - no comment on notability here, but deletion wouldn't be appropriate even if it isn't notable. Per ATD and SCHOOLOUTCOMES , if notability can't be shown, the article should be redirected to the school district article. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes WP:NORG , lots of verifiable evidence from outside sources about the school. Plenty of news coverage and sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG , including significant converage that will be able to verify that the school is a real place. Please make sure to diligently review WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, as AFD is not cleanup . Burgeoning Contracting 04:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Natrona County School District Number 1 . I have been unable to locate any significant coverage in secondary sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", per WP:GNG . Aside from a nasty gas leak, there is nothing written about the school , such as when it opened, its unique place in the community, its history, and so forth. The article also fails WP:ORG . Magnolia677 ( talk ) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change my vote to keep , based on new sources added. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added two sources with content relating and written about the school. I don't see how fails WP:ORG , would you mind explaining? Burgeoning Contracting 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Kudos to BurgeoningContracting for the WP:HEY effort. I have found clippings on newspapers.com that I will be adding to the article this evening. Besides, non-profit educational institutions are not required to satisfy WP:ORG (including WP:AUD ): The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The notability requirement for public or non-profit schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bangladesh Pratidin: M.parvage ( talk ) 11:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I considered WP:BEFORE ; But I encourage contributors to do a search on it before giving an opinion. I also did a source analysis. Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Source 1 Own website; see WP:IIS ? doesn't matter ✘ No Source 2 Own website ? self promotion ✘ No Source 3 Not at all content is just about a refernece ✘ No Source 4 promotional content No significant coverage, WP:SIGCOV ; Just a PR content ✘ No Source 5 not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 6 About an employee not the organization ? ✘ No Source 7 No mention ? No mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . M.parvage ( talk ) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Table above shows that WP:GNG has not been met. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the source table, there is nothing showing notability, or even using RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The largest circulated newspaper by print sales is the type of article we should have in an encyclopedia. It has been the best-selling newspaper in Bangladesh, a country of over 160 million people, for the last ten years; if that does not suggest notability, then I do not what does. The article is in bad shape, but it can be improved. The Daily Star is a rival publication and the article on Bangladesh Pratidin mentions it is the most circulated newspaper based on the government database while the Daily Star's sister concern, Prothom Alo, comes second; this cannot be considered promotional. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best selling is not a notable thing.please read WP:IIS and see the examples also. Thanks M.parvage ( talk ) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) , Bangladesh Pratidin is a newspaper of record in Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NPERIODICAL , 1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area: But it is not. 2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level: but it is not 3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Unfortunately it is not 4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works: But it is not None of it's source represent those. M.parvage ( talk ) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article has been expanded since its nomination, with sources quadrupled. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep extensive article expansion and many sources added by @ Vinegarymass911 - WP:Hey does apply. Note here that the significant expansion has shown the veritable lack of WP:before undertaken by the nominator. Also see WP:NMEDIA #2 have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history : a fair interpretation of significant history is being the most popular print newspaper in a major nation over a sustained period (and this is verified by WP:RS in the article). Resonant Dis tor tion 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article was expanded and now it is enough to keep. Mehedi Abedin 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article is now enough to keep. ≈ Farhan «Talk» 09:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Harland Hand Memorial Garden: I don't see evidence of notability, just a handful of local news stories. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in article, source eval: Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 1.  Joyce, Alice (March 27, 2002).  "Harland Hand made the most of a hillside with a view".  San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 19, 2009. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Eaton, Joe; Sullivan, Ron (2012-07-17).  "Harland Hand Memorial Garden on tour".  SFGATE. Retrieved 2023-04-17. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 3. ^ McCormick, Kathleen (September 2000).  The Garden Lover's Guide to the West. Princeton Architectural Press.  ISBN 978-1-56898-166-6. Interview, promo >> 4. ^ "East Bay garden tour set for July 22".  The Mercury News. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2023-04-17. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Reliable sources available. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

1974 Sutherland District Council election: Simply does not pass WP:GNG . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman . Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils , all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Good improvements. I think Template:1974 United Kingdom local elections is a clue. The fact that many of the Sutherland wards were unopposed and none contested by candidates representing political parties should not mean that we exclude this District from coverage that is seemingly non-controversial elsewhere. Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ramon Reyes: Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk ) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]: [ reply ] Myong J. Joun ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Mónica Ramírez Almadani ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Jeffrey Cummings ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vernon D. Oliver ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kenly Kiya Kato ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Pinging BD2412 , Novemberjazz , care to weigh in? There are others that have been separately nominated as well. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : So here's my question then, if it's "too soon" then are we supposed to wait to create an article until after a nominee is confirmed? Thereby waiting months, maybe years to do so? That seems really counterintuitive to me. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes! Assuming these nominees will be confirmed is WP:CRYSTAL . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jeffrey Cummings ; move to draft as to the rest . These articles raise an interesting conundrum. If these nominations are confirmed, as the substantial majority of federal judicial nominations eventually are, then notability will be automatic. If the unlikely event that any of these nominations are rejected in a Senate vote, that in itself would be a point in favor of the notability of the subjects. If these linger until the end of the administration and are never acted on, I don't think they confer notability thereby, but would be some evidence of notability in combination with other information on the subjects that might be found. Among these subjects, there is some coverage of notable rulings made by Cummings as a magistrate, and I think that one can likely stand as an article as is. The rest can be moved to draft for further research and/or developments. BD2412 T 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , California , Connecticut , Illinois , Massachusetts , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges ( talk ) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Tiffany Cartwright precedent, the articles can be moved to the mainspace until when they are actually confirmed. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tiffany Cartwright's page has already been moved back & she has not been confirmed yet. So if you're using that precedent, feel free to remove your deletion request. Thanks MIAJudges ( talk ) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article was moved unilaterally by one user in contradiction to both the AfD and a corresponding deletion review. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While I think all of these individuals meet GNG, I do think that it might be worth reviewing the policy separately. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 04:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG, and note that all of these judges have not been confirmed due to a hold put on them by a Senator in reaction to Trump's indictment. That is a political move, and should not be a factor in determining Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is my vote as a bundled nomination. Individually they could be assesed and best option would probably be Draftify for those that don't pass GNG before confirmation. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dingbat the Singing Cat: CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat , Cash Box , and Variety . Those three are plenty enough. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 00:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Added a couple of sources. It was apparently a pop music favorite ca.1946-47. — Maile ( talk ) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and improved with sources. dxneo ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America . dxneo ( talk ) 00:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani: Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , History , India , and Rajasthan . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More citation added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data Standards: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology . UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , Medicine , Computing , and Software . UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Nom Seawolf35 ( talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . ISO standards have a large effect on the products we use and are well-covered by articles in the technical literature. This one could use some independent sources. We cover ISO/IEEE standards extensively; see Category:ISO standards and Template:ISO standards . There is also ISO/IEEE 11073 and IEEE 11073 service-oriented device connectivity , which has appropriate sources. StarryGrandma ( talk ) 18:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as @ StarryGrandma says, these standards are important and have a significant impact on industry. That's especially true in a field like personal health devices. Questions of how to implement ISO 11073 have been the subject of entire academic articles. For example: Consideration of the generated network utilization of the IEEE 11073 SDC standard , Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 8 Issue 2 (2022) Applying the ISO/IEEE 11073 Standards to Wearable Home Health Monitoring Systems, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing (2005) 19: 427–436 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-005-2033-7 (cited in article). Integration of a surgical robotic arm to the connected operating room via ISO IEEE 11073 , SDC Wickel, Noah ; Vossel, Manuel ; Yilmaz, Okan ; Radermacher, Klaus ; Janß, Armin, International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023, Vol.18 (9), p.1639-1648 It is disheartening to see an article this well developed nominated for deletion, apparently based solely on some editor's decision to add a notability tag 13 years ago. No support given for the claim that it "Fails GNG". In fact, a simple google scholar search (mandated by WP:BEFORE ) shows hundreds of articles entirely devoted to this standard. Admittedly many are from IEEE, but all it takes is a it of additional searching/filtering to find independent sources. Per WP:NEXISTS that should be enough to avoid an AfD. No indication is given by @ UtherSRG as to why no acceptable sources exist. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This topic looks to be very widely and deeply covered in the academic literature at least, just from a few minutes of clicking around here . I think that taking your pick of any pair of sources there establishes GNG. - Astrophobe ( talk ) 02:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Brigitte García: As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ecuador . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death. There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion. https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice ( talk ) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice ( talk ) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person. Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323 The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death. Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News. We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it. I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia. The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 ( talk ) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And? So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Crime . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here . Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL , which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T · C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN . As multiple other ! voters have commentated on, Garcia was well-known in Ecuador prior to her assassination due to her youth and political agenda. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If she was well known, could you provide significant coverage sources that demonstrate this? WP:NPOLITICIAN is only met if she holds Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I see no sources prior to her death to show that she was a notable politician as claimed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The one article I've seen from when she was mayor outside of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle was a local paper's interview with her, which doesn't count. Is there more? SportingFlyer T · C 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom or move per @ LaborHorizontal . No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death. Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García . toweli ( talk ) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ideally keep , otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination: https://www.ecuavisa.com/noticias/ecuador/quien-es-brigitte-garcia-la-alcaldesa-mas-joven-del-pais-XN4582770 https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230308/281754158537849 https://www.eldiario.ec/actualidad/manabi/en-manabi-esta-la-vicealcaldesa-mas-joven-del-pais/ https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/seccionales-2023/millenials-politica-elecciones-edad-alcaldes/ LaborHorizontal ( talk ) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx ( talk ) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 ( talk ) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby ). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. Flip and Flopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If consensus is keep, then keep with this move is my strongly preferred option rather than keeping as a biography article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The consensus is to keep without moving. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T · C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's definitely an option as well. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 ( talk ) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No. See @ Joseph2302 's response. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx ( talk ) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move , per LaborHorizontal and SportingFlyer. There is clearly significant coverage of her murder, while it's debatable whether she had any such coverage before her death. I see no reason for deletion, but the scope of the article should probably be changed towards covering her death, per other articles about similar killings. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 11:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , a young female mayor, that's remarkable on its own. Bdschi ( talk ) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's purely trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep any mayor killed during an internal conflict is notorious. If she had another nationality there would not be so many doubts...Passes WP:GNG . _-_Alsor ( talk ) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still WP:1E though. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - perhaps the worst nomination I've seen in a long time. Major in-depth international coverage. Can you please remove this User talk:Joseph2302 . Nfitz ( talk ) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPA , this is a fair AFD as a discussion is needed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation. Nfitz ( talk ) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Abcmaxx. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this article should not be deleted at all. 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardGamer775 ( talk • contribs ) Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Current Tally: 15 Keep 3 Delete 2 Move I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments ( WP:DCON ). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz ( talk ) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:1E was the original argument. Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García . 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reopening discussion per my talk page discussion as I don't have a mop, yet. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you relist this AfD? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual ! vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON . It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Singapore Mediation Centre: a before search for sources came up with unreliable sources such as social media etc. or partial matches such as the Singapore Mediation Convention. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Singapore . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . Agree that the sources used are Primary. I find this one [8] , don't think it's enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I even used newspapers.com and newspaper-archive.com via the Wikipedia Library and found only partial matches. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a seminal organisation in the mediation profession of Singapore. See [9] . Google scholar also reveals: [10] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order [11] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore [12] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take [13] - talks about SMC, its history and importance [14] - mentions SMC [15] - talks about SMC See also: [16] - SMC develops an ADR process for . sg domains Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph. So in total your sources do not showcase how WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not agree with your analysis of source independence. See WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources . The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC. The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC. To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent. You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given. Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the sources in the discussion would be good. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be enough reference coverage to support notability of the subject: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-contractors-association-unveils-mediation-centre-to-resolve-construction https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-mediation-scheme-be-launched-telcos-and-customers-resolve-disputes-1834571 https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2023/04/17/singapore-high-court-enforces-agreement-to-mediate-in-a-multi-tiered-dispute-resolution-clause/ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-mediation-centre-saw-record-number-of-cases-and-disputed-sums-in-2017 https://www.asianscientist.com/2018/04/features/smu-eunice-chua-mediation/ https://borneobulletin.com.bn/online-session-educates-on-power-of-mediation/ Keep - although some quoted material is primary, overall there is still enough that can be used to support the article in my opinion. This was just a quick search too, I am sure more searching would yield additional sources. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Assessment of recent sources found would be useful for a closer to see. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a review of the sources presents by Indefensible the first straittimes source is about the Singapore Construction Mediation Centre not the Singapore Mediation Centre and only mentions SMC in passing the todayonline source is about an ADR scheme authorised by the SMC and only mentions the SMC itself in passing the globallitigationnews sources is a bout a high court case and only mentions SMC in passing the second straittimes source is mixed it begins being about the SMC for the first 4 paragraphs but morphs into a general piece about the rise of acceptance of mediation in Singapore in general. the asianscientist piece is an interview with prof Eunice Chua and only mentions SMC the borneobulletin piece is a short article on an event hosted by the BDAC in collaboration with SMC and mentions that they were collaborating and that SMC's principal trainer was a guest speaker. so in total the sources presented are yet again more mentions of SMC which don't count towards notability. the second straittimes sources would count towards notability if there was more WP:SIGCOV , passing mentions fail SIGCOV required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding the 1st ref: "More than 4,000 matters of various kinds have been mediated at SMC since it was established in 1997. Construction disputes make up about 40 per cent of the cases each year." That seems fairly significant in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that is not what is meant by WP:SIGCOV , that sentence counts as a mention. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have to interpret what the mention is saying, not just count the number of words. Anyway, that was just regarding the 1st ref, have to review the rest again. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG . Given the location, I think it likely that coverage in non-English sources could be significant, but it's unnecessary to search as there's enough in these English-language sources to meet WP:GNG Jacona ( talk ) 17:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Anna Gutto: This isn't a close question. Banks Irk ( talk ) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Theatre , and Norway . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with Banks Irk , just typing "Anna Gutto" to the Google and there is a big list in the "News" section, seems to be pretty notable. @ Revirvlkodlaku : , are you sure you've done a proper WP:BEFORE ? Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This article is the most repetitive one I have ever seen on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some helpful rewriting has been done. The theatre section should be streamlined more, more dates need to be added everywhere, and it should be made clear that her film career is more noteworthy than her rather WP:MILL theatre work. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lots of recent coverage about the feature film Paradise Highway she wrote and directed, which for some reason is only mentioned in the article as a screenplay (needs updating). Reviews include Variety (saying it "is a singularly promising debut for a first-time feature filmmaker") and mostly negative reviews from other notable outlets including NY Times and Rogerebert.com . My sense is that she meets WP:FILMMAKER ; agree with others though that the article is in poor shape. Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A Google search shows this is a notable artist. The sources are out there, and need to be added to this article. I've done a few, but more is needed. The issue is not lack of notability, but adding the available sourcing to the narrative. — Maile ( talk ) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:NDIRECTOR and above replies. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY . Make no mistake, this article was in horrendous shape when it was first nominated for deletion, and much of the article needed to be cut as it was incredibly repetitive (per above comment) and many passages were unreferenced. Many editors have since contributed to improving the article, which easily satisfies notability criteria per sources now cited, such as this feature article in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten ; the Paradise Highway review in Variety (which discusses Gutto's direction); and the review on RogerEbert.com , which analyzes Gutto's writing and direction in detail. There are many other sources cited discussing other aspects of her multi-faceted career as a film director, writer, actor, and translator. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources . Recent edits by Cielquiparle have drastically improved the article. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Faraz Rabbani: Failed notability Ontor22 ( talk ) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Philosophy , Academics and educators , Islam , Pakistan and Canada . Ontor22 ( talk ) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Rabbani has got some nice coverage here , in The Revival of Islamic Rationalism: Logic, Metaphysics and Mysticism in Modern Muslim Societies by Masooda Bano , published by CUP, and I suppose there should be more but I will take a look later. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ayesha S. Chaudhry , happens to cover him nicely in Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition , published by OUP, from p. 159 onwards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure how much but it appears that there is some good stuff in Islamic Reform in South Asia from 388 onwards but I am not able to get a preview of pages from 389-92. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is one more paragraph in Brill's Muslim Subjectivities in Global Modernity: Islamic Traditions and the Construction of Modern Muslim Identities ; and these all make me believe that Rabbani satisfies GNG and I support Keep ing this article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not satisfactory. Repeated views from a site. google.books is primary source. Apart from that, self-published. Reliable sources independent of the subject is absent. GNG doesn't show up everywhere. Ontor22 ( talk ) 15:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This simply means you have failed to understand what Google Books is and where do these resources come from. These are independent, reliable and highly trusted sources from the Cambridge University Press , Oxford University Press and the BRILL ; if you don't understand how that works, I am sorry, you need to go through WP:RS , WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV . You do not even know what Google Books is, and this is a pretty good reason to say that you have not done the necessary WP:BEFORE before filing this AfD nomination. FYI, Google Books is not any source but a service to look for resources available on any given topic. I am not sure how the works published by CUP, OUP and the BRILL are "self-published". This is really a weird nomination. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate your statement. I aren't unable to understand Google Books. If so, you should start creating articles of all the mentioned people in Google Books/Press. I believe it is reliable but not satisfactory, so I said. Can you clarify the issue by showing the published online version or print of reliable newspaper? Ontor22 ( talk ) 16:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are newspapers and neither is it required for them to be. The details of all of these resources is provided within the links I have included. None of these databases avail free access to their resources for each and everything so I am sorry but I am linking the sources once again: Disputing Contraception: Muslim Reform, Secular Change and Fertility ( Islamic Reform in South Asia , p. 388), Global Shifts and the Rise of Islamic Rationalism ( The Revival of Islamic Rationalism , p. 23), Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition (p. 159 onwards; unfortunately I cannot view anything but what is available on Google Books preview, WP:TWL does not have access to Oxford) and the BRILL , The Modernity of Neo-Traditionalist Islam ( Muslim Subjectivities in Global Modernity , p. 126). I can see there is much more than this "much" and it is enough to presume that Rabbani passes WP:GNG . ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources mentioned by User:TheAafi above. Insight 3 ( talk ) 14:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP per sources shown above by The Aafī , passes WP:GNG . Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by User:TheAafi. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Norman Nuñez: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG With signicant coverage already on page, this and this . -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Although more local to Belize, I feel it just scrapes by on basic GNG for whats out there. That first citation just puts it for weak keep for me. Govvy ( talk ) 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Belizean football and definitely as offline sources as well as good ones already there. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now at No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lengthy career in Belizean football, multiple appearances in international matches, praised by Belize's largest newspaper, which describes him as a "a football legend". Mooonswimmer 16:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep First Amandala link goes over his 20 yr career (noted a few !votes above this one), rest are highlights, seems notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Burrows Court: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply per what's already in the article, keep . Uncle G ( talk ) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as many sources were found (so many that I haven't quite finished with all the fixes). The building is covered extensively by Nottingham Evening Post over a period of decades, showing WP:SUSTAINED interest (and literally impossible and unnecessary to include every single piece). So I spent some time looking for coverage in other sources, and that exists as well, like this BBC News article focusing on lack of security and drug dealing at the property, and poor upkeep of the building by the council. Plus there are several others which have been added to the article. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for contributing to this and proving me wrong. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sri Edi Swasono: Article also seems a little too favourable towards the subject. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Economics , and Indonesia . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This Indonesian economist passes (weakly) WP:Prof and WP:GNG . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL , was a member of the MPR (national parliament) in the late 1980s [12] [13] . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as he was the part of People's Consultative Assembly , he will pass notability by WP:NPOL . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Avon Safety Wheel: I've been able to find a very small number of brief references but they don't seem to have enough coverage to WP:V what is currently on the page. If substantive refs exist, I'm not seeing them JMWt ( talk ) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's widely described and easily sourceable for anyone who still has back issues of Motor etc. It's also significant in that this fairly obscure technology did make it onto some mass market cars (even if only a few models). Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok please give us some references to go on. JMWt ( talk ) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete pending magazine sourcing. I wasn't able to find anything in newspapers. WP:V is quite important. Keep following the thorough source discovery below. BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Looking at Google Books, there are lots of results that are about the wheel or its manufacturer. Unfortunately none of them have preview sufficient that I can tell how in depth the coverage is. I was able to discount two results as adverts, I can't say for certain none of the following ones from the first page of results are adverts but the latter two definitely aren't: The Autocar 1975 Investors Chronicle 1976 Likely to be about the manufacturer European Rubber Journal 1976 Automotive Industries 1973 Possibly an advert? Science and Australian Technology 1971 The Bermudan 1973 Design 1974 Bristol Cars Model by Model 2015 I don't think this is in-depth coverage, but the preview ends too soon to be certain. Long Lane With Turnings 2014 . Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . After spending a little more time looking I've found: There is a small amount of coverage on Page 34 of the March 2023 edition of Jaguar World https://issuu.com/jdcsa/docs/jdcsa_cm_march_2023_final_150_mb There is an advert on PDF page 17 of the October 1974 edition of Motor Sport magazine that includes quotes of coverage in The Times, The Guardian and Custom Car https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/lib/magazines/ms/1974/10.1974.PDF The November 6th, 1973 edition of Felix (the Newspaper of Imperial College Union) contains a short article about the wheel on page 8 https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/felixonlinearchive/issues/pdfs/felix_345.pdf An advert appeared on page 20 of the 20 April 1975 edition of New Nation (a Singapore newspaper) suggesting wide distribution. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/issue/newnation19750430-1 There was coverage in Volum 60 of New Scientist (1973) ( page 264 ), but again this is a snippet only view so I don't know how extensive it is. Taken together with the many other snippets from google books that are clearly independent coverage, I'm convinced that there is enough coverage to sustain an article but that very nearly all of that coverage is offline - which shouldn't be that surprising for a product that came and went in the 1970s. Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is quite a wonderful and thorough source discovery. Changing my weak delete vote to a keep! BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Boss (Metal Gear): I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [46] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD . I found a GameRant article [47] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, half a source. But my ! vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:ATD . There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV . This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [53] [54] [55] [56] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my ! vote: Source analysis by Conyo14 Source assessment by User:Conyo14 The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger Plot WP:SUMMARY /brief routine mention of a plot. N [57] Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise. Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time WP:BLOG N Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y La legendaria soldado The Boss ] Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games Brief mention, not in-depth analysis. The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size WP:BLOG N Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y The 25 most inspirational female characters in games WP:ROUTINE N Not that it matters to affecting your ! vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP . I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found it [58] . I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep ! votes? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed above by Cukie Gherkin. X ( talk ) 05:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:ATD . The article itself was made by a blocked editor with zero conception of notability. I've noted the sources raised by Cukie Gherkin and do not believe they indicate enough SIGCOV for the article to be notable. If these are the best sources, the character is most fitting to a list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the sources found by Cukie Gherkin and as analyzed by Conyo14. Searching in Google Scholar was also promising, with results including Metal Gear Solid: Hideo Kojima's Magnum Opus . Those inclined to WP:OHW may find the coverage in Emotions, Technology, and Video Games and " On Narrative and Gaming Gestalts " useful as well. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica): QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters . This article is unsourced, so regardless of its notability, its best off redirecting to the list right now. No prejudice towards its recreation if anyone can find sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per improvements made since nomination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . AGFing on BEFORE, the abysmal state of the article (practically unreferenced plot summary) is self-evident. Redirect, preserve history, and hope one day sources appear and this can be restored. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to keep per the source found by User:Vanamonde93 . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and recommend remedial BEFORE training for nominator. Seriously, if you haven't checked scholar, you really haven't done a before... especially on a sci-fi character: Academics are geeks and like writing about such things: Techno-butterfly: Orientalism old and new in Battlestar Galactica Paywalled, and I don't have access. Battlestar Galactica and International Relations , Nicholas Kiersey and Ivar Neumann, ISBN 978-0415632812, p. 124, possibly more. Caeners, T. (2008). Humanity’s Scarred Children: The Cylons’ Oedipal Dilemma in “Battlestar Galactica.” Extrapolation (University of Texas at Brownsville) , 49(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.3828/extr.2008.49.3.3 Once again, I don't have access to this. Here's some of what I could grab via Google Books from Space and Time: Essays on Visions of History in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television by David Wright and Allan Austin, ISBN 978-0786436644 "Sharon Agathon is a significant incarnation of number Eight among the Cylon humanoid models. Her character repeatedly challenges the presumptions of what it means to be human in this world, often very directly in her confrontations or conversations with Bill Adama. Although another copy of Number Eight, Boomer, attempted to assassinate Adama at the end of season one, this version, who bonded with her co-pilot, Karl Agathon, while on the run on Caprica, becomes pregnant and throws her lot in with Colonial humanity. This version of Number Eight bears the first known human/Cylon child and also becomes a close confidante of Bill Adama over the course of seasons two and three. Although ostensibly a prisoner of the Colonials, once she engineers an escape from the ruins of Caprica for herself, her lover, and Thrace, Sharon Agathon repeatedly demonstrates her trustworthiness so that she is eventually made an officer by Adama and given the call-sign Athena. "Adama's protectiveness towards this copy of Number Eight that he has come to know further blurs the barriers between Colonial and Cylon. For the first time, we see the suggestion of a concept of reciprocal accommodation between Colonials and Cylons on more than a personal level. How ever, this accommodation is based upon mutual respect emerging between..." You get the point. So, those are just the top four Google Scholar hits on this topic as picked from the default search template--I didn't have to search with other words or remove the words in parentheses... these are lying around for anyone to see... as long as they take even a perfunctory look at Google Scholar. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize for forgetting to check Google Scholar. I will try not to make that mistake again. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apology accepted--can you access any of the three scholar refs I cannot, perhaps through the Wikipedia Library? I have access through two university libraries, but neither has access to those journals. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you cannot access them, how is this different from WP:GOOGLEHITS / WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES ?? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Jclemens ( talk ) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect WP:BEFORE shows either trivial mentions or plot recaps. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to write a meaningful section about its reception or analysis. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Striking ! vote, since editor has entered an amended ! vote below. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic is unquestionably notable; google scholar has at least a dozen reasonable hits, of which I'm particularly struck by this , which is an entire journal article analysing the character: there's also the first source mentioned above that has a lot of material. This is also one of the primary characters of the show (well within the top 10 by screen time); as such, I think improvement is more likely if we actually have an article rather than a redirect: and while the current content is bad, it isn't material that would be out of place in a fleshed out article, so I don't see an urgent need to remove it. The ! vote immediately above mine is way off the mark; the other redirect opinions are, at least, based in fact. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice find. I've added the source to the article. @ Zxcvbnm , @ Shooterwalker , in case they'd like to reconsider their votes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has not reached the WP:HEY standard for me yet, especially given it could be discussed in a section. Sources may exist, but right now there is no reason to split. It should be improved in the character list and later split off if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Now greatly expanded. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 18:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the effort put into improving the article, I am changing to weak keep. It still only has a couple of sources, but it is in a significantly better state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per sources added to the article. I'd appreciate more being added, but for now, this should be enough to demonstrate notability and keep it around. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the sources demonstrate notability and because of the improvements made. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 06:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge. I earlier supported delete/redirect, but there is enough content here that it should be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. A merge discussion can take place, if anyone believes it's better to clean it up than to expand it. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Alison Chartres: Consensus has shown that ambassadors do not automatically meet WP:NPOL and there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. She is lacking significant coverage, most sources are her speaking in the role of ambassador, not her being the subject of the source as required by WP:SIGCOV . LibStar ( talk ) 23:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Australia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references. While there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, most of them are quite good at getting their name in the newspapers, and I was able to find several references for Alison Chartres. This one shows her posing outside the farmhouse in Kenya where he father once worked. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Eastmain decision. Not sure it's there are many sources to get. CastJared ( talk ) 03:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . The sources added by Eastmain are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC , if not WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Deus et lex ( talk ) 22:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Companion (Doctor Who): Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP . Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos ( talk ) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution ), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction , and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad ( talk ) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here. And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST ). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT . At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem . If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad ( talk ) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE . JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

FashFilmFete: A WP:BEFORE search turned up only the routine local coverage cited. Festival's website doesn't yet mention it running a third time. Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Fashion , and Arizona . Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few refs. Seems notable. Keep . (At least a redirect to Phoenix,_Arizona#Other_attractions_and_annual_events seems warranted). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The updated sources demonstrate notability. To the point about their website not yet mentioning a third festival- the second one was only in September 2023 so may well be too soon for that. In any case, I think there's enough notable coverage from the first two years to justify the page. Thebookstamper ( talk ) 13:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress: Filmfrae Filmfare awards is owned by The Times Group , disqualifying both ET and TOI. Sohom ( talk ) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Film , Awards , and India . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is your signature meant to be displayed like it is, with the nowiki? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by independent sourcing? Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible? Sahajitbro ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed. For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected). (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae -->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sahajitbro Take a look WP:INDEPENDENT . You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources. Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Questions: 1) what about coverage such as this or this or this for example? 2) if the award itself is judged insufficiently covered, would you consider a redirect to Filmfare Awards ? Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank All of those sources are classic examples of WP:CHURNALISM . 2 and 3 are effectively parroting press releases. 1 might be debatably reliable, however it is very short and does not constitute sustained in-depth coverage. No opposition to a redirect. Sohom ( talk ) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also noting that this was originally a contested BLAR. Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT from the main article. Has reliable sources coverage as shown during this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT and has coverage. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ayersville, Georgia: It appears to be a rail point which it was hoped would develop into a town, but apparently that failed to happen. I am becoming suspicious of claims of populations which aren't backed up by the census, and this one isn't: there's no mention of the place in the 1900 summary for Georgia in Habersham County, which is where this spot was located at the time. The histoy book would be something except that it's the source of the population claim, which casts doubt on its reliability. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : As much as I hate geographic stubs like this, I suspect reference 4 is just enough to pass notability. Its population claim is dubious, but it does seem somewhat authoritative and researched (I wouldn't take the number seriously, but I think we can conclude there were a few dozen people living there in 1900). Satellite view shows there are still several homes and a cemetery in the area, so this wasn't simply a siding or signal point that someone at GNIS decided was a "populated place". But that's about it, not a whole lot of information. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Discussed in the Guide and Biographical Sketch of North-eastern Georgia and the Carolinas: Pen Pictures of Beautiful Scenery, Watering Places, and Points of Interest on the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway, 1878, as a distinct town with 50 people. Also lots of hits from people who lived there, including WWI draft cards listing a resident, and people buried in the cemetery there. Clearly much more than just a railroad point. SportingFlyer T · C 02:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Stephens County article. This place is very old and nothing of any import is written about it. There is only 2 sources and 1 or two websites, that I can find, (including the ones already on the article) that directly address the subject of Ayersville. WP:GEOLAND doesn't confer automatic page status to all populated places, it confers presumptive notability. WP:N says that presumptive notability is not a guarantee, and provides WP:GNG as the criteria that must be met to be a stand alone page. Ayersville Georgia simply doesn't have any sources that could be used to write an encyclopedic article. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That last sentence is clearly incorrect, there's quite a bit of historic sourcing that can be found in a web search. SportingFlyer T · C 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and they are not written about ayresville, they only mention ayresvilles in relation to the main topic, train wrecks and the like. This makes them non significant coverage of ayresville. This type of coverage doesn't establish notability. They also typically only provide largly unencyclopedic information about ayersville. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter - Ayersville is or was a populated place, all we need per WP:GEOLAND is that it is verified . SportingFlyer T · C 09:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – I agree with some of the statements presented in the keep votes above, and there are also established hiking trails, citing in G books. I think WP:GEOLAND is met. TLA tlak 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GEOLAND per above. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GEOLAND per above. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Amar y temer: Tagged for notability since 2012. PROD removed with "de-prod. clearly notably, check spanish wiki", which I had already previously done...and, while that article is more detailed than this English one, there are ZERO references there as well. Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain . Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The only hit in Google Book Search was a trivial mention in ISBN 9781479893881 . But there are more web results, including [1] ( El Universal (Cartagena) ) and [2] (some random blog). The eswiki article also said it won one es:Premios India Catalina award and was nominated for others. My Spanish isn't good enough to work on this (and I have found no non-trivial mentions in English-language media), but I think there is sufficient coverage for an article. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom, Fails GNG and [[WP:RPRGM]. Sources found are promo, primary, database, etc, nothing from IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Additional SIGCOV: [3] . Going to add the sources available so far. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Donaldd23 and @ TimothyBlue to take a look at my work. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following improvements made. – Meena • 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sources: [4] , [5] (barely), [6] These appear to be IS RS SIGCOV. They address the subject (the show) directly and indepth (it provides significant, not trivial, information about the subject). [7] this looks like an unreviewed opinion post from a reader, if I'm wrong let me know; Fails RS. [8] , article is about another subject. The only thing I can find here is the sentence, "On the other hand, Amar y temer -with Diana Hoyos- will remain on the air, at midnight" while the article discusses schedule changes. Fails SIGCOV. [9] , name mentioned in list. Fails SIGCOV. 3/6, but three IS RS with SIGCOV will pass GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep switched from delete based on article improvement. // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ee (band): UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:BAND .5. Released 2 albums on Asian Man Records , which has published albums from independently notable artists such as The Queers , Alkaline Trio , Laura Stevenson , The Lawrence Arms , The Smith Street Band , Smoking Popes , Dogbreth , etc — siro χ o 20:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as SF Weekly here , Asian Week here , AllMusic staff bio here , AllMusic staff album review here , AllMusic album review here , and this here . Together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of black superheroes: The topic is surely notable but no information on why black superheroes are important and how they were and are depicted is provided, and cannot be provided in this format. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Ethnic groups , and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Tough one. The article in its current format is clearly problematic. It reads like a database and the sourcing is patchy to say the least. However, the underlying topic is highly notable ( [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] and dozens more), meeting the criteria at WP:NLIST . There is some raw material of value here, so rather than delete it, I would like to see it transformed into a less indiscriminate list, possibly as a spinout of a main list within Portrayal of black people in comics . Keep I think the basic concept behind it is notable, even if the list needs heavy cleanup. However, as it often goes, WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not a valid argument to AfD a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the article could use a lot of work in sprucing it up, but there are a lot of reliable sources available to justify this list's existence. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate . Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough blue links to their own articles to show they are notable entries. Any on the list not notable, as proven by having their own Wikipedia article or a reference showing news coverage about them, should be removed. D r e a m Focus 07:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Damn Personals: Band member Anthony Rossomando is notable but has his own page. Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably keep. I only looked for reviews online (excluding Newspapers.com), but found published material of varying length: Ox-Fanzine [8] de:Visions [9] Punk Planet [10] (short) CMJ New Music [11] Boston Phoenix [12] Impact Press [13] (short) In Music We Trust 1 [14] (short) In Music We Trust 2 [15] (short) Allmusic biography (very short) - also mentioning blog, unreliable I'm also taking into consideration that this is what has survived on the Internet, from a time period where much has been wiped out. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The above sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Whitestone, Warwickshire: I propose either a deletion of the article, it merged into Nuneaton or Attleborough or it deleted altogether. It doesn't seem to be like Hawkesbury Village proposal one as this place has no manor or early history. DragonofBatley ( talk ) 15:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm really sorry, I don't think this can be deleted, despite there not being much to write about it. Per WP:GEOLAND , populated, legally-recognised places are presumed to be notable. The briefest of Google searches reveals that Whitestone has a surgery with that name, a post-office with that name, is regarded as a safe place by the Coventry Telegraph referring to it by that name [13] and is the name of a ward within Nuneaton with a very worthy and respectable-looking councillor. I would advocate removing all the OR content and reducing it to a stub including the geographical information, pending anyone finding anything useful that can be said about it based on sources, but since our North American colleagues would find it to be more than an uninhabited railway siding in Ohio, the article itself is a keep . Elemimele ( talk ) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it’s a ward so probably passes WP:GEOLAND as well as being an OS settlement. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : despite there being a lot of WP:OR and a lack of references in the article the subject passes WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated settlement. We can always remove any unsourced information that is unverifiable. We can also add some of the sources mentioned by Elemimele. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I rm the unsourced material per V. There are enough database records (not sourced from Wikipedia) to show this exists, but the question is if this legally recognized place? If it is legally recognized, it passes GEOLAND; if not it needs to pass GNG and it fails this. I do not see sources showing this is a legally recognized place, unless sources appear showing it is, I ! v Delete . Sources found, ! v Keep . // Timothy :: talk 03:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Senki Senki Momotama: I may be missing something as I don't read Japanese, so taking to AfD for discussion. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; the article does not mention this, but it was published in English by Tokyopop under the title Momo Tama and based on that release, I found four reviews from sources listed at WP:ANIME/RS : Active Anime , Pop Culture Shock , The Fandom Post , Sequential Tart . Link20XX ( talk ) 16:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Link20XX : . Just for the record though, I tried searching Japanese results and came up empty in terms of notability (COMIC Natalie just had release info). This looks to be notable from the English side as there are reviews for the series and it was brought over to be serialized. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found; also appear to be some sources in Japanese but I did not do anything in-depth to verify notability from those since I believe it is already established by Link20XX . DCsansei ( talk ) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Catnapped!: Sources are user-generated and IMDB. Notability seems weak at best. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Anime and manga , and Japan . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) Keep . The Anime Encyclopedia has apparently an entry and there is another here . Sources in French: Planète Jeunesse [ fr ] has a a page and there is this ; this in Dutch; this in English (generally accepted at Afds). At least, but that seems enough to attest notability and improve the page, which I am willing to do. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by Mushy Yank. Fulmard ( talk ) 13:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources above, the subject has notability and the sources demonstrate that. Notability is based on the sources available, not on the current state of the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 02:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was referring to the comment above, that the user has said that he is willing to add them. I know next to nothing about anime. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 02:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] .... : Would sure be nice if the people who found those sources would take the time to add them to the article rather than just do a pro forma search for the sake of inclusionism. is a gratuitous and extremely inappropriate comment, especially when "the people" who found and presented the sources to a deletion discussion that you initiated, have indeed said they are willing to add them to the page......- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely a bit on the snitty side for someone who seems to have missed sources Before, certainly. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources look to be mostly user-generated databases of kid's films, which IMO count as trivial mentions and not SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 03:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Johan Svantesson: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Sweden . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added. Giant Snowman 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Found few sources 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Charsaddian ( talk ) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Sources above are a brief mention in an injury report/interview with a teammate, a Q&A interview with almost zero commentary, a press release from Allsvenskan, and a press release from MUSC (his former club). Nowhere close to GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , here are three more independent sources which are either only about Svantesson or significantly covers him: [22] [23] [24] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a more recent article from 2021 covering his injury and path to recovery, the same article also seems to have been published in other local newspapers: [25] AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 08:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article significantly and added the relevant sources I found, including one I couldn't find online but did exist in a local newspaper. Pinging @ GiantSnowman : as requested. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 13:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't see what the first source says, but if it's another interview it's unlikely to be independent enough. The middle source has some material, but the way it is structured it seems like it's paraphrasing quotes directly from him rather than contributing independent analysis. The last source is wholly routine transfer news with no SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added by AlexandraAVX and Charsaddian. Frank Anchor 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Luis Olaso: The article says that he played for the Spanish national team, which is probably true but unverified, and there isn't a football notability guideline that says that this is notability or presumed notability. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide significant coverage within seven days. Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find coverage. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Spain . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of all the poorly sourced footballer articles around, why pick a player for AfD who played for two of the biggest clubs in Spain and made four international appearances for Spain? 🤔 What did your "search for additional sources" per WP:BEFORE yield? A quick web search found me [49] and [50] though for a player of this era most coverage is more likely to be found offline. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk ) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly a notable figure, shown by sources above and COMMONSENSE which would say that offline sources exist. Giant Snowman 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As a player of Real Madrid easily passes WP:FOOTYN . The article needs to be improved. I found a couple of online sources, I think there are others, not to mention offline. [51] [52] . Tau Corvi ( talk ) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "Player notability" part of WP:FOOTYN has been deprecated. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk ) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok. thanks Tau Corvi ( talk ) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [53] , [54] , lets throw a few more sources into this bout! Really Robert, this was not a good candidate for AfD. The article certainly needs an improvement, but the negation of sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion. Govvy ( talk ) 18:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per all above. Svartner ( talk ) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism: No other groups or states make the suggestions made in this article. WMrapids ( talk ) 05:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Terrorism , and Venezuela . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Colombia . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 06:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have drastically expanded the article to include support to the FARC and ELN Colombian guerrilla groups, which was something that I planned to do but postponed. With that being said, the content clearly meets WP:GNG and there's information that goes back decades and is clearly notable. I would ask the editor @ WMrapids : to consider withdrawing the nomination after these changes. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 06:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I explained on the talk page , your addition was quite hasty and sloppily copied from a Spanish Wikipedia article. The sources you provided failed verification and did not support what you were trying to introduce. As I said in my conclusion, if we have some independent, reliable sources providing the same information, then that would be more appropriate and a withdrawal of my nomination would be considered. WMrapids ( talk ) 07:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would help if you provided more details about this. At any rate, and while I work in improvements, it's clear that the article meets WP:BEFORE . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per NoonIcarus. Meets WP:GNG . 23.156.104.104 ( talk ) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's a notable absence of sourcing - is there secondary peer-reviewed work on this? Leaving aside the geopolitical nature of the list, Venezuela has never been on the US State Department's List of State Sponsors of Terrorism . Accusations of this nature could be covered under United States–Venezuela relations . Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 08:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete In the absence of reliable secondary sources discussing this topic in any detail, it does not meet notability requirements. At the moment the article is plagued by POV issues as well. AusLondonder ( talk ) 22:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AusLondonder : When you refer to the absence of secondary sources, do you mean to the original version or in general? I have expanded the article, you can let know your thoughts here, including about neutrality. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no consensus. Are there changes to the article and page title, removing "terrorism" that could be done through editing? Or do those editors arguing Delete see this as a TNT situation? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , should be added in to a different larger article 109.255.35.74 ( talk ) 14:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Goldsztajn : Do you mean the current version or the article or overall? I'll leave here the original expansion that I proposed here to improve the issues: [26] There are several academic works that cover this issue: P. Sullivan, Mark (2011). Latin America: Terrorism Issues . DIANE Publishing. : Since May 2006, the Secretary of State has made an annual determination that Venezuela was not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts" (...) As a result, the United States imposed an arms embargo on Venezuela, which ended all U.S. commercial arms sales and re-transfers to Venezuela C., Bonfili (2010). The United States and Venezuela: The social construction of interdependent rivalry . pp. 669–690. {{ cite book }} : Unknown parameter |agency= ignored ( help ) : 2006. In a hearing before the US Congressional Sincommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, a State Department official justified the embargo on grounds of official concern about Chávez overall actions against terrorism, his public statements in international forums addressing terrorism, his ties with states sponsoring terrorism, and his conduct towards terrorist organizations D., Byman (2022). "Understanding, and misunderstanding, state sponsorship of terrorism" . No. 45. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. pp. 1031–1049. : a country like Venezuela could easily be added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism Rendon, Moises; Price, Max (2019). Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela? . Center for Strategic and International Studies . : [t]he Department of Treasury sanctioned dozens of government and military officials for charges including support for terrorism, drug and human trafficking, human rights violations, corruption, money laundering, other financial crimes, and illiberal behavior. Investigative outlet Insight Crime has also written the following in the past: Venezuela is a vital base of operations for dissidents from the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC). [27] For decades, Venezuela had been a safe haven for leaders of the FARC, whose insurgent war to overthrow the Colombian government began in the 1960s. Senior commanders such as Duarte could live free from fear under the protection of the Venezuelan state led by President Hugo Chávez and later his successor Nicolás Maduro. But Duarte was the fourth senior ex-FARC commander assassinated in Venezuela in the space of a year. [28] Colombian guerrilla group the National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – ELN) has used Venezuelan territory for decades, but its presence in the country has become increasingly important since 2000 as its Colombian operations have been squeezed by paramilitary groups and security forces. This coincided with the arrival of former Venezuela President Hugo Chávez in 1999. Chávez’s rise to power and his idea of ​​a socialist model for Venezuela was the ELN’s entry point. The political platform of the late president shared similar ideas with the ELN. This would eventually benefit the ELN and other guerrilla groups in Colombia. [29] Two leaders of Spain’s Basque separatist group hiding out in Venezuela allegedly receive salaries from state entities, marking the latest accusations that the Venezuelan government aids and abets terrorist organizations. [30] The issue has been covered by scholars and journalists, and not just politicians. The evidence mostly points out to the FARC and ELN guerrilla groups, designated as terrorist organizations by many organizations and countries, so most accusations actually have come from Colombia and not from the United States. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 11:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment After the article's expansion, the reason for the nomination is moot. The page has 24 references now, and now it doesn't cover just the position of the National Assembly, but also that of intelligence agencies, journalists and experts. The article should be kept. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The problem with the article at present is that it is essentially an unnecessary WP:FORK of a geopolitical dispute between the US and the current Venezuelan government, which as I said above, should be covered in the Venezuela-US relations article. If this is to exist as a separate artilce and not suffer from COATRACK and UNDUE issues, it needs to cover *all* aspects of the topic, that is the various sponsoring states and historically. Some examples of missing topics: When Dominican Republic President Trujillo organised an assassination attempt on President Betancourt in 1960. [1] Betancourt's support for the Kennedy administration's assassination plots against Castro in the early 1960s [2] US support for counter-insurgency in the 1960s [3] Allegations from Philip Agee that in 1963 the CIA planted arms in Venezuela to appear to be from Cuba (CIA now claims was Cuban) [4] Claims of US state terrorism around the 2002 attempted coup. [5] Claims of US role in 2020 coup attempt [6] Further 2020 plots of terrorism [7] References ^ Ginter, Kevin (June 2013). "Truth and Mirage: The Cuba-Venezuela Security and Intelligence Alliance". International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence . 26 (2): 220. doi : 10.1080/08850607.2013.758003 . ^ Rabe, Stephen (January 1996). "The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt, Castro, and Trujillo and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1958-1963". Diplomatic History . 20 (1): 64. doi : 10.1111/j.1467-7709.1996.tb00252.x . ^ Huggins, Martha K. (1987). "U.S.-Supported State Terror: A History of Police Training in Latin America" . Crime and Social Justice (27/28): 149–171. ISSN 0094-7571 . ...to be encouraged to use more "roving patrols" to hunt suspects. These changes on the part of the U.S. public safety team in Venezuela turned "the tide of battle...[so that] the cops were outkilling the communists. " ^ Harmer, Tanya (August 2019). "The "Cuban Question" and the Cold War in Latin America, 1959–1964". Journal of Cold War Studies . 21 (3): 143. doi : 10.1162/jcws_a_00896 . ^ "Killing blamed on 'U.S.-trained terrorists' " . NBC News . 19 November 2004. ^ "Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela's Maduro" . AP News . 1 May 2020. ^ "Venezuela announces terrorism charges against alleged US 'spy' " . The Guardian . 14 September 2020. Personally, I see this article as a Pandora's Box for drama - the only NPOV way for it to be maintained is that all incidents deemed terrorism supported by a state are essentially relevant...and we go down the rabbit hole of what constitutes terrorism, who deems it terrorism and which source is really independent ... ad nauseum. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (opening Pandora's Box) - Insight Crime is a Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State funded organisation, having recieved almost US$1 million from the US government since 2019 . Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Venezuelan Minister Calls US Sanctions 'Economic Terrorism' Voice of America, September 12, 2019. Economic state terrorism is state terrorism. I'm not trying to be facecious, just that if kept, this is the direction this article will also necessarily have to go. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 12:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018". Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela By Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2019. Goldsztajn ( talk ) 12:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I understand the gist of your point, the scope of the article currently seems very clear and we're talking about different things: this page is about the confirmed or reported support from the Venezuelan state to terrorist organizations (not to be confused with state terrorism , which would be acts conducted by the state itself). This is consistent with other articles with the same convention: Iran , Israel , Pakistan , Qatar and even the United States themselves. If anything, in the case of the Assassination attempt of Rómulo Betancourt Venezuela was a victim of arguably state sponsored terrorism, and not a sponsor itself. Most of what you're describing falls under the scope of the United States and state terrorism and United States and state-sponsored terrorism articles, which already covers topics such as the 1976 Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 bombing , for instance. Yes, there can be content covered at the United States–Venezuela relations article, but over half of the current content is related to Colombia and not the US, and that would be without going into details about relations with Spain (ETA) or the Middle East (Hezbollah). Even without taking into account investigations by Insight Crime, there is plenty of reporting by newspapers of record such as El País , El Mundo and CNN , as well as Venezuelan journalists and activists. This topic is notable and extensive enough on its own to warrant its own article. Last but not least, is these concerns are issues that need to be fixed, thegy definitely fall under WP:BEFORE . Problems about content can be fixed through expansion or editing, not with deletion. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "the scope of the article currently seems very clear" ... according to you, but that's just an assertion. If the article is only about a geopolitical dispute between the US and Venezuela then this can be covered in the article on relations between the countries. If the article is about state-sponsored terrorism and Venezuela then we need it all. One can only argue keep on the basis that the article covers all matters related to state sponsored terrorism and Venezuela. One can argue delete on the basis that an article on the geopolitical dispute between the countries is redundant, a fork and already able to be covered in the US-Venezuela relations article. It's one or the other. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 13:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The scope is ultimately decided by the community, to prevent original research. And once again: most content is unrelated to the geopolitical conflict between the US and Venezuela. Best wishes, -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of the claims you suggest would need to be included and would open the "Pandora's box" would not need to be included, either because they are not cases of state sponsorship of terrorism (1.-4.) or require taking Venezuelan government claims at face value (the rest), something even the cited articles do not do. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: After reviewing this great outline by @ Goldsztajn : (following their opening of Pandora's Box), it seems clear that NoonIcarus is attempting to create a POV fork article , especially since they arbitrarily determined that these are no longer allegations in the National Liberation Army (Colombia) [31] and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [32] articles. The majority of these sources are from adversarial governments (Colombia and the US) or from "independent" sources funded by one of the former. Despite the changes, I continue to believe that this article needs to be deleted and its content should be placed in more appropriate articles.-- WMrapids ( talk ) 06:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm very dissapointed at this comment because you specifically said that " [i]f we can have independent, reliable sources documenting Venezuela's support for FARC and the ELN, I would remove my nomination " [33] . The backpedalling is very clear and ignores the work of journalists such as those from Venezuela, CNN or El País . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 13:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Several comments. Please do not misuse WP:BEFORE , this is a process that occurs by the nominator before the AFD is started, not during the AFD. Read the policy. Second, an assessment of the sources brought up here would be useful for the closer, whomever that is. Finally, do not veer into a discussion of the subject matter here, that can happen if there is a decision to Keep this article on the article talk page and just serves to double and triple the size of this AFD which can discourage new participation (which is what we need right now). We could really use three or four of our AFD regulars assessing this article, in light of policy and the sources supplied. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The article was appropriately expanded during the discussion with several sources. I don't see anything really consistent arguing for deletion, and sources contradictory to the main body of the scope can also be added in a dedicated session. Svartner ( talk ) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gonna lean decisively towards keep here, mainly because this article is about a significant policy the Venezuelan government has perused for which there is pretty compelling evidence for. The decisive factor here is that the original editor's argument with regards the veracity of the sources of the article is marginal. The FARC and ELN are not necessarily terrorist organizations, but both have certainly engaged in narco-terrorism , not to mention, there's this guy: Tareck El Aissami . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Arghavan Salles: Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Profiles by American Womens Medical Association and Stanford, and the Time article (not specifically about her, but significant) should establish notability. She has an admirable publication record and has written for general media (e.g. the USA Today editorial). All of these are already cited in the article. Yes, the article tends toward the promotional and there are too many citations to social media, but these issues can be cleaned up without deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Many valid references establish notability. Also of note: the nominator has no contributions other than this AfD. See Bumblebumbum

keep

FC Armătura Zalău: Existing sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV , so fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , and Romania . UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the club played in Liga II AdrianCioran 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NTEAM cares not about what ivision th team played in. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am on the fence on this article too. I would like to see more sources, is there no Romania wiki page for this club? Govvy ( talk ) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The situation is a bit sad. The club is 100% notable, but User:AdrianCioran can't help but engage in move-warring, and doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies or the deletion process. Look at the article history: User:Florin1977 tried to keep it in draft space with the edit summary "do not publish yet". AdrianCioran edited disruptively. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. I'd accept draftify as WP:ATD and that would be community consensus that would enable limited, but escalating, blocks on Adrian. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support such action. Weak understanding of how Wikipedia works and hardly any communication - I'm noting a message written in Romanian on his talk page half a year ago, which translates to: "Don't create pages if you don't know how, because the moderators will delete them". Geschichte ( talk ) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS Auxerre Lugoj . Svartner ( talk ) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafify - as above, not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable even though their successful period was pre-internet, can even find recent articles such as [56] . SportingFlyer T · C 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : A pretty significant football club with some sourcing and notability, but I'd like to see something better than that with more reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We shouldn't be in the habit of draftifying notable articles even if the sourcing isn't great. This already has six sources. SportingFlyer T · C 16:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep / Draftify : Notable, even though sources may not be readily available online. Anonimu ( talk ) 16:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Virtually certain to be notable. There appear to be nearly 10,000 results on newspaper archive Arcanum . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tavon Rooks: Subject was not notable enough in a previous AfD in June 2023, and I'm not sure why an article now should be warranted. I waited a couple of months to see how the article would evolve, but alas nothing appears to have changed since then. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:SIGCOV . CycloneYoris talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football . CycloneYoris talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] This is the only NFL draftee from the past 10 years whose article was deleted. I don't really think this should have been deleted in the first place. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm still of the opinion from the last AFD that there is enough coverage for notability (worth noting that one of the "delete" !votes there was an intentional revenge !vote by a user since interaction banned; not sure if that would have had any impact had it not occurred as it would have been an even weaker 1k-2d discussion); also relevant that this would be the only draft pick from the last 10 years missing an article. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG. Rlendog ( talk ) 15:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Not sure what has changed since the most recent AfD, as the same below-par sources are being presented. Being drafted into the NFL does not make someone inherently notable. Let'srun ( talk ) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : May I ask how you came across this discussion, considering in a span of three minutes you voted against me at both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant college football games , which just so happen to be the two most recent AFDs I've voted at – especially considering how often this type of thing has happened? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : You're actively editing elsewhere. Why aren't you answering this, just like you were unable to answer similar queries here , here and here ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : Considering the G4 was declined, using the rationale that it's the same as what was previous deleted doesn't seem appropriate. As someone who can see the deleted version, this is significantly different. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Significantly different than the version that was deleted, hence the G4 decline. Passes GNG and sigcov. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jason Windsor (businessman): Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk ) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Cricket , and England . LibStar ( talk ) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Simple search seems to bringing up GNG passing coverage such as this . Looks to be plenty out there. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article is out of date. He's no longer at Aviva. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article has been updated. JP ( Talk ) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Rugbyfan22 and recent expansion. AA ( talk ) 20:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mac Gargan: Industrial Insect (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to add that the previous discussion's consensus on keep was a bunch of users claiming that "scorpion isn't a minor comic book character dude.", and " I like it ". Additionally, I like what user Higher Further Faster said; "In my opinion, if this page gets deleted, many pages should be deleted as well" I'm working on that right this second. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you need to chill out on that because the volume of AfDs make it hard for anyone to research Keep votes and could be counterproductive. While I don't disagree on many of the noms going for articles on the grounds of some sort of "if you say so" to a comment in a past AfD is not a good look either. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to apologize for that greatly. I got sorta delete happy upon noticing how many comic-related articles do not have any RS, so I figured this would be a big, productive way to contribute to the encyclopedia. And, if I understood that last bit correctly, I would like to clarify that, no, I did not start nominating articles for deletion because of that comment. It was more of an unnecessary snarky remark, as I had wanted to do this for weeks now, and I finally just started. Again, I would like to apologize. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No harm done, though snark isn't something I'd recommend in AfDs and nor is calling out an editor not in the discussion, as either could lead to misinterpretation about your motives =) Regarding the volume of nominations, I happen to be in full agreement that a number of Marvel pages don't warrant standalone pages and should be edited and merged into the character lists. However you must bear in mind that not all notable sources are on Google, particularly for niche examples, and to give people interested in doing so chance to check other resources. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claims of the last discussion that were made by @ StarTrekker : , @ Darkknight2149 : , @ BOZ : , @ Rhino131 : , and @ Higher Further Faster : . Let's here what they have to say about this second nomination of this character. Also, @ BoomboxTestarossa : is right about what he said to the nominator. -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator should rethink their mass nominations of comics articles. ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Close The previous nomination was among the numerous low quality mass-nominations of character articles carried out by TTN, Piotrus, and others between 2020-2022. There was a consensus that the article passed WP:GNG in the previous nomination and it hasn't been a year since then. Dark knight 2149 19:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on sources found by ★Trekker in the last AFD - do you see anything for the more than a dozen other articles they nominated? BOZ ( talk ) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine. I'll tag @ Piotrus too, since he was the nom in the og discussion. None of the sources you found in the last AfD discuss him in detail. Additionally, no good arguments were made in the previous discussion, except for "he's not a niche character". Have you guys noticed we aren't fandom? Something's existence does not warrant it's inclusion here. Industrial Insect (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per my previous comments, including analysis of the sources found which I concluded fail SIGCOV. I see no reason to change my mind, but I am happy to provide feedback on any particular source if anyone makes an argument it contains SIGCOV (an argument, not an assertion). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on what fellow editors have said and on the recent edits made on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higher Further Faster ( talk • contribs ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Athletic Union of Greek Alexandria: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Egypt , and Greece . UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Some significant coverage, could use more sources. Salsakesh ( talk ) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . One century old club, played at Egypt's top league. The references are hard to check, I wish there were easier ones, but I'll presume they are legitimate unless p+roven otherwise (RSSSF is mostly OK). This looks like a clear keep. - Nabla ( talk ) 20:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mohsinwal railway station: Does not appear to be a way to verify the information on the page, although I do not read Urdu. JMWt ( talk ) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan . JMWt ( talk ) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - When I created this page, I entered the official website link. I added that back. There are two more reference links. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are already 2 newspaper references there at the article that work fine (they are In Urdu language, though). In my view, they are enough to prove the railway station exists... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ameen Akbar. The articles found by Ameen Akbar are enough to meet WP:GNG . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Karachi–Peshawar Line . The references provided by Ameen Akbar do not come close to showing a WP:GNG pass for this article. Non-notable stations are typically redirected to the article on the line they're on. -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ngrewal1 and Ameen Akbar work. Passes WP:GNG . 105.100.146.108 ( talk ) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC) — 105.100.146.108 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep Urdu newspapers have covered this important topic. 103.148.128.211 ( talk ) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) — 103.148.128.211 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the apparently gng-fulfilling coverage everyone is ! voting keep on (via google translate): Mohsinwal station will be closed and another station Rajput Nagar will also be closed for trial in next 10 days Established since 1903, the railway station Mohsin Wal has finally been closed, the work of removing all the controlling equipment has been started. The closure of the stations has been started, in this series the work of controlling the loop lines inside and outside the railway station and removing the wireless equipment has started, in this series the loop lines were removed and the main lines were directed. Mohsinwal Railway Station was established one hundred and fourteen years ago, at that time it was named Harihar Railway Station as compared to Mouza Harihar, after a while Talamba Railway Station was named as compared to the nearby famous town of Talamba. In 1923, the Indian Railways planned a locomotive workshop here, for which six square meters of land was dedicated by the local Brahmin landowner Sajan Singh, therefore the British government renamed this station as Kot Sajan Singh. In the movement to give Islamic names to various places, this place also came under his influence, and thus it was named Mohsin Wal. That's all. -- asilvering ( talk ) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of National Weather Service Weather forecast offices: Let'srun ( talk ) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America . Let'srun ( talk ) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A nice referenced list to have. However, how is it kept up to date? — Maile ( talk ) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – While I have my thoughts on this which I will try to add later, this article isn't very watched (fewer than 30 watchers), so recommend including discussion links elsewhere to encourage discussion. Master of Time ( talk ) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA . Christian75 ( talk ) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to be a reasonable stand-alone list . Ks0stm ( T • C • G • E ) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons. Solid enough for a stand-alone list. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 08:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons. Benpiano800 ( talk ) 23:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

European Medical Association: JMWt ( talk ) 20:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This talks about it [39] and many other hits in Gscholar, notably for setting treatment guidelines. This talks about the group in relation to a person named to the head of the organization [40] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b . Owen× ☎ 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b Lewcm Talk to me! 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics: I don't read Estonian, but nothing I can find online indicates depth required for WP:ORG for this small organization. Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Companies , and Estonia . Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Pray, Star Mississippi, in your pursuit for depth, have you ventured to employ Estonian search terms, or does your verdict rest on anglophone sources alone? I find reluctance in casting a 'delete' vote when linguistic comprehension, as is relevant here, appears limited. Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] as I noted when I PRODded it, there's also no sourcing in the Estonian article. I searched on Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon which brings up the same as English. Confirmation it exists but zero in depth. It does not appear to be a large organization that attracted attention in either language Star Mississippi 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is a bit out of date, but all the information is sourced, mostly from reliable independent sources. A web search on "Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon" gives plenty of hits. This one is typical. Not very exciting maybe, but a valid subject. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's no indication that the Estonian Nurses Union is independent of the Association since its constituents include nurses Star Mississippi 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some nurses involved in geriatric care will belong to both organizations, but that does not mean the Nurses Union is associated with EGGA. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'd invoke WP:NOTPAPER . This is clearly an established professional body of a specific field in a small country, that is not the centre of any particular controversy. Thus it is unrealistic to expect there to be tons of articles online. There is indepth coverage, such as this article in Estonian Medical Journal, https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EA/article/download/10703/5888/ discussing the role of the organization. See also p. 214 , "In addition , the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics ( EGGA ) has conducted several national and international surveys ( health and social services ; coping and well - being of the older population ) ." I find a number of other google books hits of studies using studies by EGGA as reference material. -- Soman ( talk ) 20:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Soman. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Aunt Bee: If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters . Spinixster (chat!) 07:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 07:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters . The article is unsourced and the sources to show notability do not seem to exist. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per suggestion by QuicoleJR . Do not merge. Unsourced material is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia; it gets deleted. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as WP:ATD . There isn't any sourced material to WP:PRESERVE and it doesn't meet even our most basic policies. If someone eventually does find some reliable coverage, it can be expanded at the redirect target. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 17:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Sotirin, Patricia J. ; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts" . Where the Aunts are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture . Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press . pp. 15 – 36 . ISBN 978-1-60258-330-6 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive . The book provides extensive analysis of Aunt Bee. The book notes: "The links between the aunt as mother, the nuclear family, and cultural nostalgia for a sanitized version of American small-town life are starkly evident across the episodes of The Andy Griffith Show that centrally feature Aunt Bee (about 55 out of 249 original shows). Aunt Bee mothers both her widowed nephew, Sheriff Andy Taylor, and his son, Opie, in the absence of a wife and mother. Aunt Bee was introduced into the Griffith bachelor household in the premiere episode "The New Housekeeper. "" The plot centers on Opie's resistance to her and his eventual acceptance based on his realization of her need to care for him and his father and their need for maternal love and housekeeping order. Given that the show casts her as the maternal center of the Taylor family, she affirms the promise of the nuclear family as a source of nurture, resilience, and strength, offering cultural reassurance that the bosom of the family is larger than the biological mother (a reassurance physically embodied in the plump, matronly dowdiness of actress Frances Bavier)." The book later notes: "In spite of the assurances of the maternal aunt figure, Aunt Bee transgresses this depiction of idealized American family life in subtle ways that invite us to critically examine this representation of the maternal aunt and her place in the family. First, her presence unsettles the insularity and stability of the nuclear family. By standing in for the deceased mother, Aunt Bee marks an absence in the familial triangle, creating a dynamic imbalance that unsettles assumptions even as it affirms the value of the mother and the ideal family. In addition, Aunt Bee belies the cultural promise of feminine fulfillment in marriage, home, and family. Several episodes revolve around Aunt Bee's need to ..." Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor" . The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows (2 ed.). New York: St. Martin's Griffin . pp. 53 – 59 . ISBN 0-312-26287-6 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive . The book provides seven pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Bee Taylor is a warm and gentle lady. She has been baptized. She is Mayberry's Good Samaritan, and it is her tender heart, which is as wide as her kitchen, that makes everyone love her. It can truly be said that a stranger has never entered the Taylor house, because Aunt Bee makes all feel right at home immediately. Bee takes mighty fine care of Andy and Opie by nourishing them both physically and spiritually. The coffeepot is never empty, and the cookie jar is always full in Aunt Bee's kitchen. And there's plenty of homemade loving to go around." Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie" . The Andy Griffith Show . Winston-Salem, South Carolina: John F. Blair. pp. 45 – 46 . ISBN 0-89587-043-6 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "The character of Aunt Bee, played by Frances Bavier, provided a stable domestic center for Andy and Opie. Like Griffith, Knotts, and Dodson, she had a strong theatrical background. ... The Andy Griffith Show provided her with her longest and most successful run—from 1960 to 1971. Unlike Griffith, she continued in the series when it became Mayberry, R.F.D. As the fussing and matronly Aunt Bee, Bavier's acting was always precise. Kindly, sympathetic, domestic, and somewhat naive, Aunt Bee was at her best when housekeeping for the Taylors or becoming "tiddly" after purchasing some tonic from an itinerant medicine man. Although she sometimes provided complications for Andy—as when she appeared to be dating the married butter-and-egg man, or when she went off on a visit, leaving Andy to maintain order in the house—she ostensibly served as a sort of mother-aunt-wife to Andy, one who looked after his home, son, and stomach. They cared for each other, respected each other, but there was not a strong emotional tie between them. Both characters, but especially Aunt Bee kept a tight rein on their feelings in favor of domestic and social propriety." Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). "Aunt Bee" . Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook . Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press . ISBN 1-55853-119-X . Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "It's no surprise that a cook as wonderful as Aunt Bee can't keep her talents hidden under a bushel basket. She once entertained international palates when a Russian-American summit meeting took place in her house. And she even went Oriental when she opened Aunt Bee's Canton Palace, a Chinese restau- rant. Though an unpretentious soul, Aunt Bee has had her moments in the sun. She won the Tampico Tamale Contest with a grand prize of a trip to Mexico. ... What Aunt Bed means most of all to Mayberry is love. Whether it's her delicious cooking, her warm smile, or her caring hugs, nobody brings more heartfelt love to Mayberry than Aunt Bee." Parness, Jeffrey A. (October 2013). "Aunt Bee as Mom, Stepmom, or Grandmom?" (PDF) . Drake Law Review . Vol.  62. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-09-24 . Retrieved 2023-09-24 . The article notes: "At times, the benefits of expanded parentage and nonparent childcare orders over parental objection are clear: Opies need Aunt Bees, and Aunt Bees need Opies. Andy clearly invited Bee to help rear Opie. In the event of a falling out, any newfound displeasure Andy had with Bee would probably have nothing to do with Bee’s care of—or love for—Opie. Allowing courts to order continuing contact between Bee and Opie on Bee’s request and over Andy’s objection in order to serve Opie’s interests seems quite sensible." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aunt Bee to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how reliable or independent the fourth source is because it is a cookbook based on Aunt Bee's recipes, and the note is from the introduction of the character. The second source seems to be more of a plot summary, which does not necessarily prove notability. Other sources seem okay. Spinixster (chat!) 09:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the response. With three out of the five sources considered "okay", there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Cunard ( talk ) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I started a cultural impact section in the article. Some of these sources might do well there. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Forensics on the purported support for the article, provided above by Cunard : Sotirin, Patricia J. ; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts". Exactly as the title promises, this work is about aunts and their maternal role in black and white families. The passages on Aunt Bee are used, as many other characters are used , to drive the points made in the book about the idealized American family and other notions. This is a book, if we must take it down to the plainest of descriptions, about aunts ; and not about a specific aunt. In plain terms, every aunt referenced in this book does not acquire the attribute of notability. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor" in The Andy Griffith Show Is every character in that show notable enough to merit a separate, dedicated Wikipedia article? This book reveals its hand on the cover, where we read that it's The Complete Guide to one of Television's Best Shows. The key word here is "complete." And, as promised, it has chapters dedicated to each and every speaking character that passed in front of the show's cameras. One is on aunt Bee. So, essentially, a directory of characters, enriched with photos and history. Mayors Pike and Stoner get their write up but they dare not wade inside Wikipedia. Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie". The Andy Griffith Show. Another completist's tome. Aunt Bee appears in the sub-chapter "Aunt Bee and Opie", part of the chapter "Developing a Cast". Although the quote appended in the book's citation above appears promising, in reality it offers just a tad more than a TV Guide ' s presentation of a show's characters. This, too, is a directory. What it certainly is not is something dedicated, to any extent, to our contested, beloved aunt. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook . A commercial, tie-in cook book using the character's name to attract buyers. Nothing more. We've had soundtracks and other marketing offerings tied to the show. None of them, per se, rendered notable the character they used. Andy wore roper boots; we have a lemma on cowboy boots but not on roper boots, no matter how many times these boots got a write-up. I'm sorry. I loved that show, and I loved the character, but I'd be amiss in my work here if I were to base my suggestions on emotion or nostalgia. - The Gnome ( talk ) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: " Significant coverage " addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts", Aunt Bee receives extensive analysis on multiple pages. Even though she is not "the main topic of the source material", multiple pages of coverage clearly "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". This article from The Journal of Popular Culture notes: The Andy Griffith Show is a nostalgic American popular cultural masterpiece valid for all time. Consistently ranked in the top ten television shows (and number one during its last season), The Andy Griffith Show ran on CBS from October 3, 1960, through the end of the 1967-68 season. It has had perpetual mass appeal in syndication, and since its debut, it has never been off the air. Learning its origins, revealing some behind-the-scenes aspects, and reviewing many of the episodes have led to the identification of specific factors that have contributed to the show's phenomenal success and endurance. Owing to its "perpetual mass appeal in syndication" and legacy, many books from academic publishers have covered the show in substantial detail. There is no support in policy to discount the coverage in academic books for being too detailed. The Andy Griffith Show ' s last new episode aired in 1968. The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows was first published 17 years later in 1985. Very few television shows receive this level of coverage 17 years after they have finished airing. Very few television characters have numerous pages in multiple books about them. Cunard ( talk ) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the show might be notable -and this one certainly is- but its notability does not pass on to every character independently. I guess we differ on what stand-alone lemmas need keeping and what not. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on sources above. I agree that GNG does not say Aunt Bee would need to be the main topic of a scholarly work (meaning a book written entirely about her character). A discussion of Aunt Bee within a book about fictional aunts is fine for GNG, and a discussion about Aunt Bee within an independent and secondary book about the show (which they do appear to be) is also fine. Others may have a stricter interpretation of GNG, but to me we are well within the bounds of acceptability for an article. Rhino131 ( talk ) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings. Doesn't that line of argument make practically every character that appeared on the Andy Griffith Show notable enough to merit their own, stand-alone article? As Cunard wrote, there's a ton of written material about the show out there. - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It depends of the level of scholarly analysis. A simple mention that a certain character appeared in a certain episode is not Significant Coverage. But the above clearly shows there is more written about this particular character. The fact that a lot of books have been written on this show means there are lots of potential reliable sources out there, which are what we use to determine notability in articles. We go by what the sources say. Rhino131 ( talk ) 12:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 13:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG per above sources. Allow me a few words. What's important in each and every case is that it be possible for someone to write encyclopedia article about the topic. The never-to-be-reached ideal is for every article to reach "Good Article" status. But note that Good Articles have no strict length requirement ( WP:GACR ), they merely need to cover the notability of the subject in appropriate breadth. It's not unlikely that most main or recurring characters on The Andy Griffith Show are individually notable given the place that show occupies in the American television canon and the syndication and coverage it's received over the past 80 years. — siro χ o 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : Just notifying you that your signature didn't render correctly. Spinixster (chat!) 08:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, added date. — siro χ o 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was able to find one full-text source that I used to add a small cultural impact section to the article. It could definitely use expansion. I also found a few hits in Google Scholar: Aunt Bee as Mom, Stepmom, or Grandmom? This one uses Aunt Bee as an example to explore the legal status of non-parent caregivers. She seems to feature in this book as well: Where the Aunts Are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm listing these other sources here not necessarily for use in the article (which needs more sourcing) but as examples of the ubiquity of this character in the culture: Culture Wars , When Do I Get to Be? Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy: Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Christianity , and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ) Sources Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [ Colourful Language (Exercises) ] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University . ISSN 1673-4998 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [ zh ] . Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University . According to this description from Google Translate, " Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities." The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。" From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland." Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [ zh ] . Archived from the original on 2024-05-24 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [ zh ] . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材" From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks." A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。" From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read." Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程　真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past." Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy ( traditional Chinese : 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 ; simplified Chinese : 香港华人基督教联会真道书院 )) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article should be renamed to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (add the word "Churches" after "Christian" and before "Union") to match the name on the website . Cunard ( talk ) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply , promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) . According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , a non-profit educational institution like Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which this school does. Cunard ( talk ) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite , which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University , is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school. The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage. I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick: Editorial team Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily. An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector. Editorial focus 80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle. Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study. The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard ( talk ) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard ( talk ) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I reviewed the new links and stand by my assessment. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar ( talk ) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article". An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education , where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard ( talk ) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So are you now ! voting for merge not keep? LibStar ( talk ) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first. The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source: "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p.  A12. The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，今年將有五分一教師共九人離職，有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。" From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work." The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校，中小學共用約五十名教師，當中有近兩成共九名教師，在今學年完結後離任。" From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year." I will keep searching for sources and when I'm done, I will post the rest of the sources here. I will do this within the next few hours. Cunard ( talk ) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources. The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFThe_Sun_article_about_20%_of_the_school's_teachers_resigning_for_being_overworked2005 ( help ) Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools': Sources Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p.  A9. The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學，一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度，不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分，現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」，不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助，○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"." "真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p.  F1. The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，想不到其與別不同的學制，引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生，尷尬地處於中小學的中間點，學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為，DS4學生既接受中學資助，應被界定為中學生，故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。" From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year." "直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p.  A20. The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化，不再局限於傳統中小學之分，惟學界體育比賽制度僵化，繼續以中小學劃分，令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生，因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程，被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽，學生參賽資格即時被腰斬，學子無辜，慘成官僚制度下，政治鬥爭的犧牲品。" From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy." The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources: Sources "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p.  A7. The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊，重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑，包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，" From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..." The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑，真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業，減少學校現金流，以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示，該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費，但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元，連同物業和基金股票等，已超過局方規定的儲備上限，由於盈餘過高，局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱，核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流，亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充，校方加費須得到家長同意，校方亦要遞交發展計劃，由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。" From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus." "真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p.  A12. The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛，又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善，昨日3 名校董連同校長，與400 名家長會面，提出5項措施回應，包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制，鼓勵清貧學生報讀。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply." "真道書院開家長會 跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p.  A26. The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席，與約400名家長會面。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents." "真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p.  A14. The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨日再召開家長會，安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」，包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等，以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。" From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc." "真道近2000萬助學金未批出 教局反對用作添設備 必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p.  A4. The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱，教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設，不認同用作添置設備；局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作，若成效不彰，便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。" From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration." Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權　教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p.  A5. The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業，業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉，多番促請他們將業權轉回校方，但不獲理會，早前發出最後通牒，日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到，局方將派人進駐該校校董會，情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。" From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year." "自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p.  E6. The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief. The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，是近年區內成立的直資中學，該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物，介紹學校的理念和發展，至今已經出版了兩期。 真道書院出版這本《真道人》，以一本機構刊物來說，可以說不簡單，新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外，還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等，從內容、版面設計到紙質，都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看，除了校內老師班底，還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與，難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。" From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media." Cunard ( talk ) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The additional sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet NSCHOOL, in addition there is more coverage where the school involved in a scandal where a member of leadership made a controversial statement regarding the 2019 protests, example article: [1] . Jumpytoo Talk 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article about another controversy involving the school is a good find, thank you, Jumpytoo ( talk · contribs )! Cunard ( talk ) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to meet GNG per the many sources above. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Limey (band): CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NBAND#C5 with two albums on RCA, so notability is presumed, and thus we need verifiability. We have sufficient WP:verifiability via AllMusic to keep a stub. This includes including some stuff that can be incorporated into the article, such as the fact that B.J. Cole appeared on an album [32] [33] and the fact that Jim Rodford and Bob Henrit appeared on one album [34] . Given that this was pre-digital era it's quite likely that a good bit more will be verifiable as sources are discovered to expand the article. — siro χ o 06:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've expanded the article and added a few sources. Album releases and coverage are sufficient for notability. There was coverage during the time of the band's existence, although it will be in print sources, so some of it may be hard to find. -- Michig ( talk ) 13:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Pre-internet press may be hard to find, but meets wikipedia keep criteria by having multiple releases on a major label, although they don't appear to have been particularly successful or noteworthy. ShelbyMarion ( talk ) 20:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Henry James Cambie Secondary School: I couldn't find very many sources for this secondary school. I made a talk section with a few notable sources about this school here , but it isn't much. Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Canada . Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sink Cat , While this is not an independent source, it serves as a really nice starting point. The school was known as "Richmond High" from 1928-1952. Accessing newspapers.com via the wikipedia library, it appears that there are a good many sources under both the original name and the current name there appear to be a good many sources. — Jacona ( talk ) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *Keep. Searching newspapers.com for "Richmond High" in Canada from 1925-1930 has turned up a plethora of sources. I'm adding some of them to the article, then if I have time will search from 1931 through the 1950s for more. Jacona ( talk ) Striking the above for now. I just discovered Richmond Secondary School already exists and covers this school. Will come back to this later. Jacona ( talk ) 16:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Jacona , this catchment map shows that Cambie and Richmond are 2 different schools. But there seems to be a bit of a muddle that originated in 1952, when Richmond Junior-Senior High School was relocated, and Cambrie Junior Secondary School remained in the building that formerly housed Richmond?? According to this primary source , Cambie was known as Richmond High from 1928 to 1952. From 1953 to 1995 it was Cambie Junior Secondary School, and "H. J. Cambie Secondary School" opened in its new and present location in 1995. It will be interesting to see how contemporary news sources explain the 1952 shuffle of school names and places... — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One more primary source about Richmond Secondary School. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Grand'mere Eugene , Thanks. I'm going to do some other stuff. I may or may not get back here. — Jacona ( talk ) 23:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Keep- perJacona PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Jacona 's work so far, as well as articles Sink Cat and I have listed on the Talk:Henry James Cambie Secondary School page, convince me that enough independent, secondary, reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability of this subject . The history that includes Richmond Secondary School makes it a little challenging to sort out the claim that each school now makes as "the City of Richmond's first high school", but clearly both existing schools are notable. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , reinstating my redacted ! vote above per earlier reasoning and — Grand'mere Eugene 's assistance. There are plenty of sources in the article, and they provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG . Even more are available. Care must be taken to determine when "Richmond" refers to the Cambie tree and when it refers to the Richmond Secondary School tree, but there are definitely more than enough sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL via gng. Jacona ( talk ) 23:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin: Apart from trivial mentions regarding the show's Emmy wins, there are only only a few WP:RSes : [1] , [2] , and [3] were written around the time of the show's release, and focus more on the Georgia Aquarium than the show. [4] and [5] are pretty trivial. [6] focuses on the subject of the particular episode (sea lions), rather than the show itself. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Animal , Science , and Environment . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Ashby, Emily (2019-09-20). "Parents' Guide to Ocean Mysteries. By Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media Reviewer" . Common Sense Media . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The review notes: "Corwin brings his passion for animals and the environment to this exciting series that promotes conservation through a better understanding of individual marine species. ... Although the show also touches on heavier topics like scientific research and how environmental degradation affects the species they study, it's designed to maintain even young kids' attention, relating an animal's size or weight to familiar objects like cars and giving definitions for terms that aren't familiar. If you're looking to learn something new as a family, Ocean Mysteries is a great place to start, and it's sure to inspire a new respect for the natural world and a new appreciation for conservationists' efforts to protect it." "Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin: Season 1" . The Dove Foundation . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The review notes: "“Ocean Mysteries” is a great learning experience. Jeff talks about sea turtles of the present or those from millions of years ago. He is very knowledgeable about the creatures presented in each episode. He will keep you interested in the research, capture, release and healing of some of the oceans’ endangered species." Ruggieri, Melissa (2011-09-02). "Georgia Aquarium star of new 'Ocean Mysteries' series" . The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Corwin, a longtime TV host and animal conservationist, is spearheading “Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin,” a weekly 26-episode show that debuts Saturday morning on ABC. The show, part of “Litton's Weekend Adventure” programming shown nationwide, is directly affiliated with Georgia Aquarium; each episode is either being shot at the downtown Atlanta marine emporium or features experts from the venue. The idea for the show germinated about a year ago, when Georgia Aquarium and Litton Entertainment decided to create a unique series focused on sea creatures. ... Saturday’s debut episode follows ... The eight episodes completed so far include a journey to the coast of Mexico to extract blood from wild whale sharks ..." Chun, Gary C.W. (2013-06-04). "Animal instinct" . Honolulu Star-Advertiser . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "The conservationist and television host was here to shoot three episodes for the third season of "Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin," which airs Saturday mornings on ABC. ... Corwin and the "Ocean Mysteries" crew travel the world's oceans in search of interesting stories that not only have a bit of adventure, but also convey a message about the importance of ocean research. ... "Ocean Mysteries," made in conjunction with the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, is Corwin's first foray into broadcast TV. ... Hawaii was first featured on "Ocean Mysteries" in 2011, when Corwin visited the islands to spotlight manta rays and Hawaiian monk seals." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concede that the sources you've provided are reliable, but that doesn't end the analysis. Sources need to be reliable and establish notability, which requires significant coverage . I've already explained why I don't find source #3 to be SIGCOV of the show, rather than promotional/routine coverage of Jeff Corwin and the Georgia Aquarium. As for sources 1 and 2, while Common Sense Media is an RS for reviews per WP:RSPSS , the review isn't significant; it's one paragraph long and doesn't critically analyze the show. . Same with the Dove Foundation review. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser article likewise reads as a promo for the show (notwithstanding that it's from an independent source). voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as lacking any real significance. All coverage is routine and/or promotional in nature. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 17:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Weekend Adventure#Programming , or Jeff Corwin#Television On purpose it's designed to do nothing more than comply with educational programming requirements, nothing more than that. There's not much you can do to expand the article, and winning a Daytime Emmy Award is completely different from the primetime version most know. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It is inaccurate to say that the Common Sense Media source is "one paragraph long and doesn't critically analyze the show". The review extensively discusses and analyzes the television show through its various sections: "Educational Value" (59 words) "Positive Messages" (35 words) "Positive Role Models" (49 words) Products & Purchases (15 words) "Parents Need to Know" (94 words) "What's the Story" (86 words) "Is It Any Good" (153 words) In total, the review provides 491 words of coverage about the subject and contains lots of critical analysis. This clearly is significant coverage of the show. The Dove Foundation review provides 188 words of coverage about the subject, which is also significant coverage. These two sources by themselves are sufficient for Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . It is inaccurate to dismiss television show reviews in reliable sources as being "routine" or "promotional". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser articles are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage. Sources are not disqualified from establishing notability just because they present a positive view of the subject. It is inaccurate to say that "There's not much you can do to expand the article". The article can be substantially expanded through the extensive coverage in the sources I provided. Cunard ( talk ) 06:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on what has been found online. Bearian ( talk ) 19:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Cunard's sources, which are sufficient to meet the GNG. matt91486 ( talk ) 15:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : we should be wary of thinking that the bar for SIGCOV is higher than it is: WP:SIGCOV reads significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The sources raised by User:Cunard clearly give more than a trivial mention, and so suffice to meet GNG. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 16:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources brought to light by this process. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passing GNG, per Cunard above. Carrite ( talk ) 09:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

BNN Breaking: I guess this article does not meet the Notability criteria. The lead section does not have any citation. Few references are used many times. The article gives me impression that it is not written in neutral language. HxxxM07 ( talk ) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . HxxxM07 ( talk ) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I would say it passes WP:GNG : there is significant coverage in multiple indepedent sources, including Business Insider, multiple local newspapers, and an Irish national newspaper (though perhaps none of them have consensus as reliable sources--BI doesn't have a consensus ( WP:BI ) and none of the others are major news outlets). The lead section not having citations is fine, as the points are cited in the article body (as per MOS:LEAD ). I would not advocate deletion on an article for not meeting WP:NPOV , as the article could be improved to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo ( talk • contribs ) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites , Hong Kong , and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have an opinion atm, but condense and merge to Gurbaksh Chahal is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete If this article and company is notable no page on the platform should be deleted. I just saw the article's history and its already messed up. As per my experience here the company is not having a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just same articles taking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff and the whole article is rather opinion than an encyclopedia material. I will still try to find and add if any reliable source with indepth coverage about the compnay exists. NatalieTT ( talk ) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — NatalieTT ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Please note that this could potentially be a case of a bad-faith nomination, as the founder of BNN Breaking has a long history of hiring freelancers to whitewash their pages. Upon examining the history of this article, there seem to be some attempts to remove the controversial part. Please mail me or paid-en queue for more details. GSS 💬 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would vote Keep, except I guess I should recuse myself since I (along with @ Lepricavark ) was mentioned by name on a BNN Breaking article critical of Wikipedia: [7] . I think we should keep the article for the benefit of people who want to determine whether a news site is bogus or not. Chisme ( talk ) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Like GSS, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nomination in light of Chahal's extensive history of chicanery. If he doesn't like the way that his organization is covered in this article, maybe he should clean up his clearly dirty organization. Unfortunately for him, being crooked is not a safeguard against being notable. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lepricavark : I have a feeling that this AfD is going to attract some suspicious delete voters, similar to user NatalieTT, who was inactive for over 3 months and suddenly became active to ! vote here. GSS 💬 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would be par for the course given prior abuses at the Chahal article. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chisme , did you check the tags at the end of the article text? They're quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw it @ Gråbergs Gråa Sång written; Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David Gerard, Ravensfire, and DanielMichaelPerry. It's quite funny though! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there's just enough sources, which span a period of several years, that the article warrants keeping. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : bnn breaking is a horrible news source. that doesn't mean they are not notable, there is sufficient coverage. She was a fairy 02:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I avoid contributing to such situations but here something is cooking. I reported a lot of socks and people silently who try to prepare a case against a specific topic or shed personal agendas rather than based on the policy. I believe a lot of paid editing is involved here and the article may have been created to secure a place on Wikipedia to get more hype. I will send the evidence to concerned authorities as well. I can see that only San Francisco Chronicle and related sub sites which are not even in the list of reliable sources listed have interest in this non-notable company that is not even a news site but a personal blog with pathetic publicity stunt type of news coverage used as click baits. I'm on a clear side on Delete but I will keep an eye out and see if someone shows more coverage instead of bombarding it with keeps. The Informer Sally ( talk ) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — The Informer Sally ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] delete It really seems that this article is meant to defame and slander a particular person. After properly going the edit history I found that it seems the whole intention of this article to ensure bad name directed towards 1 person. I hereby change the vote to deletion, as soon as possible. 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)~ Bonadart ( talk ) — Bonadart ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Delete/Comment I was searching for something on Google and landed here in search of information. I edited and even created pages in the past but then left because even after spending months to create pages they were removed for being 'non-notable' and after reading the article in question and reading the points here I felt I should leave my analysis as well. There's not a single news article on Google news section that discusses the subject in detail check here [8] . It doesn't meet WP:GNG even. G19US ( talk ) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — G19US ( talk ) • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] This is not a very well-formed nomination for deletion (a lead doesn't need citations...), and the multiple accounts that just show up here, arguing that it's somehow defamation, that's more than a little odd. Plus, there is sourcing, of course, even though much of it is negative. Is it enough to keep? Should it be merged into the owner's bio? I don't really know, or care, but it's pretty clear that there are outside interests here with these articles, as this also shows . Drmies ( talk ) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Thoroughly checked the sources, and I don't see any in-depth coverage about the subject. The cited sources are emphasizing the event in particular rather than subject itself, and if exclude those sources there left nothing. Also, other than San Francisco Chronicle , Business Insider , the cited sources are not that much reliable. Atighot ( talk ) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Atighot ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep , multiple sources over multiple years describe this website. Also want closer to note the wave of 'delete' votes from accounts that have made little edits outside this topic, considering the founder's history of recruiting paid editors. wizzito | say hello! 00:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this article needs to be around to keep receipts on the Internet to inform the populace on what BNN Breaking is doing. It is notable and has been covered by multiple RS. The wave of "delete" comments also seems suspicious given BNN Breaking's own attempts itself to whitewash this article. Having failed that, I believe their new tactic is to get the article about BNN Breaking deleted. You can read about their attempts here on their site, with an article bashing Wikipedia: BNN Breaking EXCLUSIVE: The Dark Side of Wikipedia - The Billion-Dollar Web of Deception, Lies & Elite Manipulation . Merge with the founder's article is no good. This needs to have its own article to inform and educate the public. - Object404 ( talk ) 06:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Dropping my two cents here, this page seems to have been created to defame the entity. The editing done on this page seems to be targeted to tarnish the image of the company and to destabilize the article itself. As per my experience here, the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just the same articles talking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff, and the whole article is rather an opinion than encyclopedia material. I have not encountered any Wikipedia article about a media company—or any company, for that matter—framed in such a manner that it meets inclusion criteria. Additionally, a preliminary search revealed a lack of visibility on Google, casting further doubt on the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs ) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Ee nn yy ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. "the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source" -> This is a lie. The subject is covered in-depth by The San Francisco Standard. - Object404 ( talk ) 08:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I nominated this article for deletion only because it lacks significant coverage in my opinion. Many statements are backed by websites that cannot be considered as trustable. I highly suggest the cleanup of this article to maintain Wikipedia standard if it is kept. Vital information should not backed by blog article, instead please use trustable sources if there is any. M66JX ( talk ) 08:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are asking us to believe that after nearly a month of inactivity which was preceded by a warning that you appeared to be making undisclosed paid contributions, upon your return you coincidentally just happened to stumble across this article and nominate it for deletion. And the fact that this article is about a company founded by a man with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors on his own biography is yet another coincidence because you totally weren't paid for this nomination. I don't believe you. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Existing sources show enough coverage of BNN to meet WP:GNG . Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep like Chisme, I had intended to recuse myself from this AfD. However, since those affiliated with the subject have shown no compunctions against pursuing their conflict of interest via poorly-disguised paid ! votes, I will formally register my ! vote in favor of keeping the article. The sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG whether Gurbaksh Chahal likes it or not. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Strongly agreed with Object404 . Also, all delete votes seem so suspicious and funny to see all of the voters just awaken from hyper inactivity all of a sudden and come to Wikipedia to vote on deleting an article. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this article does note meet WP:NORG . i think this article shoun't be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcruexz ( talk • contribs ) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Whereas, the Wikipedia article, bnn breaking exhibits a tone that suggests a close relationship between the writer/editor and the subject matter. The article also fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's significance, as single references is used multiple times. Therefore, BNN Breaking violates Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and notability. Palucy ( talk ) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Palucy ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Delete Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and cealrly looks like promotional article or paid article. Thatbombayboy ( talk ) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Thatbombayboy ( talk ) • [ reply ] Delete this artical looks like act of defamation under Libel and the nature of the edits gives the impression that editor have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but editor have not complied with [ mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. ] Kingaayaan ( talk ) 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Kingaayaan ( talk ) • [ reply ] Oh, the irony. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

George John Seaton: All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella Velella Talk 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Africa , France , England , and South America . Velella Velella Talk 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned , to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."-- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base. Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts. I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws ( talk ) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella Velella Talk 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - as the only ! voter, I am also happy with draftification. -- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change ! vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. -- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK ? JennyOz ( talk ) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella Velella Talk 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university. We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible. From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them. As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-! vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to ! vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work. P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources . But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this , for instance. - The Gnome ( talk ) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live. Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc. The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator ( User:Velella ), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer. I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun ( talk ) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien ( talk ) 19:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definately met borderline GNG before, and now even more so per WP:HEYMAN . X ( talk ) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per HEY. Passes GNG easily now. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Maddy Cusack: Don't be fooled by the refbombing - the articles do not cover Cusack in detail. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don’t let this page get deleted 92.40.215.239 ( talk ) 11:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the significant coverage from multiple major news sites is about her career, not just her death. As many other people have pointed out in this AfD, her career was as notable as many male footballers with WP articles. Lijil ( talk ) 12:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - tragic situation, but not a notable individual I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources. These are BBC, Sky Sports, Athletic, The Guardian, more than enough. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 10:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is false. 2A02:2F0E:813:B800:4C61:E719:3BF2:41DE ( talk ) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . All the references were published upon her death, and don't state much more than her death and platitudes from those who knew her. She was not notable according to Wikipedia criteria. Ira Leviton ( talk ) 13:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources should be reliable and independent from subject. There is no requirement for them to be published before deaths. There are plenty of articles that exist only with sources that were published after death of the person. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 09:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So all those news organisations are going to be ignored? What's the point of GNG if you don't want to use it? Toronto Star , San Diego Union Tribune , it's covered pretty world wide. Govvy ( talk ) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTNEWS . Giant Snowman 07:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It applies to events, not persons. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 09:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was. It's almost inconceivable that they, or any other medium, will file further stories because other than the circumstance of her early passing, she was not a notable public figure. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Toronto Star et al are because AP filed a story on her untimely death, not because reporters in Toronto followed her career or, indeed, knew who she was" This doesn't work like that. We need coverage in reliable sources, we don't speculate on the reasons of why coverage exists. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 'We' might reflect that a newswire like AP being picked up by global media is not global fame, it's a newswire piece that is news because of her tragically untimely death. Absent that, AP would not have filed and editors from the Cincinatti Conveyancer wouldn't have the chance to pull the story from the wire to fill space. Whoever 'we' are... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The global fame is not necessary for having an article. The person is covered in The Guardian, BBC, Athletic Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More than enough coverage of her even before this year when she passed, easily at GNG. There is coverage of her death in Sweden and France among other things I found. Article can be expanded. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] . She was pretty popular with the club and got attention from the media all over that part of England. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is hardly any coverage specifically of Cusack in those sources. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Dougal18 , those are just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But these football matches are not run-of-the-mill events. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 15:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Football matches really are... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with Oaktree b ( talk ). Plus there is plenty of mainstream coverage and she is the first female player to play 100 games for Sheffield United. Dwanyewest ( talk ) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Oaktree b and Dwanyewest. Lots os sources and clearlu sifignicaint figure for her club. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree with Oaktree, Dwaynewest, and Das Osmnezz. Montgomery15 ( talk ) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no notable coverage before her untimely death. If the sources are out there, then why hasn't the page even got basic things like here appearance stats or career overview? If the page is bought up to standard, then keep (or restore), but as stands, it's a delete. 155.190.13.13 ( talk ) 23:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was coverage, even though this is not a must for the article to exist. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b . History6042 ( talk ) 01:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There exists coverage in reliable sources [27] I would also like to point out that per guides for footballers, a game in a tier is usually enough. This footballer has more than 100 games for her club, and was the first one to do so. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 10:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] N:FOOTBALL has been scrapped. There has to be significant coverage in reliable sources. A few lines on her career combined with quotes doesn't cut it. Dougal18 ( talk ) 10:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When? It doesn't make sense not having a rule for the most popular sport while there are rules for less popular,and even amateur. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree b. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits ) 13:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sufficient coverage 2A00:23EE:1078:426F:8C1F:ACA6:5AB6:6B36 ( talk ) 15:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I think there's enough coverage. Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? SPAG checker ( talk ) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Huge media coverage. Warrants a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A8B3:9901:3042:AAA3:63DD:28AF ( talk ) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This vote at AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This vote at AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , perhaps she doesn't meet various WP policy but that probably just highlights male-female imbalance in Wikipedia, etc. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:4362:E524:CE7C:AF9 ( talk ) 15:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If she doesn't meet Wikipedia policy WP:GNG , then the article shouldn't be kept. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She meets Wikipedia policy. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think there's enough coverage. Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPAG checker ( talk • contribs ) 15:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets GNG, including SIGCOV. The coverage does not have to be from before the subject's death, indeed, we have many historical bios sourced largely from obituaries. The only issue would be if the coverage was only about her death (BLP1E) — which it isn't. It's post-mortem coverage about the life of someone notable: she was evidently quite a successful footballer, who also had a career in media and was popular locally. The article could be expanded, but the notability requirements are easily met. And as someone said, a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. It is sad that she had to die to get widespread SIGCOV, but we can take the sources for what they are. Kingsif ( talk ) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a second flight and youth international footballer (especially the record caps-holder for their club) in men's football would never have the notability questioned. How many male footballer AfDs have you participated in that you can make that claim? Because that statement is very inconsistent with what actually happens at AfD. This also is clearly a BIO1E issue: the non-trivial coverage is all concentrated in the days following her death. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You see me around sports bio AfDs enough, maybe you can count. But don't be pedantic, you know it is generally true. E.g.: I picked a random EFL team (fourth flight Bradford City A.F.C. ) and only 3 of their 38 players don't have an article, with only 7 of the players making youth international appearances. It's also clearly not a BIO1E issue – as I literally said in my reason – because the coverage is not only about her death, it's about her life, just occurring around her death. I might be inclined to suggest an AfD TBAN for you: all you do in AfDs is try to shoehorn random policy reasons to delete to fit any nom, when the policies rarely apply, just listing acronyms without explanation – and then you moodily reply with nonsense like this to anyone who gives good reasons to keep. It's not appropriate behaviour. Kingsif ( talk ) 00:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SUSTAINED says Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time . It's the attention that needs to be sustained, not the time period covered by the attention. BIO1E also demands the context should be outside a single event; that doesn't meant the focus of the coverage must be entirely on that event, it means that the coverage should be in other contexts. Since all of this coverage is in the context of her death, it does not meet that criterion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No second-tier Sheffield United player would have been even proposed to deletion, especially if he had youth caps. Or any player from Championship, for that matter. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough notable sources. TheKaphox T 21:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree 2A02:C7F:8B85:800:C37:5623:B2EA:EE4B ( talk ) 00:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This comment on this AfD is the only contribution for this IP user. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not the above User, however in their defence, lots of us have Dynamic IP addresses. I have contributions on Wikipedia going back to 2007 217.28.6.171 ( talk ) 05:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The sourcing is exclusively reports of her death, with nothing actually demonstrating she was the subject of sustained, significant coverage . The article fails NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and BLP1E/BIO1E. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The present SIGCOV is not about her death, it is just being published after her death. If you're mentioning WP:NOTNEWS , the only part of that I can imagine being relevant to an RD bio is "not celebrity ticker" - but that's about "just because a notable person did something, doesn't mean the thing is notable enough to mention". Unless you're suggesting the bio is a current events article? You surely know that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is just a reminder that new articles about deceased people must meet other notability guidelines, that it isn't a guideline in itself, i.e. referring to it is not a reason to delete. How about you learn what the policies you love to overcite without any elaboration actually mean before continuing at AfD. Your ! votes are always misleading at best . Kingsif ( talk ) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The coverage is about her death with a few lines about her career. "she played 100 times/works in marketing/list of previous clubs" is not SIGCOV regardless of how many times it is spammed in her article. Dougal18 ( talk ) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigcov asks that the RS coverage has more than passing mention about the subject — it feels like you're trying to say that there isn't enough in the sources about just the football to demonstrate that the subject is notable as an individual, when the point of Sigcov is that having sources dedicated about the subject shows that the RS editorially considers them notable enough to write extensively about. So it's not to the same extent but it seems like you are (probably unintentionally as vague references to policy do over time deviate) also tweaking what the guidelines actually are with a mind to deletion. Kingsif ( talk ) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter if the content is what we would normally consider "significant" if it fails WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with Dougal18 above, the coverage is not significant, it's just reposting of the same few lines of content about her career, no matter how many sources post that same information, that doesn't mean she passes WP:GNG because of this WP:ROUTINE coverage. 100 appearances for a lower league team also didn't generate enough significant, independent coverage either to pass WP:GNG either. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Calling second flight a lower league seems like deliberate downplaying; it's still a pro league. Lack of independent Sigcov at the time can also be seen with female footballers achieving such milestones in Chanpions League teams, we're not here to RGW but we can accept simply belated sources for something that we all know is notable. Kingsif ( talk ) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] we're not here to RGW no we aren't, so if she doesn't pass WP:GNG , then she shouldn't have an article. And nobody (not even any of the keep voters) have demonstrated multiple sources of significant coverage, which is what GNG requires. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG . If she only had an obit in a local newspaper, I'd likely agree with delete voters, but Cusack has received SIGCOV in major media outlets around the world, including BBC ( here and here ) , The Times ( here ), The Sun ( here , here , here , here ), Daily Mail ( here , here , here , here , here , here ), Colombia ( here ), Spain ( here ), France ( here ), Italy ( here ), Argentina ( here and here ), Canada ( here ) and USA ( here and here ). I doubt there's more than 50 women footballers who have ever received such breadth of international coverage. Warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Cbl62 ( talk ) 14:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those are just reprints of the same information, which is just a basic career summary. The same thing reprinted in 20 newspapers doesn't make it more significant coverage. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "All of those are just reprints" That's simply false, and I don't understand why you would resort to such misrepresntation. By way of example, there are five or six completely separate pieces in The Daily Mail alone. You also ignore the main point -- the worldwide interest in this person bears importantly on her notability. I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article. Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's not personalise this? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pointing out a blatant misrepresentation of fact is not personalizing. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read my comment below instead of repeating the same baseless accusations. The sources that are reliable sources are almost all reprints of the Associated Press . I don't require a reply of you accusing me of misrepresenting yet again... Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article." is pretty personal. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) The Sun and Daily Mail aren't reliable sources, so I ignored them from your list (and they cannot be considered towards WP:GNG as they are both perennial sources ). All of the other countries' articles are just translations of the same basic information about her- it isn't significant coverage as per the Wikipedia definition. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BBC and The Times are among the most reliable sources known to mankind. Also, I am familiar with the Wikipedia definition of WP:SIGCOV , and each of the articles linked "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and consists of "more than a trivial mention." I am trying to better understand your fierce opposition to the Maddy Cusack article. As someone who has created so many stand-alone articles on women with far less SIGCOV than Cusack (e.g., Kathleen Lidderdale , Judith Webb ), it is somewhat puzzling. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, you're going ad hominem here - can we perhaps stick to the policy based discussion? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Will do. The assertion that all 20-some articles were "reprints" riled me up a bit. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other articles I've created are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have an agenda with this article, contrary to what Cbl62 is trying to accuse me of. I don't require any further responses from this editor who just wants to accuse me of some made up bias, WP:ANI will be consulted if they continue this line of attack. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck my comment about your other articles and expressed my agreement with Alexandermcnabb's apt suggestion before you added your last comment about WP:ANI . Nothing I wrote was intended as a personal attack. I apologize if you viewed it that way and suggest we move on. You are, of course, free to consult ANI if you feel strongly. Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Things get reported widely in the news all the time. That doesn't mean they are notable. Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time means that the attention should be received over a significant period of time, not just in a short burst. We've maintained this standard for thousands of victims of tragedies who are profiled significantly in worldwide media upon their death and then never discussed again. This and this BBC pieces are primary reporting entirely in the context of her death. The Times piece is another version of the second BBC article. The Sun and Daily Mail are deprecated so can't be used for anything here (I recommend adding this script that highlights consensus-unreliable sources in pink). Each of the other sources you mention is a variation on the same announcement of her death. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual . JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Women athletes do not get reported on this widely "all the time." To the contrary, the coverage here is worldwide and quite extraordinary for a woman athlete. People can and often do pass WP:GNG based on coverage that develops at the time of death -- it is a natural time to summarize and report on the person's life accomplishments. I've not previously seen editors try to use the "one-event" guideline to exclude obituary coverage. That's not consistent with my understanding. The "one-event" guideline applies to someone who has briefly received coverage of a single event in their lives. Here, coverage that follows the end of a person's life, and delves into their life's accomplishments (in this case a long athletic career), is quite different. Moreover, the rule you quote refers to "low-profile individuals" and professional athletes are the antithesis of low-profile individuals. Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These aren't independent, in-depth obituaries, they are primary news reports on someone's sudden untimely death that include some details about her athletic career. We should not be evaluating notability based on what we think a normal amount of coverage "for a woman athlete" is, because this is not coverage of an athlete's accomplishments, it's coverage of a 27-year-old's mysterious and sudden death that repeats the exact same facts about her career as found in her club's press releases / AP : SUFC player since 2019, marketing executive for SUFC, reached the milestone of 100 appearances for SUFC, named vice-captain last month, longest-serving player in current squad, former youth player, list of former clubs, quotes from Stephen Bettis. These are not intellectually independent sources. And who says a pro athlete is automatically high-profile? JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The cited sources cover the tragic circumstances of her death and also cover her life and career in sufficient depth to constitute SIGCOV (I thought you had conceded that point above). The guideline's usage of "low profile" is derived from defamation and right of privacy/publicity laws wherein the law gives lesser protections to public figures . Under those bodies of law, it's pretty clear that someone who pursues a 12-year career as a professional athlete, performing their job in front of crowds of spectators, and who is also a "marketing executive" for the club, has not chosen a "low profile" lifestyle. Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not consider the coverage of her career to be SIGCOV, I was only stating that even if it was SIGCOV it would not pass our requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. And anyway the material about her career in these sources does not count toward notability because it is churnalized wholly from press releases. These are not independent sources separately researching her career, they are pure derivatives of at best one "independent" source (AP), which is itself almost entirely a repetition of a press release. Performing in a team sport does not automatically make someone a public figure, but that's also irrelevant because WP:N and NOTNEWS state that all subjects must receive sustained coverage, regardless of how "public" they are. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) The coverage of her career is SIGCOV. We disagree on that. 2) The very guideline you cited/quoted makes the connection between the need for sustained coverage with the person being low-profile, 3) the BBC , The Times , and the Associated Press are among mankind's most respected sources, not outlets for churnalism . Cbl62 ( talk ) 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. News updates on the circumstances around her death are primary; if they were actually significant secondary independent coverage that would be a justification to create an article on the event "death of Maddy Cusack" instead of a biography, but they also fail NEVENT. The coverage of her career is wholly derivative of the press releases and therefore does not constitute independent secondary coverage regardless of how significant it is. 2. WP:N has no requirement that a subject be low-profile. I mistakenly cited BLP1E instead of SUSTAINED, but anyway BLP1E doesn't mean living* people of sufficiently high profile are the sole exceptions to our requirement that all subjects receive sustained attention. It is just applied as another means of protection for random people who receive coverage for some event. 3. Of course BBC and The Times can engage in churnalism. It would be slightly different if these news articles were actually going into significant, independent biographical detail, but they are not . They are regurgitating the same set of facts that were included in the press releases [28] [29] and/or AP. The BBC news pieces are reporting an update on her inquest and a tribute paid toward her. What biographical info on her career do they provide outside the context of her death? Cusack had been at the club since 2019 and became the first player to reach 100 appearances for the women's team last season. She also worked as a marketing executive at the Women's Championship club, who said they were "devastated" by her death. ... Cusack also played for Birmingham, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest before joining the Blades. [30] Midfielder Cusack - the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club's women's team last season - died last week aged 27. ... Cusack - who had been at the club since 2019 and also worked in the club's marketing department ... [31] The Times piece has these details: The Sheffield United midfielder Maddy Cusack has died at the age of 27, the club have announced. Cusack, named vice-captain last month, had just started her sixth season with the Yorkshire club in the Women’s Championship and was the longest-serving player in their squad. ... Cusack joined Sheffield United halfway through their first campaign in the women’s second tier in January 2019 and last season became the first woman to reach 100 appearances for the club. ... The former England youth international signed a new contract extension in July. [32] So again, where is the independent biographical coverage that demonstrates she is notable for her athletic career and not her death? JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which news reports contain encyclopedic info on her career background that goes significantly beyond what is contained here: SUFC: Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack. Maddy, a women's team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the Football Club, passed away on Wednesday. A respected player, Maddy, 27, last season reached the milestone of 100 appearances for Sheffield United Women. Additionally, she was a valued colleague in the offices at Bramall Lane, moving over from the Sheffield United Community Foundation to the Club in 2021 to help market all areas of the Blades. Stephen Bettis, United's chief executive officer, commented: "This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane. Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with. Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family - she will be sadly missed. Whilst taking in the news and moving forward, the Club will offer as much support as possible to Maddy's family, friends and colleagues." Discussions over suitable tributes and celebrating Maddy's life will continue privately. The Club and Maddy's family would appreciate a period of privacy and will not comment further at this sad time. AP: Maddy Cusack, a midfielder for the Sheffield United women’s team, has died at the age of 27, the club said Thursday. The team didn’t disclose any details about Cusack’s death. She was named as United’s vice-captain last month and had just started her sixth season with the team in the second-tier Women’s Championship, making her the longest-serving player in the current squad. “Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack,” the club said. “Maddy, a women’s team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the football club, passed away on Wednesday.” Cusack, a former England youth international, signed a contract extension with the club in July. “This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane,” chief executive Stephen Bettis said. “Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with. “Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family — she will be sadly missed.” JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the SIGCOV presented by Cbl62 and Oaktree b which have more than simple trivial mentions of Ms. Cusack. Passes WP:NBIO , which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . Frank Anchor 17:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The announcements of her death are all derived from an AP article / press releases , which are where all of the details on her career come from. [33] [34] [35] [36] These news pieces are not intellectually independent of each other and are not independent of the subject. The few articles that provide info beyond that are simply quoting other non-independent sources. [37] [38] One report [39] adds a few sentences of trivial non-encyclopedic detail ( The greatest shock is generated when taking into account that the footballer had played less than a month ago, on September 3, her last game with the team, starting in the 1-0 home defeat against Sunderland in the Championship . English second division. She was substituted in the 58th minute of the match and since then she had been absent in two more league games, against Blackburn Rovers away and Lewes at home. ) The updates covering memorials by her teammates are just primary news. [40] WP:NRV : the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest , WP:NBIO : Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. WP:NOTNEWS : Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is intellectually independent? "are not independent of the subject." The subject is the person that article is about, all these articles are independent. You are quoting WP:Notnews and even in this small subtract it says "events" The enduring notability — we already found sources pre-dating death. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources must not be derived from each other or from press releases. Most of the sources are either reprints of the AP piece or churnalized from it and the press release. NOTNEWS applies to all topics, as should be evident by it saying "persons and events". Sources from before death have to also be significant and non-routine, and none of those sources are. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of articles about persons which are written mostly via obits, or even only based on obits. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is enduring coverage: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11683/12969790/maddy-cusack-police-say-no-suspicious-circumstances-regarding-sheffield-united-women-midfielders-death https://www.cnn.com/cnn/2023/09/22/sport/maddy-cusack-death-sheffield-united-spt-intl/index.html Kirill C1 ( talk ) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After some thought I agree that this is more than the standard routine, there is a saying "Beyond scope" and I feel we have this. This is way past general notability, there might be some mid-term lasting notability but I am sure it will die down after that. I don't see much after a year, but wikipedia is all about cataloging from biographies to paintings. We can always have a new AfD in a year, but as of now, it is doing no harm. Govvy ( talk ) 21:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Govvy , where is the independent SIGCOV of her? None of the articles so far provide any significant detail beyond regurgitating press releases, which are explicitly discounted from notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aww, @ JoelleJay : There is news and articles with information, thus coverage is available, which is WP:BASIC coverage. So... what I say is true from a certain point of view . Govvy ( talk ) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't be condescending. NBIO explicitly says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . ... Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event , or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not . So where are these articles that are not substantively derived from the press releases/AP? And where is the evidence her notability does not stem from coverage of a single event? JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : Condescending? Really? How long do you think I've been posting to AfDs in my lifetime? Policies do not need to be explained to me, and frankly I am bemused at times by people who think they can run a lecture. There are a wave of keep votes here, which clearly suggests something. This is a biography and at the same time it is recent news, you're more likely to offend people when posting about someone they care about is NOTNEWS! You need to be very careful now, as the way I see it, you failed to show any sense of honour to my previous post, nor respond in a kind and polite manner. Govvy ( talk ) 06:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How else should I interpret that "aww" and youtube link? And I'd like to know how you think any of the biographical coverage actually satisfies It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have SIGCOV in at least three of the most respected news sources on our planet: BBC , The Times , and the Associated Press . These institutions are not known for engaging in churnalism . Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except the only SIGCOV is of the circumstances of her death, which is primary news. The coverage of her background is directly and exclusively churnalized from the press releases and is therefore not eligible for GNG. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information . And again, BBC, The Times, and AP absolutely engage in churnalism. [41] Flat Earth News (book) describes research showing 80% of stories in the Times, the Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail were wholly or partially constructed from second-hand material provided by news agencies or public relations firms such as the Press Association. [42] Other research has found Outlets like The Telegraph, The Independent, and even the BBC repurposed up to 97% of their content from press releases in their stories, essentially copying and pasting their way to ad revenue. [43] [44] AP has even been automating some of its finance and sports reporting since 2015.. . [45] And all of that is besides the fact that the coverage is 100% in the context of her death and is not sustained whatsoever. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Warofdreams here too. The ~7 facts on her background repeated in every one of these stories come directly from the press releases announcing her death: they were curated as her career highlights by the FA/SUFC, not independently dug up and determined to be important by news agencies. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a pretty thin reed upon which to accuse the BBC and The Times of having engaged in churnalism . That multiple news organizations report the same facts is not evidence that they have done something untoward or unethical or engaged in what you call churnalism . Rather, it is evidence that the facts are the facts. You have no idea the extent of fact-checking and/or independent reporting undertaken by the BBC, The Times , and the Associated Press. For you to leap to the conclusion that each of these preeminent news organizations is simply engaging in unethical practices is rank speculation. If this type of argument were to prevail, then our reliable sourcing standards would be open to attack in every case. There are certain news sources that we can and should trust based on a long history of reliability and reputation for careful fact-checking: BBC and The Times would be at the top of that list. In cases where news organizations simply reprint press releases, an appeal to "churnalism" may be appropriate. But an attempt to neutralize reporting by the world's most respected news organizations, simply because there is an alignment of facts (and because, not surprisingly, the team's statements are a fundamental starting point in any reportage on this story), is several bridges too far. Cbl62 ( talk ) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Guardian ( here ) is yet another reliable source, and it has even more biographical information. The biographical facts reported by The Guardian include: (1) Cusack was "a Sheffield United footballer", (2) Cusack "died at the age of 27"; (3) Cusack "played for the women's team since 2019"; (4) Cusack made "more than 100 appearances for the club"; (5) Cusack "also worked for the club as a marketing executive"; (6) "the cause of death has not been disclosed"; (7) Cusack was "part of a number of teams at Sheffield United"; (8) Cusack "was popular with everyone that she came into contact with"; (9) "Cusack was the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club"; (10) Cusack previously worked for Sheffield United Community Foundation until 2021; (11) Cusack had recently "entered her sixth season"; (12) Cusack "also represented England at age-group level"; and (13) Cusack "previously played for Birmingham City". Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The further one digs, the clearer it becomes that the major newspapers have not simply copied and pasted the same seven facts from a press release. There are interviews with various sources and varying degrees of factual background included in the accounts . For example, The Independent ( here ) reported the following facts: (1) Cusack was "Sheffield United's longest-serving women's player"; (2) Cusack died at the age of 27; (3) Cusack was a midfielder; (4) Cusack "was named vice-captain last month:' (5) Cusack "had just started her sixth season"; (6) Cusack "had made over 100 appearances for the club" and "reached the milestone" in the prior season; (7) Cusack was "a women's team player since 2019"; (8) Cusack was also a "marketing executive for the Football Club"; (9) Cusack moved over from Sheffield United Community Foundation to the club's offices at Brmall Lane in 2921; (10) Cusack helped market all areas of the Blades football team; (11) "Cusack joined the Blades halfway through their first campaign" in January 2019; (12) Cusack was a "fomer England youth itnernational" player; and (13) Cusack "had signed a new contract extension with the Blades in July". Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dude. First of all, churnalism isn't "unethical", it's a widespread practice in journalism that, as the research I cited states, is employed by The Times, the BBC, The Guardian, basically everywhere. You think any of these newspapers is individually instructing reporters to research Cusack's career in-depth? No, this is a low-importance human-interest news piece so all their original reporting is limited to the primary developments surrounding her death. These aren't obituaries. Second: literally every single one of those facts comes from the press releases . Not a single item is fresh. They even use the exact same wording ! Rehashing the info from contemporaneous press releases is the definition of churnalism and is explicitly discounted from GNG. Third: even if it wasn't derived from PR, this material would constitute one source . None of the papers are providing any additional biographical info whatsoever, let alone SIGCOV, so it doesn't even meet GNG anyway. Fourth: Even if coverage met GNG it would not constitute SUSTAINED attention. The only reason anyone is mentioning her sports career at all is due to one event, and the coverage is all inextricably linked to that event. It would be different if there was some sort of retrospective where the focus wasn't on the circumstances of her death, but that is not the case. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Dude"? What did I do to earn the title? As a Lebowski fan, I'm honored. Anyway, you're over-expansive assertion of churnalism, and your bald assertion that no fact-checking was done, is pure speculation and is undercut by the strong reputation for fact-checking by these preeminent sources. It's also undercut by the fact that each of the articles is presenting different subsets of fact in different ways. They are not simply reprinting a press release. The fact that "the facts are the facts" does not turn these reliable sources into unreliable (or unethical) churnalism factories. Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Significant coverage is coverage that is enough for article. We can write a fairly long article on her, coverage is significant. Kirill C1 ( talk ) 22:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , although the large majority of press coverage is in response to her death, it covers her career. We should distinguish between coverage which arises solely because someone dies in a notable way - which could be one event - and coverage following someone's death which covers their notable life, as the sources cited do. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG even if most of the coverage is post-mortem. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a lot of posthumous coverage of her football career but I also found news stories going back to 2020: Maddy Cusack confident Neil Redfearn can take Sheffield United Women in FA Women’s Superleague ( The Yorkshire Post , Sept 2020) Maddy Cusack agrees new deal with Sheffield United Women ( The Star , June 2021) Maddy Cusack: Long-serving Sheffield United midfielder commits to club for another season ( The Star , May 2022) Ackatsis ( talk ) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A couple of sentences specifically on Cusack does not pass GNG. Contract signings is routine coverage. If it wasn't then every footballer who signs a couple of contracts would be entitled to a Wiki article. Dougal18 ( talk ) 18:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there would not be any discussion, if this would be a male player. -- Marcus Cyron ( talk ) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Marcus Cyron. -- Marbe166 ( talk ) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Think enough time has passed that there is significant coverage about her unfortunate passing. Though I think her footballing career also passes GNG. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs ) 01:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agreed with above arguments, lots of coverage. I note the article also references news coverage during her career. Resonant Dis tor tion 12:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bhoj Raj Seth: Additionally, there is a discrepancy regarding the Eular Medal; it is claimed to have been awarded in 1958, but records suggest that it did not exist until 1993. nearlyevil 665 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . nearlyevil 665 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Analyzing Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ; The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Sources which were written by scholars addressed he won the Leonhard Euler Gold Medal in 1958. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics). He was elected as a Fellow of Indian National Science Academy as well as Indian Academy of Sciences (1936) with well relaible sources. (See here ) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions: The subject was the pioneer vice chancellor of Dibrugarh University , a public university in 1966 which already qualifies notability. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. According to the article, He was a professor of Engineering whose life spanned through mathematics and added impact to science. The article states; Seth was a lecturer of applied mathematics who taught in IIT Kharagpur and was considered a notable impact to that field in the 20th century (see it here The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Already a Pioneer vice chancellor! The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Already had publications on notable academic papers and books. Search Google and books to see more of his books, that's why the article bears, Selected publications. (See here ) The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. The article again goes; He was the editor of Journal of Science and Engineering Research of the Indian Institute of Technology with a verifiable source. Otuọcha ( talk ) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If we can indeed establish from a reliable source that he won the Leonhard Euler Gold Medal, would indeed satisfy C2. I am unclear what a "pioneer vice chancellor" is but if this is equivalent to being the president of a university, it would meet C6 as well. If this can be clarified by someone, it would be appreciated. Unfortunately I disagree with Otuọcha about his meeting the other criteria (for example the Journal of Science and Engineering Research of the Indian Institute of Technology is probably not a "major, well-established academic journal") but it would not matter, since meeting only one criterion of WP:NPROF is sufficient. Qflib ( talk ) 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In retrospect, subject may indeed meet C3 if he is a fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Qflib ( talk ) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, Vice Chancellor is equivalent to President. He's not in the right field for the ICA Euler medal that the article links to; this INSA obit says it was the Euler medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences (and he wasn't the only recipient of it that year , at least). Adam Sampson ( talk ) 01:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly believe C6 already passed him since it was correctly sources. For the award, was backed also with a reference from Google books, it obviously needs additional back up but from the website of a notable science academy, it was clearly written, so it's is reliable source. More researches need to be made on that award in general, cause I am seeing it went on defunct after the 1957 award till after ten years, could that be correct? Otuọcha ( talk ) 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But a journal or publication of a National society is also notable.... Otuọcha ( talk ) 06:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Subject passes C6 of WP:NPROF , which is sufficient. Article needs more details and others need corrections, but this is an argument for improving the page, not deleting it. Qflib ( talk ) 02:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

McAdam High School: talk . 00:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Canada . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG , as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, quick question, Why is this particular school notable and how does it meet WP:GNG? 1keyhole ( talk ) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Delete - No Reliable Sources Found. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful if editors could show some sources, or explain where they looked when they found none. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources on ProQuest , and included quotes from the sources behind paywalls. I have not yet tracked down the exact time frame of the school's alternative title, McAdam Composite High School , but so far I found that name in use from the early 1950s through about 1984. At any rate, this tiny school does meet GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 00:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Would be great if deletionists would make a cursory effort to find sources before nominating. There's plenty here.   — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a vote you have to actually state reasons why you believe this article meets the requirements. 1keyhole ( talk ) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "there's plenty here" is an argument. Nominating something for deletion without doing any cursory search for sources is just lazy and wasting people's time.   — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did make an effort and I stand by submitting this article for deletion. I think an experienced administrator will review the references and agree that most of these references are trivial and some are passing mentions. 1keyhole ( talk ) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a high school in Canada that has been around awhile. Not surprisingly there turn out to be plenty of sources. 1keyhole , it's not the state of the article that determines if it is notable and should be kept, it's whether sources WP:NEXIST . — Grand'mere Eugene has done a great job of demonstrating that they do. 1keyhole , a quick Google search is often insufficient, especially with subjects that are old enough to predate the internet that have had some name changes. Sources do not have to be online, and even when they are online, they are often out of reach of the search engine. A good WP:BEFORE investigation can be hard, but not doing it thoroughly can waste a lot of time for a lot of people. Jacona ( talk ) 22:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It seems high schools in Canada almost always turn out to be notable because sources exist whether or not they've been added in the article. This article had been short of them, but hey! , they are in it now. A thorough before could have saved us all some time here. This article has the sustained significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore should be kept. Jacona ( talk ) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the recent WP:HEY effort. Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 06:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Marilynne Paspaley: Fails the general , actor , and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In 2008 she received an Order of Australia so immediately satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. The Paspaleys are a notable Australian family. I will endeavour to add more to the page but as noted, it already meets notability criteria. Cabrils ( talk ) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but not because of the AM as it is lower on the list of Australian honours ( nice summary ), but based on coverage. National Library of Australia has a book of Biographical cuttings on Marilynne Paspaley, actress, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals ] and articles such as this . Cosic, Miriam (5 October 2000), "Pearl Queen - Marilynne Paspaley and the making of a Top End empire - Family jewel", The Australian Magazine is 3104 words and gives lots of details. Caccetta, Wendy (16 May 2010), "Queen of the Kimberley", STM Gloss Magazine is 1966 words, has lots of direct quotes but still good. Stage shows include God's Best Country which received 4 articles of coverage and more more the next year. And Falling From Grace which got 4 reviews plus this . this and this might be useful too. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources supporting subject's notability , as already related above. Meets WP:GNG head on. - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jackson Fear: Also fails WP:NOLY . LibStar ( talk ) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] del ; confirm nom's findings. - Altenmann >talk 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Newspapers.com has a very limited amount of Australian newspapers. Despite this, enough coverage to pass WP:GNG is able to be found on Fear, see for example Sydney Morning Herald feature , full-page The Age article , some more Morning Herald coverage , and then some more from The Age , among others . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep thanks to the SIGCOV found by BeanieFan11. Clear GNG pass and then some. JTtheOG ( talk ) 05:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jayne Fenton Keane: No coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO . Articles that link to this are mainly "List of ..." LibStar ( talk ) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Poetry , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have enough for WP:BASIC In-depth biography (~800+ words?) in The Facts on File Companion to World Poetry by R. Victoria Arana, [21] In-depth review of work including SIGCOV of the subject in Australian Women's Book Review [22] . Additionally, this subject seems to be highly regarded and awarded for multi-media poetry over several years, including an ATOM award in 2003, a Newcastle Poetry Prize in 2019 and more. — siro χ o 06:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources located by Siroxo . Jfire ( talk ) 14:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

X-Arcade: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If by dubious gaming magazines you mean Pcmag and IGN both have been deemed reliable by wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources . I’m not sure if that is enough to keep the article but thr sourcing appears to be fine unless I’m missing something . -- 67.70.101.104 ( talk ) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to the 2 reliable sources already in the article, there's an additional 2 reliable source reviews by Joystiq (now hosted by Engadget ): [44] and Nintendo World Report: [45] -- Mika1h ( talk ) 20:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep combining the sources in the article plus the ones added in this discussion means we have four wources deemed reliable by the wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources which should be enough to avoid deletion.-- 67.70.101.104 ( talk ) 20:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Lukáš Jánošík: The only news website I found regarding him is an injury , but something tells me that it's more of a trivial mention. Using the keyword "Lukáš Janošík" on Google, even with "site:.sk", my search results only came up with database, club websites, passing mentions, and *facepalm* random namesakes. Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Slovakia . Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Over 130 first-tier games over a 9-year period, 2016–17 league champion as well as one stint playing abroad - usually doesn't look like a deletion candidate. I haven't had the time to look for sources yet. Geschichte ( talk ) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Some quick links, assessment later. [26] [27] [28] [29] Geschichte ( talk ) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added two references and expanded the page past stub status. If nominator @ CuteDolphin712 : agrees these count as "in-depth coverage to meet GNG" I would request an early close here. C 679 11:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only possible GNG material is Mladá fronta Dnes, which you added on "MSK Žilina" sub-heading (first and second paragraph). The rest of additional sources are routine announcements. Clara A. Djalim ( talk ) 12:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources presented here which show notability. Giant Snowman 07:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Some more: [30] [31] [32] [33] (paywalled) Geschichte ( talk ) 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hi, he is still playing Slovak first division for Michalovce https://www.transfermarkt.com/lukas-janosik/leistungsdaten/spieler/403298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svk fan ( talk • contribs ) 19:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , Per above. Clearly signficant figure in Slovak league football with over 100+ appearamces and ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 23:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Geschichte and @ Cloudz679 sources. There is much more coverage than a simple mention of an injury, enough to establish WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 03:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cooper's (bakery): PARVAGE talk! 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Bangladesh . PARVAGE talk! 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that the sourcing on this one is a little patchy - but Bangladesh's Daily Star is pretty much it for English language media there and the rather purple tone of its journalism is about the standard. The nominator clearly has faced many CIR issues, including a current indefinite block, so there's that, too. And yet a 50-odd-branch chain of bakeries employing 500 people in Bangladesh would be analogous to something like Gregg's in the UK. So I'm going to IAR a little and propose this (also a mildly charming story) is kept. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there any non-English coverage which would put this one beyond a reasonable doubt? SportingFlyer T · C 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found one more source, SportingFlyer , and sort of wish I hadn't (it was the death notice for Sufia Cooper)... Came up a blank with my Google Translate attempts at Bengali... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 00:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without prejudice given situation with nominator. — siro χ o 10:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nick Quintana: Joeykai ( talk ) 17:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Quintana meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [ [51] ] and [ [52] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 00:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The profile in the Arizona Daily Star states that it's a countdown of the "50 best athletes on the University of Arizona campus right now, with help from athletes, coaches, and those close to the program." This is not going to be fully independent coverage, and the fact that the author is doing these profiles for 50 current student-athletes at the school suggests this is closer to a routine local news profile. Note also that the author attended the same school, where he was presumably quite affiliated with Wildcats sporting staff through working at the school newspaper. The combination of all these factors makes me discount this source. The other news piece (from the same outlet) is a passing mention totaling two sentences on him. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per below. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Let'srun found some coverage that can contribute to GNG, but if that and what's in the article is all there is, it's short of where I put the GNG bar. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There appears to be a good amount of coverage of him, e.g. Arizona Daily Star feature , another , another , another , then MLive , Detroit Free Press , The Arizona Republic , Detroit News , Baseball America , etc. @ JoelleJay and Muboshgu : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two non-ADS are announcements that are routine for baseball coverage, the third is actually also by ADS, but the Detroit News one looks good. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I’m unable to access the ADS sources by Beanie, so I can’t comment on those. For the others, Detroit Free Press and Arizona Republic are both routine draft coverage and MLive is a retirement post that isn’t substantial. Of interest is Detroit News and Baseball America, which both cover Quintana’s struggles in the minors. While both have substantial content, plenty of other minor league players also struggle, don’t make it, and unfortunately don’t get an article as there wasn’t other notable coverage. There just isn’t anything else going for Quintana like being a top prospect that busted (he was a second-rounder with some power) that builds enough of a case to pass WP:GNG for me. Sources in article are mostly statistical and the sources provided by Letsrun is based on his time in college that seems routine. Searches for other sources just drew up more local college coverage or minor league trades that happen all the time. RolledOut34 // ( talk ) // ( cont ) 04:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ADS sources are all extensive in-depth feature stories on Quintana. The Detroit News and Baseball America both do count towards GNG as whether "plenty of other minor league players struggle" is irrelevant; what matters is whether they have significant coverage which is all that is necessary for GNG. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG with the multiple feature articles posted by BeanieFan11. Hatman31 ( talk ) 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Beanie's findings. - Skipple ☎ 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep