Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

2024 South African provincial elections: User was BOLD in creating it, but there are individual articles for the provincial elections, and the results summary (which is all it is) belongs on the main page, where it was cut from. It also does not attribute the source article. Greenman ( talk ) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Greenman ( talk ) 10:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. This should really just be on the main article. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 12:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the primary article is already very large, and it should remain mostly focused on the national parliamentary election. I propose keeping this article, and removing all the repeating content from the primary one. If length is an issue, there are better things to remove from the main article than the results summary. That page cannot display endless opinion polls, various trivia in the leadup etc., but not display the results :) Greenman ( talk ) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] MapperGuy87 ( talk ) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — The original article is very long and a page for subdivisional elections is common for systems like this. This page could be more in-depth but it makes far more sense to put a shorter summary (probably in a table form) on the "general election" page and keep the in-depth stuff here. Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 01:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think you've assessed the situation correctly. There are already in-depth (or what can become in-depth) pages for each individual provincial election. This intermediate page serves no purpose. The summary that it currently contains should be on the main page, and in-depth coverage should be on the individual pages. Greenman ( talk ) 13:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No I'm aware, this is just a common element of approaches to similar systems. There are intermediate pages to link elections on the same subdivision level; for example: despite the fact that pretty much every locality's elections had a specific page, the 2024 United Kingdom local elections article exists and helps link the elections. An even better example are pages like 2022 United States gubernatorial elections or 2023 Nigerian gubernatorial elections , these intermediate pages are common and serve a purpose. If we wanted to completely overhaul the 2024 South African election pages, these examples could be models: there'd be an overview page ("2024 South African elections" based on 2024 United States elections ) with a tables and short summaries on national, provincial, and local (by-) elections; there'd be separate 2024 South African general election and 2024 South African provincial elections pages; and there'd be pages for each provincial election. This would shorten each article and avoid the current overlap of each page. Those are just my suggestions and probably too much work, but I'm still a Keep for this discussion. Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems reasonable to have a summary article that keeps all the provincial election results in one place and links out to more detailed articles. As Watercheetah says, this is fairly standard practice (e.g. 2023 Italian regional elections ). Number 5 7 21:46, 11 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! 22:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Number 57; useful as a summary page. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:49, 20 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

Betty Ann Camunez: WP:BEFORE check comes up with no WP:SIGCOV Let'srun ( talk ) 02:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Nomination due to nominator's POV. Passes GNG. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How exactly? Did you even do a WP:BEFORE check? A simple search of her name literally turns up no secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a mention that supports her claim as the first Hispanic woman admitted to the bar in Colorado and New Mexico, but it is passing coverage. Here is an article from when she was a Ford Foundation Fellow . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 20:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Colorado , and New Mexico . Kpg jhp jm 04:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG Qwv ( talk ) 23:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from participants about the quality of the specific sources in the article and those that exist off-wiki. Neither saying simply "Fails GNG" nor "Meets GNG" is very persuasive. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is already on two Wikipedia and Wikiwand pages, List of first women lawyers and judges in Colorado List of first women lawyers and judges in New Mexico She is also referenced by Stanford Law School in their Women's Legal History Project . The biography fulfills WP:GNG guidelines. Starlighsky ( talk ) 04:02, 10 July 2023 Keep passes GNG Andre 🚐 03:16, 16 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

Andheri West metro station: The article doesn't provide any useful information apart from the ones duplicated in every Mumbai Metro station article. Every article I listed below is identical if they belong to the same metro line(except the title), no individual SIGCOV can be found. I am also nominating the following related pages because of their similarity: Benniganahalli metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Bopodi metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (redirect to Purple Line (Pune Metro) ) Challaghatta metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (expanded) Dapodi metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (redirect to Purple Line (Pune Metro) ) Deccan Gymkhana metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (expanded) Lower Malad metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lower Oshiwara metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Malad West metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Mangalwar Peth metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (redirect to Aqua Line (Pune Metro) ) Oshiwara metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) PMC Bhavan metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (expanded) Pune Railway Station metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (Can be merged to Pune Junction railway station ) Ruby Hall Clinic metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (redirect to Aqua Line (Pune Metro) ) Shivaji Nagar metro station (Pune) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) (expanded) Valnai metro station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect any that cannot be expanded to either Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations or List of Namma Metro stations (I have a very slight preference for the former but am happy with either target). While there appears to be little information available at the moment (I've only looked at a couple) they are all highly plausible search terms and so should redirect to the information we do have in one of the aforementioned articles until such time as they can be expanded. Thryduulf ( talk ) 08:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Thryduulf and @ Timothytyy , The metro stations "Benniganahalli" and "Challeghatta" are getting ready and are set to become operational in the third week of September. I request you to consider "undeletion" only for those 2 wikipages. More information are to be added when nearing the operational dates. Hope to see some good response from your side. Thank You, Sameer Kumar. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you guarantee that individual SIGCOV will be provided to those two stations? Because even operational stations don't have individual coverage according to my research. As every article contains similar information, it would be a nice choice to add the information to the metro line's article. That would be more organized while it does pass GNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can guarantee that individual SIGVOC will be provided. Sorry for the late response since I just checked your reply to my blog. Pls give me 2 weeks time and I'll get the required information. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 05:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Thryduulf and @ Timothytyy , I hope the SIGCOV provided is useful for those stations. Please let me know if any changes to be made and hoping to get the response from your side. Thank you. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources provided do not provide individual SIGCOV. For example, the sources you provided in Benniganahalli metro station are just coverage about the line, not the station. Check Cockfosters tube station for an idea about individual SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk ) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect I can prove the GNG and SIGCOV for some of the articles from Pune Metro listed in here. Other pages can be reinstated to their previous redirects which existed before expanding them. I'll notify here once I'm done with the updates. Just one question - after redirecting the pages, would it be possible to restore the expanded versions in the future when SIGCOV is available? Let me know about it DesiBoy101 ( talk ) 05:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course restoring is possible, but remember SIGCOV requires independent, detailed coverage from non-subject-affiliated reliable sources . Timothytyy ( talk ) 06:36, 4 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! 05:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello again. I've added my comments in the list above after updating the articles from Pune Metro. Request you to take a look and take the suggested action accordingly. Regards - DesiBoy101 ( talk ) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Timothytyy , pinging for your attention. It would be nice if Pune Metro articles are delisted from this AfD soon as per suggestions above. DesiBoy101 ( talk ) 02:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I am the nominator so I cannot close the discussion. Also for the expansions some articles are still failing GNG, e.g. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan. The sources you added still doesn't provide significant coverage. Timothytyy ( talk ) 02:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If editors want these article redirected, you need to list each article and its redirect target article. The closer can't guess what you are thinking. Without supplying specific target articles for each article listed, this likely will close as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After some discussion, I propose the following: Redirect Benniganahalli metro station , Challaghatta metro station to Purple Line (Namma Metro) Redirect Bopodi metro station , Dapodi metro station to Purple Line (Pune Metro) Redirect Lower Malad metro station , Lower Oshiwara metro station , Malad West metro station , Oshiwara metro station and Valnai metro station to Line 2 (Mumbai Metro) Redirect Mangalwar Peth metro station , Ruby Hall Clinic metro station to Aqua Line (Pune Metro) Keep PMC Bhavan metro station and Shivaji Nagar metro station (Pune) Need consensus on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Udyan metro station and Deccan Gymkhana metro station about whether source 3 contributes to GNG Merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station Any objections? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all . As evident from Timothy's latest comments, each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion. Rather than a bulk nomination, perhaps nominate one station where you believe that you might have a case? gidonb ( talk ) 14:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all . Tube stations in other parts of the world have articles on them (e.g. Oxford Circus tube station ), so I do not see why Indian tube stations are automatically non-notable. What does not help are editors who think that "only now counts" and delete citations to events like stations opening, etc. Over time it will be possible for articles on Indian tube stations to grow. Destroying the "seed corn" articles prevents this from happening. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I second that. Information available about the stations will continue to grow as the time progresses and thus help in article improvement. - DesiBoy101 ( talk ) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toddy1 Invalid comment. You cannot assume notability of one article by comparing it with other articles; after all, Tube stations have a long history and there is sufficient SIGCOV; however, no individual coverage is provided for Indian metro stations, at least according to my research. @ Gidonb , as you can see, most articles can be redirected, only some need further consensus and some have been improved, so I don't see why "each station is its own case and deserves a serious discussion". To me they are all very similar (except the two articles which have been expanded after my nomination). The merge is equivalent to a redirection. The difference in redirection target doesn't mean that there should be separate discussions, as all targets are similar in nature. Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that we can go out with a broad brush and claim that metro stations in different cities and even states resemble each other, just because all are in India. Each station would need to be discussed on its own merrits (i.e. the existence of sources per WP:NEXIST , NOT the current state of sourcing) and I will warn upfront that I am going to be lenient with sources as we have a MAJOR problem with equity in coverage between developed and developing nations, alongside a real problem with sources in developing nations. That said, I would like to be constructive. YOUR BEST CASE here is to merge Pune Railway Station metro station into Pune Junction railway station . I'm happy to get behind that! gidonb ( talk ) 07:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your frustration, the articles about Chinese stations created by me also got redirected because few Chinese sources are defined as reliable (e.g. WeChat and Sina are the major news sources, but unfortunately they aren't reliable). Frustrations aside, I still need to uphold the guidelines. The articles fail GNG; you cannot disprove that (unless you can provide SIGCOV, even local sources are ok, in that case welcome). You mentioned NEXIST; however, I cannot find any independent reliable coverage of the stations. WP:TRAINSTATION, an SNG, has long been deprecated. Also, I don't see any harm of removing articles with no extra information ; the articles I nominated are almost identical, and readers cannot get any useful information out of it other than a few specific parameters which may not interest most readers, not backed up by RS, and can be shown in a list of stations. After all, Wikipedia strives for quality , not quantity. Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I subscribe to these policies, well before yet another passionate response ;-) If you feel that there is a strong case somewhere hidden among all these metro stations in different cities and states, you could go ahead and nominate that station. gidonb ( talk ) 13:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all - Not only is this far too many articles for a batch AfD, but major metro stations of a major metropolitan city are inherently notable. It is impossible for there not to be extensive government reports, surveys, budgets and other records on such projects. As mentioned above we have articles on stations of every other major city. I honestly doubt anyone would even think of AfDing any of the similar London Underground , Berlin U-Bahn or Paris Metro stations. Is this a case of systemic bias ? Oakshade ( talk ) 03:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your comment is WP:OTHERSTUFF . Articles exist not because of inherited notability but because of coverage. If you cannot provide SIGCOV about those stations, they fail GNG and I see no reason to keep them. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothytyy, you have had your say. There is no need for you to sandwich everybody else's comment with an explanation of why you disagree with them. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toddy1 Do you think your stance is supported by relevant guidelines? You don't seem to understand how notability works. No users supporting keeping provided a valid criterion; you two's comments are just nice examples of OTHERSTUFF votes. Timothytyy ( talk ) 12:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors are divided between Redirection and Keeping articles and there is an underlying critique from some editors of such a large bundled nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose it's apropos that a discussion about metro stations may end in a trainwreck. In lieu of source hunting or verifying, which is hard in such cases, I'm going to suggest Keep all because of Multiple have notability established at this point. One editor was !voting redirect in hopes of quickly restoring several that may have SIGCOV. One editor is concerned about WP:NOTTEMPORARY and removal of references. Other implicity trainwreck !votes. Good faith nominator got pinged back a couple times, and is now accidentally bludgeoning the discussion, unfortunately making it even harder to follow for every new editor to arrive here, meaning I don't think the situation is going to improve at this point. — siro χ o 05:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all per all keep votes above. These should not be bundled into a single nomination but judged on individual merits. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all as a bad bundle, with no prejudice to re-AfDing in a more individual fashion. Bundling stations from different lines and especially different cities is highly likely to not succeed. AfDs that bundle stations only from one line in my opinion will product the most significant results. Jumpytoo Talk 04:27, 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

Battle of Khartoum (2023): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. As this conflict shows no sign of ending, as well as the fact that this will eventually differ heavily in the future from the 2023 Sudan conflict , primarily because there will be more battling in other cities. The reason there is similar information on this one to the aforementioned Sudanese conflict is because there isn't too much information as of now because this conflict has only just begun. Vlaseesabas ( talk ) 22:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is multiple battles in multiple cities TheVoltigeur ( talk ) 17:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Multiple battles, but this is a very prominent one it also has been labeled a battle by several news sources: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/dozens-killed-hundreds-injured-as-battle-for-control-of-sudan-rages-on https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sustained-firing-heard-sudanese-capital-amid-tensions-98603891 https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-04-16/dozens-killed-as-army-and-rivals-battle-for-control-of-sudan And the list goes, I think we should keep this article. NYMan6 ( talk ) 18:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge as most of the focus at least for now is about Khartoum and there is not that much about other regions (at least covered notably). The main article about the events is well structured and to populate this article you will need to copy and paste from the main article FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 08:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The coup attempt/clashes have spread across multiple cities, and Khartoum is the most notable along with sufficient information in Khartoum alone to designate its own article. Jebiguess ( talk ) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly not a separate event from 2023 Sudan clashes . The sources are all covering that as one event. 25stargeneral ( talk ) 21:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2023 Sudanese conflict has spread not only in Khartoum , this is the worst battle of the conflict so far, with civilian deaths, military captures of stratregic buildings and has been shown prominetly on the media as a battle, not only to forget this is the capital of the country. NYMan6 ( talk ) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Heres another source: https://www.voanews.com/a/fierce-fighting-between-sudan-s-army-and-paramilitary-in-coup-attempt/7051941.html NYMan6 ( talk ) 22:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article is focused on the conflict as a whole, not something called a “Battle of Khartoum”. So it seems to support my point. 25stargeneral ( talk ) 01:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The clashes are not only in Khartoum they are a nationwide thing, this is the part where most of the news coverage is being located at only, the name "Battle of Khartoum" has been used by various sources, This has enough information and prominence to designate it's own article as a whole NYMan6 ( talk ) 19:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You've not presented any sources showing that the conflict has substantially spread outside of Khartoum. The Kip ( talk ) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes there have been many sources including: Omdurman source: [ https://apnews.com/article/sudan-fighting-hospitals-db1a36308e64f46e7d64de75b4a19598 ] " Six out of the twenty hospitals in Khartoum and it's neighboring city, Omdurman have shutdown ". Omdurman source #2 [ https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/dozens-killed-army-rivals-battle-control-sudan-98614697 ] " Fighting was also reported in Khartoum, Omdurman and large attacks at the Khartoum International Airport " Omdurman and Khartoum North source #3 [ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-sparked-the-violent-conflict-to-control-the-future-of-sudan ] On the photo title it states the following: " Smoke ries near Halfaya Bridge between Omdurman and Khartoum North. NYMan6 ( talk ) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not necessarily. Khartoum is the epicenter of the clashes and the capital of the country, so most news outlets cover Khartoum and Sudan as one thing, but articles about other cities and Khartoum alone exist. See Nyala [21] ,Khartoum Intl Airport [22] , this article with tons of information on Khartoum itself [23] , and satellite images of Khartoum [24] . There are more than enough reliable sources to uphold the page without a content fork. Jebiguess ( talk ) 13:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The conflict has reached day 5 and is still ongoing with no signs of stopping, as clashes in Darfur and Southern Sudan as well as locations north of Khartoum become more well-known there is clearly going to be enough information for both this article and the conflict itself to remain separate Sailingsmooth5 ( talk ) 01:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just because sources aren't covering other events taking place in numerous other cities doesn't invalidate the events in the capital as separate 31.205.122.127 ( talk ) 09:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As previously mentioned in this discussion, the clashes have spread across the entire country. Having a specific page for the most important and largest battle of the current clashes allows more information to be specifically given on this one sector of the front, while the general article on the clashes allows for a wider overview of it. HarmfulHurdle91 ( talk ) 00:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we actually have enough information for two articles on this subject? Because it seems to me the answer is no, since all I’m seeing is a WP:Content fork . Just because we want more information doesn’t mean we have it. 25stargeneral ( talk ) 01:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Sudan clashes . There are zero mentions of a 2023 "Battle of Khartoum" in the media. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't find any reason to merge, the media has referred to the situation in Khartoum as a battle several times, and some of the sources I listed above have proof of such NYMan6 ( talk ) 19:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A notable engagement part of the ongoing crisis, and many media refers to the situation in Khartoum as a battle as NYMan6 had mentioned. Yxuibs ( talk ) 02:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep The clashes taking place specifically in the Khartoum area are probably notable enough to merit a separate article. If not, that will become clear later (see WP:LAGGING ). Clashes are taking place all over the country. Covering the ones in the capital, Omdurman, etc. would most definitely not be a content fork. Draftifying is not only quite unnecessary, but would make the article much less visible, attracting far fewer editors. Absolutely not! Furthermore, I’m not sure why the nominator acted so swiftly, without allowing the real-world situation to unfold and become more notable. There’s no deadline . RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Totally agree @ RadioactiveBoulevardier NYMan6 ( talk ) 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . If this situation develops further into a war, then this would be a part of it and we move draft into mainspace. If it fizzles out soon, then we incorporate this into the 2023 Sudan clashes Bremps! 05:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't need drafts, this article will most likely be forgotten, this fits the category of a battle and has sufficent sources and enough evidence from the media to give it it's name and it's title as a "battle" NYMan6 ( talk ) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue is that the battle and the clashes are effectively one and the same for now. You've created an article that already exists. The Kip ( talk ) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The clashes article is about the country as a whole, this article is for only Khartoum not the full on 2023 Sudan clashes, if were going to make this a productive and good article, we'd have to think about it, most of the article, ( 2023 Sudan clashes ), is full of statements and texts mainly about Khartoum for literally three whole paragraphs, I understand that this is a serious part of it and you probably will find a lot of news coverage and recent coverage about it, but you guys should start reporting in things like Darfur , Nyala and Merowe instead of Khartoum, And put the parts about Khartoum into a section about the battle but smaller and with a link with (See also) at the top of the text for people to enter the main article. Make the article more reliable and full of a lot more information of other occupations/captures across the country. Do you understand @ The Kip NYMan6 ( talk ) 20:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be quite honest I don’t, considering what you’ve written is one singular run-on sentence. The simple fact is everything contained within the battle article is already within the clashes article. It’s redundant, and especially considering the state of the two, with all due respect please don’t lecture myself or others on what we should do. The Kip ( talk ) 20:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not lecturing just supporting my claim on this, as you can see their are still lot's of information you should put instead of the tons of sentences you have put in the article, and just give the people reading the article an understanding of the battle. NYMan6 ( talk ) 21:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't been able to add any new information to the page because I've been busy cleaning up the quite honestly incomprehensible grammatical errors your additions have contained. Even your response above is one run-on, comma-heavy sentence that barely makes sense. I understand your enthusiasm, I really do, but please, just stop for a little bit. Review WP:MOS , run your edits through Grammarly, do something so that your content additions are coherent and myself and others don't have to undertake near-constant cleanup work. The Kip ( talk ) 03:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going take a break for a while today, I know and understand your claim and your ongoing feedback and am trying my best to improve this article. I have noticed my grammar towards this article has gradually improved to the point where we no longer need the large/excessive clean-ups we saw the past week, primarily those are now used for when I upload new updates to the article. I'll tell you I am trying my best to make this a great article. Thank you , NYMan6 ( talk ) 14:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a battle of the ongoing clashes so, keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasoliveira653 ( talk • contribs ) 14:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify For the moment, there's not much of an indication that the clashes have spread heavily outside of Khartoum, which makes this article redundant. However, wouldn't recommend deletion until the situation as a whole plays itself out. The Kip ( talk ) 23:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Replying to @ The Kip Draftitfying it would hide it from editors, this article would be forgotten later on, more information is being added constently, I wouldn't put it into a draft, this is a very prominent event currently. NYMan6 ( talk ) 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftifying is necessary when the entire article is redundant. There's little to no coverage of this battle separate from the clashes as a whole, and the article itself is effectively "airport, palace, military base," also documented in the main article, on continuous repeat. Considering the current state of the grammar and content, this article arguably should've never been published in the first place. The Kip ( talk ) 23:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, when lots of content is being added by non-native editors (especially IP editors), there are bound to be some grammar errors. If you see something, do something and fix it. Secondly, the daily timeline structure in the main article is an ad hoc layout that will be restructured if the clashes last long enough. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is it's not IP editors but a registered one, and it's not minor errors but a near-incoherent structure to the article as a whole that I've repeatedly had to clean up. I encourage you to take a look at the talk page as well as earlier revisions; I'm not going to continuously play janitor here. The Kip ( talk ) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - All the arguments supporting drafting the article looks to be more valid than the people arguing to keep it. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 13:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously, this is what's heavily frustrating me. I'm afraid an admin will see all the keep votes and assume it should be kept, when in reality most keep votes are voting that way simply because "well, it's notable!" rather than legitimately assessing whether the article should even exist - which it honestly shouldn't, as almost everything within it is already covered in 2023 Sudanese clashes . The Kip ( talk ) 17:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Considering the escalation of this conflict. I'm inclined to say keep now. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The crisis is escalating into a civil war. TankDude2000 ( talk ) 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CRYSTALBALL , and your argument moreso applies to the main 2023 Sudanese clashes article, not this "battle. " The Kip ( talk ) 17:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft Weakish Keep - The grammar along with the layout is horrid, and we should maybe wait to see what notability this may have in the greater picture. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber ) - 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Modified because I think due to the situation I've seen, it may be notable enough, but I still stand that the article needs serious copyediting. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber ) - 21:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Struck wholly because I have a new opinion. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber ) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of grammar has been revised @ L'Mainerque especially last night, the citations have been revised, the grammar looks way more better now. It's notability has grown strong as of right now. NYMan6 ( talk ) 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the person who revised effectively all of the many, many grammar issues you created, I’m going to once again state this article still should not have even seen the light of day until being reviewed as a draft. The Kip ( talk ) 21:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This appears to be notable enough to be retained as a separate article, without merging into 2023 Sudanese clashes . — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs ) 19:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Had this battle been fought and won within 24 hours then yeah it could have been merged. Right now the main article is like 75KB, so WP:SIZE is a factor here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another great claim here, @ Knowledgekid87 this article is growing in size constantly, KB might grow rapidly. NYMan6 ( talk ) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered; It is still ongoing; in history, it might later on be very important, and deleting it too early would be not very good. Thehistorianisaac ( talk ) 06:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The importance of this battle is yet to be discovered - Which is exactly why it may not be notable, see WP:CRYSTALBALL . Whether or not it is imporant in the future is irrelevant to its notability now. Also, keep in mind that deletion is not a death sentence for an article, as most articles can be recreated anyway (well, excluding these ones ). ArcticSeeress ( talk ) 19:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Very notable battle. Mentioned in multiple news outlets محرر البوق ( talk ) 06:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Definitely it's a battle-- Noel baran ( talk ) 11:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . This article was probably created too early, but now I would say there are enough references to keep it separate from the main article. For the future, I would say if this conflict wraps up relatively quickly, then a merge might be appropriate. Yeoutie ( talk ) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is a real battle occurring in a real conflict. If this article contains almost the same content that 2023 Sudan clashes contains, the events related to Khartoum should be summarized in the main article, with a link to Battle of Khartoum (2023) in case readers want to read a more detailed version of the events in Khartoum. Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 21:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've observed the progress of this conflict and this discussion, and I have come to the decision to keep this article. As this conflict is now countrywide and has been going on for a bit, I think a separate article for the Battle in Khartoum is reasonable. - L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber ) - 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets notability for event, WP:GNG . It is distinct enough from the article that is merge target to be kept seperate. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 20:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a battle of the ongoing clashes. There are still many foreign civilians involved. -- Peter39c ( talk ) 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This battle will almost certainly be remembered as a distinct installment in the conflict. Maximajorian Viridio ( talk ) 13:00, 23 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

Scott McGregor (television presenter): 2 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar ( talk ) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and Australia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes NACTOR with his roles in 1915 (Logie Winner) and The Coral Island (TV series) and GNG with the likes of [5] , Willis, Robyn (21 November 1993), "Scott's train of thought", The Sun Herald , - Stevenson, Andrew (2 October 1999), "End of the line", The Daily Telegraph , - Browne, Rachel (30 January 2000), "The handyman can - Cover story", The Sun Herald , and probably the Biographical cuttings on Scott McGregor, former actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals (which comes from searching for "Scott McGregor" 1915). duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes NACTOR due to many roles in TV series and as a TV presenter. Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per multiple major TV appearances and aforementioned refs. Happily888 ( talk ) 01:42, 31 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

Marti Group: Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH . GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland . GSS 💬 10:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a major Swiss engineering company. According to de:Marti Holding , their annual turnover is more than a billion Swiss francs. Anyway, a quick search in Swiss Google News confirms notability immediately: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . — Kusma ( talk ) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kusma : Thank you for finding these sources. Although I can't read German, Google Translate revealed that the second source is routine coverage with no significant detail on the company, and the fourth source is just a passing mention, both of which fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH . However, the third one provides some depth about the company. The first source requires a subscription, so I am unable to review it; let's wait for others to check it. Additionally, it's a bit confusing whether the article is about a group of companies or an individual company, as the article on de-wiki is titled Marti Holding . If the article is kept, the title should be adjusted accordingly. GSS 💬 13:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the articles will talk about what the company does, and go into depth about their projects, and not about the company itself. I think that should be expected of most companies, but especially of private and construction companies who are not usually in the spotlight. With that said, as Kusma noted, even information about the company itself can be found to establish notability. The article is intentionally meant to be about the entire group, as I think that their internal company structure and who does what is not easy to decipher for the public and it's also not interesting. Marti Holding is a holding company that owns a lot of others, but in a sense it's just one of many official entities and less relevant. They call themselves Marti Group on their own official channels and that's why I named it as such. Fejesjoco ( talk ) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A deal worth a billion dollars for a significant part of Central Europe's greatest infrastructure project may be "routine coverage" to you. To me, it indicates that we should have an article about this company. It is an embarrassment that we did not have one ten years ago. — Kusma ( talk ) 15:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the past hour, I added some sources found by Kusma and some others by me. These go in depth about the company so these should satisfy the notability and coverage depth criteria, much better than the average in this category. Additionally, since at one point you wanted to delete the article on grounds of being promotional, I added a section about a controversy of theirs, with even more direct news coverage sources. Fejesjoco ( talk ) 18:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (but I'm biased). With recent edits to the article, the concerns raised should be eliminated by now. BTW found another strong source [5] a university research project. The talk page lists additional ideas for extending the article, but even without that it should be good enough already. Fejesjoco ( talk ) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Recent edits make this clear. Daask ( talk ) 11:42, 4 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

Adrabaecampi: Seems like a WP:DICDEF . The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt ( talk ) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec ( talk ) 00:50, 1 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 ) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 11 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 ) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to ! vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec ( talk ) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec ( talk ) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @ Srnec Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [22] [23] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli ( talk ) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ( [24] ) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines , and is 100% a WP:DICDEF . Also, this article is currently useless . TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea. @ Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure that this is simply useless . What I get from TNT is that a clean restart saves a lot of time and is sometimes beneficial when the page has too many major problems. This is obviously not the case here. As I have already pointed out, this tribe is a part of a major tribe (Kampoi), which is the actual focus of the German Wikipedia entry. I believe moving and expanding is also an option as I have found several more sources here . At best, this could be merged into another article. I am pretty much opposed to deletion at this point. Aintabli ( talk ) 05:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't see a sensible place to merge this. A merge would be better, if anyone has an idea of where it should go. And I think this should be renamed to match the name of the German article, which is about the broader group this is a sub-group of. But I do think that broader group is notable. The source linked in the de-wiki article gives us about an entire page of text, with the heading Kampoi , in a specialist encyclopedia. -- asilvering ( talk ) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added the German Wiki stuff. Unimpressive, but enough to keep . Didn't add the German Wiki source. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:18, 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

Mohamed Vishal: The article is promotional and links to other articles by the same author of productions that have, at best (and being generous), dubious notability. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , Websites , and Maldives . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Main roles in 2 notable web series, among other things. And WP:NACTOR says: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (which includes web series).... .- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 19 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! 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Pass in WP:NACTOR . look like notable Worldiswide ( talk ) 10:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:NACTOR . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 13:46, 3 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

GMA Pinoy TV: Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Founded sources for the article: [21] [22] and [23] . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We're not deleting a major international network (with a good American presence) for a large diaspora; it's viewership for Eat Bulaga easily clinches WP:N itself alone. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:32, 5 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

Robert L Fletcher: I can't find any sources, the name is too common. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona . AllyD ( talk ) 07:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Significantly edited since nomination, worth a second look. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep as there are over thirty sources that establish notability about this individual. His achievements include the formation of the C.A.P. , the establishment of Fletcher Enterprises and its subsidiary Cobre Tire Company, and his company's, Fletcher Racing, participation in the California 500 and the Indianapolis 500 . Meets WP:GNG . WhichUser AmI 01:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WhichUserAmI. Article is clearly in a much better shape than it was before. Meets GNG and is definitely worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 10:08, 29 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

Death in Arizona: Boleyn ( talk ) 11:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Bolivia , and Mexico . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added a few of the numerous existing sources. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article including French sources and Remezcla , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per the reception. It needs work but the sources show that it meets notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nominations the work on this article has proven me wrong - withdrawing nomination. Thanks for all your work, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:57, 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

Connecteam: Searches for קונקטים appear to be more or less the same (e.g. [35] , [36] ) though I just dumped it at the usual English language search engines, I'm not sure if there is a more comprehensive index for Hebrew language web sources outside GBY. With these sources, it is not currently possible to write an article to our current standards (i.e. more than just a list of funding announcements) so unfortunately this company might not be suited for this encyclopedia. Perhaps it might be able to find its home on a more specialised or comprehensive publication or database, or back here at a later date. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and Israel . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the basic media coverage contributes to the subject’s notability. Also, the famous and influential Israeli newspaper the Globes named the it as the most promising station in the country. Given the power of Israel tech and venture industry that is significantly in itself. Prhinohoursers ( talk ) 22:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per nom if not A7. thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This company also seems unremarkable. Why should we have an article on them? thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per good reliable sources I've just found and added and the remaining ones. Also the company has quite noticeable/notable achievements, some industry impact and notability, demonstrated by the available references. 扱. し. 侍. ( talk ) 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What. You can't possibly think a random self-published book is a reliable source. It's not even in Italian. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:SIGCOV . MeltPees ( talk ) 17:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've analyzed the page and found some good sources already there, including Forbes staff, Jerusalem Post, and Globes with in-depth coverage. Additionally, I took the responsibility to dig deeper and added several new trustworthy sources with extensive coverage from top business news media in the US and Israel. Among the Israel-based sources are Calcalist, Globes, The Marker, etc. -- Improvised but so real unicorn ( talk ) 11:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Keep . Added the lacking Review section for the software as it is usually used across other similar pages. Significant reviews from Business.com, TechRadar, US News, and Forbes were added - both with positive and negative details. The page covers both the company and the software comprehensively with reliable sources. -- FightBrightTigh ( talk ) 10:27, 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

Sichuanese Pinyin: However, I see no evidence that "Sichuanese Pinyin" actually exists as a concept outside of Wikipedia (and a few sites which have cloned the article or used it as a source over the years). Three Sichuanese dictionaries are referenced on the article, none of which refer to the system as "Sichuanese Pinyin" (in English or Chinese), and they aren't even consistent between themselves over the systems they use (e.g. one uses ⟨ng⟩ to transcribe /ŋ/, while another uses ⟨ŋ⟩). For added context: it's common for modified versions of (standard) Pinyin to be used to transcribe Chinese (dia)lects which don't have their own romanisation systems, so the fact that that's happened with these dictionaries is unsurprising. However, for "Sichuanese Pinyin" to exist as a separate concept, you would expect (at the very least) to find multiple sources using the same system, all referring to it by that name (e.g. Cantonese Jyutping , Hokkien Pe̍h-ōe-jī , or even lesser-known systems like Hainanese Bǽh-oe-tu ). That isn't the case here, so it cannot be anything other than original research. Theknightwho ( talk ) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found r and th as variants for [z] 如. No response to my {cn} tags in January, though in itself that doesn't mean much. — kwami ( talk ) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps instead of deletion we could rework it and move it to Romanization of Sichuanese , which would also entail folding in the Sichuanese version of Latinxua Sin Wenz . I think it's fine to mention the systems used by different dictionaries; I just don't think we should be implying it's a unified system with the name "Sichuanese Pinyin", or that it's in actual use more generally. Theknightwho ( talk ) 19:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This sounds like a good idea. The page has useful information, and highlighting the differences between the systems in different dictionaries would make it more useful. Freelance Intellectual ( talk ) 10:11, 20 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

Krakoa: Not a single in-depth source from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Fails WP:NPLOT . Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth discussions of the island. Everything is in-universe. Onel 5969 TT me 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per my vote in the 3rd nomination, although I'll note that contesting the redirect seems fine, given that discusison ended with a keep vote, so redirecting would require a new discussion (which I guess we will have now). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep again. Why are we here, when this is likely to be represented in the MCU so soon? It's a major setting in Marvel's comics, "searches turned up mentions" is undoubtedly true, but likely an understatement. I've not time to go re-copy specific sources at this point, but will later if no one else gets to it first. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep This was literally just speedily kept like two months ago, putting it up for AFD so soon again after that does not seem appropriate. ★Trekker ( talk ) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect To House of X , which the journals mentioned in the last AfD appear to be about, not the island specifically. Also, the previous AfD was a WP:BADNAC pile-on style WP:SUPERVOTE . "Speedy keep" is not an applicable rationale in such a situation, so its result should be considered null and void. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is decent coverage out there, it's just a bad article at the moment. I'll add it to my to do list, I want to hit Giant Size X-Men first but this ties to that as well as House of X and there's substance about. Hiding T 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See also WP:SOURCESEXIST which has been the sole argument here so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. If it helps, this article is nominated using WP:PLOT as the reason, and I wrote that particular piece of policy. It's an article that could be better, and a better article would improve Wikipedia and inform readers and for me that's the point, nay, the WP:PURPOSE . Hiding T 21:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much. This is my position as well. Far too many articles are deleted not because they're actually non-notable but because there has been a lack of effort to make them decent. ★Trekker ( talk ) 07:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the same reasons in the last two discussions and the claims of @ Jclemens : , @ StarTrekker : , and @ Hiding : . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nomination refers to the current state of the article (even though there already is a minimal reception section and a publication history), but that's not the decisive thing . Contrary to what Zxcvbnm implied, keep votes are not based on unsubstantiated claims that there might be secondary sources out there, but such sources have been brought forward in previous deletion discussions. I can copy those here if that's deemed necessary, but it clearly would have been the job of the nominator to inform themselves about those . So I think this article should be kept, as its problems can be improved through normal editing based on those sources. In this specific case, I think a nomination so shortly after the last (and already the fourth!) is not appropriate: In case of suspected inappropriate closue , considering a WP:Deletion review would have been the thing to do, as well as having a close look at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion . More generally I ask Onel5969 to refrain from cookie-cutter deletion nominations and really do a proper WP:BEFORE search before future nominations, as required by Wikipedia's deletion process . Daranios ( talk ) 10:24, 14 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

Syrian Hezbollah: Cited sources have no information besides including the word Syrian Hezbollah inside them. There is no group called Syrian Hezbollah. Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note It also appears that the article was created by a now blocked editor. Ecrusized ( talk ) 21:27, 13 December 2023 (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/2023 December 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect to Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war , which is the proper article for this topic. There is no distinct Hezbollah organization operating in Syria as is the case for the Kurdish Hezbollah in Turkey , for instance. yaguzi ( talk ) 01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is, in fact, a "Syrian Hezbollah" that is not the same as the Lebanese Hezbollah; however, it is a network of militias, not a single group. For anyone interested in the topic, I suggest read the work of Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi who has researched many militias which operate as part of the "Syrian Hezbollah" network. Applodion ( talk ) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It belongs to Hezbollah, just as their militants in Lebanon, see ISW entry [18] and the linked book, as well as our page Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war . Yes, it includes a number of different groups, but they operate under the same general command and umbrella. However, nothing prevents us from creating a separate page about Hezbollah in Syria. If so, it should be significantly expanded. My very best wishes ( talk ) 19:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that the "Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian civil war" article is focused on the activity of Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria, not the operations of the Syrian associates / puppets of Hezbollah. Thus, "Syrian Hezbollah" should focus purely on the Syrian associates, allowing for two distinct articles. Applodion ( talk ) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Applodion Durranistan ( talk ) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for same reasons AHI-3000 ( talk ) 02:02, 1 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! 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:44, 28 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

Kevin Faires: Only confirmation of events participated in. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:41, 5 July 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! 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly disagree with the deletion. He is a top tier strongman in the international circuit. Nir007H ( talk ) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Here's a relatively in-depth article from the staff wellness editor of an editorially independent source that seems pretty reliable in the field . There's a lot of other coverage that seems reasonable, so we should easily have GNG when considering above article [11] [12] [13] , etc, with a passing mention in the Guardian — siro χ o 00:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is meeting here. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:28, 13 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

Nicole Berner: Snickers2686 ( talk ) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel , England , California , and Maryland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in addition to the recent set of news coverage on Berner, the 2000 legal case (currently listed under Personal Life) generated a fair bit of news coverage on Berner, then known as Berner-Kadish. This news coverage occurred at the time of the legal decision and in the years prior when the case was beginning. Kadish was also on the short list for a US supreme court position (in 2019), and has been more briefly mentioned in the news as part of her work with Planned Parenthood and SEIU . DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 00:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per DaffodilOcean and WP:BASIC / WP:GNG ; previous coverage includes e.g. Matan Has Two Mommies, and Israel Is Talking (NYT, 2000); Top court in Israel rules ex-Berkeley lesbians are moms (Jewish News of Northern California, 2000); recent coverage includes Biden’s Planned Fourth Circuit Pick Is Steadfast Union Ally (Bloomberg Law), Biden nominates Marylander to 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, would be first openly LGBTQ member on that court (Baltimore Sun), Biden nominates labor lawyer Nicole Berner to 4th Circuit (Washington Post). Also, this article was created at 18:00, 14 November 2023‎ by Kirmel , and the draft mentioned in the nomination was created by the nominator at 20:47, 15 November 2023‎; content and/or sources from the draft created by the nominator could be incorporated into this article instead of deleting this article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I'm saying is, based on precedent this article should be deleted, merged and draftified . When each article/draft is created should have no weight. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 04:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay includes, " The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist ," and I think it applies here, because this article seems to have ample support for notability in sources over time that can develop a reasonably balanced biography . Also, WP:ATD-M includes, Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. And the timing of the creations seems to support the first article as a logical merge target. Beccaynr ( talk ) 05:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I think she probably meets our notability threshold, although I believe the article was likely created by a WP:COI editor, and I have noted that on the talk page . Marquardtika ( talk ) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you on both counts. Can we add some sort of tag to the page? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A relevant template has been added to the article talk page; for Template:COI , there is guidance about when to use it on an article ; from my view, neutrality concerns have been appropriately addressed in this article, including in edits by Marquardtika . Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into the pre-existing draft, and promote to mainspace. The Israeli court case, in combination with the Biden nomination, is sufficient grounds for notability to keep in mainspace. BD2412 T 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The draft was not pre-existing - as noted above, the article was created before the draft. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake. In that case, keep , and convert the draft into a mainspace redirect from Nicole G. Berner , in case anything in the draft edit history can be imported into this article. BD2412 T 17:32, 1 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

List of films considered the best: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a list of films that have topped "best film" polls. That's not WP:SYNTH , that's WP:LISTCRITERIA . The title does not reflect this particularly well; a proposed rename to a more accurate title a few years ago failed to reach consensus. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't even understand the nomination: "Wikipedia is not for lists of best and this article is pretty much all synth." Wikipedia is for anything that meets the criteria of WP:LISTN , which this list clearly does. Polls and surveys of the best films have enjoyed prolific coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. It is a legitimate topic to cover here on Wikipedia. There is no synth in this article; synth is defined as taking claim A from one source, claim B from another, and combining them to deduce claim C, that is not present in either source. There are no claims of that nature in this list: each and every film on the list is directly sourced, and can be corroborated by that source. We are covering old ground here and LegalSmeagolian hasn't brought forward any new arguments. Betty Logan ( talk ) 01:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In other news: Snow will fall . Details at 11! (Subtitle: Keep .) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 02:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article is basing its data off of reviews, which means there are no WP:SYNTH issues here. Frankly it's useless for this article to be continued to be nominated here when there has been a clear consensus many times to keep this article. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. This should be a no-brainier, the list clearly meets all relevant criteria. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 04:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "WP is not for lists of bests", says who? LM2000 ( talk ) 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Betty Logan, who sums up everything that needs to be said. This is not SYNTH, nor does it go against the purpose of Wikipedia. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia has plenty of lists of bests — and while you're at it, you may consider our lists of worsts as well! — so even if the nomination were reasonable (it is not, as outlined above), far more than this article would have to be taken into consideration. This is not quite the place to start the wide sweeping movement to change whether Wikipedia tracks lists of bests or worsts; you would need an RfC at, say, the WP:Village pump . Zeke , the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Per SNOW. ★Trekker ( talk ) 01:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep I’d do it myself if I wasn’t banned from closing deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll do it myself now. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:02, 29 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

I Didn't Mean to Haunt You: Has been recreated with the same sources which were present before, and I'm still not convinced. Check the previous AfD for my full reasoning. Redirect to Quadeca (which it should've been in the first place but that's my mistake for forgetting to write that before). QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think that the sources present in the article (i.e. Spill, Paper Magazine, The Fader, and yes, Fantano) do allow the album to fulfill the WP:GNG . I'll admit, it does barely fulfill the requirements, but barely is still enough! It is a little funny, we both have uncovered the same sources and yet have come to different conclusions. I also have found one source here , a university-affiliated paper (which I think could be arguably an RS). I will admit to that being a stretch, but even without that, I believe the album is just notable enough. ULPS ( talk ) 02:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion, there will have to be much more support for deletion for this discussion to close as a Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets WP:GNG based on sources already present in the existing article. Multiple bylined reviews, lots of additional background across multiple sources. — siro χ o 04:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Varied sources ranging from sources wear their job is just cover any album to articles about should be enough to qualify it for WP:GNG PLUNGERwasHere ( talk ) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] replied to wrong thing sorry I'm new PLUNGERwasHere ( talk ) 02:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The article needs a bit of revising as it isn't perfectly up to standards with other album articles, but I believe it meets WP:GNG based on the sources. SpeedrunnerInTraining ( talk ) 14:10, 3 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

Açelya Topaloğlu: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Dance , Television , and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think it passes "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances", has lead roles in some notable shows, film and stage shows. Has some sustained coverage as well. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Tehonk ( talk ) 03:22, 27 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! 23:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An article about a Turkish actress. From the sources, I can get WP:THREE plus the appearances in multiple films (just that they may have been licenced under Turkey and their language —which I also don't understand). At easiest, two awards and well written BLP. For now, I can say it's well sources and meets WP:NACTRESS ! All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 12:30, 3 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 ) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of sources for this. Desertarun ( talk ) 08:35, 17 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

Parental rights movement: The page simply seems redundant given these existing pages: LGBT grooming conspiracy theory Anti-LGBT rhetoric 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States Florida Parental Rights in Education Act page. Edit: GhostOfDanGurney has also proposed a merge to anti-gender movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenomonoz ( talk • contribs ) 01:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/merge? Zenomonoz ( talk ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sexuality and gender . Zenomonoz ( talk ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context and is a WP:POVFORK , it doesn’t need this standalone page as the issue is already sufficiently covered there as well as the separate Don't Say Gay article, so delete per WP:NOPAGE . Raladic ( talk ) 04:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This ! vote doesn't account for the fact that this is also a thing in Canada. That simple fact makes this not a POVFORK. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It still is a fork off from LGBT grooming conspiracy theory which is a further detail breakout about that section, which is linked in the article I referenced. So just because one of four articles that the nominator listed is more specifically about the US, doesn't negate the point that tbe topic is in fact already covered at great lengths in the others. Raladic ( talk ) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By this logic, we should be creating a new article--like the don't say gay bill article-- for each instance of this occurrence for all of the mentioned provinces. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I was expecting this to be a delete but the Google News search was enough to persuade me otherwise. This does seem to be a thing and this does seem to be what people are calling it. The Google Scholar links complicate things a bit as some of the hits there show the term going back to the late 1990s. The earlier uses seem to be far less explicitly anti-LGBT but I assume that there is at least some continuity here and the rhetoric, initially couched in euphemisms, has gradually becoming more and more "mask off" as anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised. I think that there is probably more to this topic than the article covers rather than less and that speaks against a merge, particularly if this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT. If it seeks to limit access to sex education more generally then that would make the suggested merge targets untenable. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 04:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and it's sub article LGBT grooming conspiracy theory already covers the topic, as well as the related policies such as book bans in the greater context though, which is an important point of WP:NOPAGE as many of the current anti-LGBT movements by the far-right have to been seen as a whole which this sub-topic cannot explain sufficiently. Raladic ( talk ) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment "anti-LGBT and anti-intellectual sentiment has become normalised" This political movement seems to be specifically transphobic , rather than anti-LGBT. And anti-intellectualism has a long history in the United States, as pointed by its main article. " John Traphagan of the University of Texas attributes this to a culture of anti-intellectualism, noting that nerds and other intellectuals are often stigmatized in American schools and popular culture. At universities, student anti-intellectualism has resulted in the social acceptability of cheating on schoolwork, especially in the business schools, a manifestation of ethically expedient cognitive dissonance rather than of academic critical thinking ." Dimadick ( talk ) 07:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In which case the article should be broadened and maybe renamed into 2020s anti-intellectual movement as a more neutral term, rather than WP:WHITEWASHing a political term that far-right conservatives are trying to normalize, which can instead redirect to the section there. This is simular to the broader article about the Origins of the American Civil War , which discussed the fact that the wrongful argument of States rights was tried to be used, but in actuality was a disguise - this here seems like a similar case of disguising the topic of suppressing minorities under the guise of another "rights" pretense, which should be discussed as part of the wider topic. Raladic ( talk ) 14:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - covered by CBC News [59] [60] as a movement that exists in Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already some reference about this in LGBT grooming conspiracy theory from 2022, before this was copied to Canada with reference to an article ( [61] ) that warned about exactly that, which can be further expanded over there. Again, it doesn't require this standalone duplicate article. Raladic ( talk ) 05:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Anti-gender movement per below comment ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Google Scholar suggests that this somewhat of an underground movement that pre-dates the recent American political events. Also, this is not necessarily just a North American phenomenon. There have been similar activist groups in other countries for years. The article needs a more global view, not deletion. - Cameron Dewe ( talk ) 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Most of the articles in Google Scholar do not refer to LGBT issues at all. For example, here . Zenomonoz ( talk ) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - despite what others have mentioned, the suggestion WP:ATD-M doesn't apply here, this is a growing article that is likely to continue to be expanded. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eh, I think it would be better if it was merged into the 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States page and fear that if this has its own page, it will only promote misinformation, apart from being unnecessary. Historyday01 ( talk ) 14:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, I do not think the sections on Canada should be merged into an article about a movement in the United States MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 14:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Further, the potential for misinformation is not a good reason to prevent WP:COMMONNAME from taking precedence here. If people are searching for parental rights then this should come up in the search results and explain how it is an anti-trans conservative movement. It's clear that's what people are using, by the aforementioned Google News search. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename if kept This is a blantantly anti-LGBT movement disguised as as parental rights, and using this name makes it a POV fork of the above articles, to which it may also be merged . The article is not explicit enough that the name is propaganda. Parental rights to do what? To harass LBGT youth and restrict their education and healthcare. Reminds me of saying the civil war was about states' rights without mentioning what was the right for the state to do. I don't think that because it has spread to Canada means it needs to be a standalone article and a merge may still be appropriate; perhaps 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States needs a complimentary 2020s anti-LGBT movement in Canada ? Reywas92 Talk 13:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This does intrigue me, however we would need a redirect from parental rights, but we could follow the same model as Pro-Life . It is clear that what you've summarised is what conservative commentators are trying to accomplish with this being a dog-whistle, so I do think it's valuable to include the language because that's what's being used in the news and sources . MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand Reywas92's frustration but I can't agree with this argument for renaming. First up, we have to call things by what they are actually called, per WP:COMMONNAME , even when those names are blatant misnomers. Secondly, we want to help our readers to find the right article as easily as possible. If they hear somebody talking about the "parental rights movement", think it sounds confusing, and decide to look it up on Wikipedia then we want them to find the information they want either in the place that they expect to find it or redirected from there. It is not for us to impose our own name on it. Of course, it would be different if there already was a more neutral alternative name or term, as with "Pro-Life" redirecting to Anti-abortion movements. I think that is what people are thinking when they argue for folding this into those other articles. It is an arguable point but I don't think they map exactly enough for this to be a good idea. Particularly if it is true that this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT and that is has roots going back a few decades, this would seem to be separate from, although unarguably related to, those other topics. So, unless there is a better name that actually satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, I think we are stuck with the current name. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually now reading the google scholar link that Zenomonoz linked further up about Parental Rights movement from 2005 - it looks like this was a totally different and entirely unrelated issue that has absolutely no overlap with the current dogwhistle use of the term in current politics, which means we are entering ambiguous article title and content territory, plus then we should examine whether there is any link really, or just a reuse of the same term that was used and in that case, it does still look like the modern discourse is entirely anti-LGBT. So this article then has to be completely re-written to talk about that movement from 2005 and then the modern re-use of the term, but for entirely different grounds if it wants to discuss the term and not just current events. Raladic ( talk ) 05:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This modern movement is not just in the United States, and it's not just anti-LGBTQ. A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite. The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism. A note to those looking for more sources: though our titles are drawing a distinction between the Parents' rights movement , focused on parental custody, and this article, focused on schools, many sources about the school-related movement are using the term "parents' rights". Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 13:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article to add more on the ways in which the parental rights movement has pushed changes that have nothing to do with anti-LGBTQ sentiment. There is much more to be added, but the article already now talks about anti-sex-ed, anti-DEI, anti-"CRT" (the boogeyman CRT, not the real deal), and anti-antiracist work by those who say they are fighting for "parental rights" or "parents' rights". I don't think supporters of a merge have grappled enough with how distinct this topic is from the anti-LGBTQ movements. To frame it in WP:MERGE terms, a merge is inappropriate because "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines". Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 14:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States . This should NOT be its own page. I'm not sure why so many other people on here are voting to keep. Its dispiriting. Historyday01 ( talk ) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where should the content about Canada be placed? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It can be folded in, since the discourse in Canada is a copycat from the US; if need be, the article title could be renamed to be more broad, or a separate article on Canada could’ve started. I would also refer you to WP:WHATABOUT as you keep bringing up Canada as a reason against anyone who suggested a merge, it is not a valid reason to prevent a merge, instead we find a consensus to roll it into the article there or make a separate article for it. Raladic ( talk ) 15:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is either a misrepresentation of OTHERSTUFF, an essay which I have referred many other users to before, or of my comments. I am not saying "this article should be kept because article X exists." I am saying, "this article contains X cited content on a discrete subject, therefore a merge is inappropriate per WP:NOMERGE ." I'll also go further and say that the improvements made to the article over the last day have demonstrated that this topic passes GNG on its own, supporting the NOMERGE argument. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't really a policy based response. Also remember to WP:Assume good faith and WP:Be kind before commenting that you call peoples judgements "dispiriting" Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 08:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Ireland . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm sufficiently convinced this is a separate (though arguably related) topic to 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States and the rest of the articles mentioned by nominator. 3 reasons for this: a) the article has a distinct focus on a notable international political phenomenon of parents pushing for what they deem 'parental rights', which is separate from any broader anti-LGBT movement in the United States. b) Said phenomenon is labelled and discussed as a distinct movement by reliable news and sources . c) it exists outside of the US and this is supported by good sources - I would say the international coverage needs to be expanded but deleting this article would only further the US-centric bias. I'm not convinced by those above who say that international occurrences of the movement are simply imitating the US, as this doesn't seem to be supported by sources and indeed reflects a US-bias itself. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - Something I had not realised earlier, is that this article has only been in mainspace existence for a week. We cannot possibly make a fair judgement about the notability of a topic based on an article that is still under construction and by no means a complete covering of the topic. I strongly encourage all editors to do some off wiki research and read some sources before they make calls such as This is already covered in 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in much greater context . Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 08:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If kept, I think the scope would need to be expanded because "parental rights" is deemed to apply to many things other than children being trans. I don't think that the specific anti-trans parent movement should exist separate from other pages about anti-trans movements because I doubt that is actually a separate topic, and risks becoming a POVFORK. ( t · c ) buidhe 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Buidhe This is similar to what was said above ( it's not just anti-LGBTQ. A merge to any of the pages mentioned above would be inapposite. The article should be expanded to cover the ways in which parental rights advocates are seeking to restrict teaching in schools about racism, white supremacy, and sexism ) and I agree. The page just needs time to be expanded and improved, it's too soon for a deletion on what is a promising start to an article about a notable topic. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Another article that wasn't pointed out before that I think this article is actually much more of a POVFORK/ WP:WHITEWASH of is Anti-gender movement . A lot of what this article is currently trying to convey either is or can be covered in that article. I have adjusted my vote and struck comments accordingly as that article is not regional in scope. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is indeed a good find and is already covering the specific essence that the current article is covering, but Anti-gender movement is already covering it much more broadly, including in timeline and how that term as used there also was used much more broadly. I support your suggestion for a merge to Anti-gender movement (and subsequent redirect) with a subsection added there for the US/Canada "Parental Right" (which are really a whitewash term used to mask their anti-gender movement as outlined in that article. Raladic ( talk ) 02:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced they are talking about the same thing. The anti-gender movement article has literally no results for "parents" or "Parental rights" and only has minor discussion of schools at all. Instead the anti-gender movement seems to be about an intellectual/moral dispute focusing on a perceived threat of gender ideology and its influence on (non-school) government instutions. I can see how they might seem related, and indeed may well be related, but for us to claim that the two movements are in fact the same thing without any sources linking the two would be a classic example of WP:SYNTH . Strongly object to this proposed merge. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 07:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I found one more article that has topic overlap with the article here - Transgender genocide which in the United States section calls out with some references to scholars including a report by Yale School of Medicine and WPATH that have called out that some of the current "movements for rights" which are really Healthcare bans are just veiled acts amounting to Genocide "Anti-transgender health care legislation is not about protections for children but about eliminating transgender persons on a micro and macro scale." - this just further highlights the continued attempts to WP:WHITEWASH this under the pretense of a movement, but we should not give it more legitacy, but rather consider redirect into one of the many relevant articles cited in this Afd that do call it out for what it is. Raladic ( talk ) 05:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just think it's essential to note that WP:WHITEWASH is about editors on Wikipedia trying to whitewash events, it is most certainly not an instruction to go against WP:COMMONNAME or reliable sources so that we [do] not give it more legitacy . Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case it is far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide the true agenda, this may actually be something that may require a broader RfC - when should we deviate from WP:COMMONNAME when it may appear to give legitimacy to active harm WP:ADVOCACY , especially when like in this case it may cause active harm that will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare as documented by the professional medical community, so I think WP:IGNOREALL could apply here to get past the commonname policy. Raladic ( talk ) 05:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Raladic , firstly I want to say I'm taking this very seriously and I agree that Wikipedia's first duty is to its readers (including their health and wellbeing). That said, I completely fail to see how having this article, as it currently is will will lead to people losing access to life saving Healthcare . You may not like this political movement, you may consider it far right politicians trying to whitewash a term to hide the true agenda but to say that Wikipedia should not cover it in line with RS sources because that may "legitimise" it is (I mean this in the nicest way possible, as I genuinely think you mean well) POV-pushing and censorship, neither of which are allowed on Wikipedia. Tomorrow and tomorrow ( talk ) 06:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This subject still needs some discussion. We title articles the terms used by reliable souces, whatever that might be. Of course, presence of a stand-alone article on a subject does DOESN'T (big mistake on my part) imply endorsement by Wikipedia. But I still don't see a consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename at minimum The current name is a complete misnomer and what the term doesn't mean. Not even getting into the content, the actual article title needs to redirect somewhere more appropriate, not describe this as a gotcha to the actual content. Nate • ( chatter ) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sympathetic to this view. I think a post-AfD requested move discussion would be worthwhile, though it would be nice to talk through some options at the talk page first. I wasn't looking for this specifically, so I couldn't tell you which sources exactly, but many of those I've encountered have cast doubt on the idea that it's "parents' rights" that are really at the heart of this wave of activism. It's hard to know if there's a common-ish name out there that we could use as a replacement, but I wouldn't be surprised. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs ) 19:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to get too into a RM discussion pre-emptively, but I don't think that a name change is correct at this time. While I agree that this isn't really a parent's rights movement and that it's become more of a dog-whistle, I do believe that this is the WP:COMMONNAME , at least for now, and that to the casual reader looking for more information, they are better served to land on this page than a redirect to a more broad article but vague and doesn't address the modern use of the term and the movement it describes. But I agree, that any potential of this would be better suited for a talk page discussion for consensus building. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 16:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle, then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement, whereas many medical experts have made it clear that it isn't, which this article doesn't mention at all, but is mentioned on Transgender genocide as I had already pointed out further above. It just mentions some description from the Winnipeg Free press and Salon (and it throwing shade at salon in the article itself), so the article is very clearly trying to show a slanted WP:POVFORK instead of accurately showing the strong opposition to the term as it stands. The merge should be discussed here and now as a WP:ATD-M as Wikipedia works on consensus and many people have brought up the merge in this Afd, so there is no point to start another disjointed discussion outside of this. Raladic ( talk ) 14:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If by your admission, this isn't actually a movement but a dog whistle, Sorry, that's not what I meant. It absolutely has become a movement, per the sources on the article. What I've said (albeit, maybe poorly), and as the article has been written, is that the movement isn't about parent's rights as so far as an anti-trans movement. Not to jump ahead in my argument then, but then the situation is to still include the term Parental Rights in the lead. then the article as it stands has he be rewritten entirely if it were to stand on its own as it does not make this clear at all - it pretends to be a real movement, If that's the case, then I think the proper course of action would be to follow the same style as Pro life and include Parental Rights Movement in the lead after a rename and have a redirect, but I have to say I disagree on your assessment. Parental Rights movement is the common name and people are using it to describe the movement and goals as laid out in the article. I do think the article is clear on the harms done to trans youth; unless you're saying it isn't going far enough—if that's the case, then I find your arguments citing WP:POVFORK are unhelpful, without actually finding issues in the text. At this point, I want to take a step back and recognize that we're both involved here because we have the same goal: the betterment of Wikipedia. What I'm trying to get at, is that I believe there should be a location on Wikipedia for the term Parental Rights. The reason I made the article is because I noticed an increase in its usage (especially in Canada) and could not find a resource summarizing what the term parental rights meant by those who were using it, and how it was being used. What it is is a common term that people are using, and third parties looking to understand it more (the first thing the general public will do is go to Wikipedia) should be informed that it is an Anti-trans movement—as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with that. The problem I have with the aforementioned proposed merges, is that this exact use case—the notification to parents of their children's wishes to use pronouns that differ with their gender assigned at birth—presents (1) a distinct use case by those using the term, that (2) is prolific and sustained and has obviously become the common name, and (3) presents a distinct set of issues that, while related, differ from the other broad articles proposed as potential merges. Because of that, I have to say that I think that this is an acceptable version of Wikipedia:Content forking and not specifically WP:POVFORK Thanks for hearing me out and not biting; I appreciate your discussion on the matter. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 18:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, my point is that the article does not make it clear enough and seems to trivialize some of the issues including the ommission in the entire lead of gender affirming care bans created under the pretense of "Parental rights" and only talks about pronoun use. What Republican politicians are doing under the banner of "Parental rights" is restricting access to life saving health care. Even the GOP debate just yesterday made it clear that this isn't a new movement but a dog-whistle and is there to restrict access to life saving Healthcare - [62] . The fact that restricting health care access like this will lead to increase deaths is proven by medical science including this recent study - [63] . Again, that is why this could be discussed better within the context of which it is happening in one of the other articles, but if it were to stand as its own article, this needs to be much clearer. To make it clear that this attack on access happened even before the modern term use, here is an article from Forbes from 2021 on the issue, without the term, but the same issue - [64] . The point being, it has to be discussed in the greater context and it's effects, which is hard to do in this narrow POVFORK thst is only trying to talk about the modern term. We could follow your suggestion of doing the same as Pro life, in which case, merging this content to Anti-gender movement with a bolded alternative term of Parental Rights movement (and this redirecting there) would be fine and it can discuss how the modern term is used within the greater context of the anti-gender movement. Raladic ( talk ) 02:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: However people feel about this movement, it has received enough independent and significant coverage in secondary sources to warrant an article. WP:POVFORK is a fair argument, but this subject is not exclusively related to the pages mentioned. Any cleanup to remove unrelated content can occur outside of the AfD. Discussion regarding a possible name change can occur on the article talk page. User:Let'srun 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This movement seems to be opposed to the teaching of both LBGTQ and Black Lives Matter/racial equity subject matter in public schools. I don’t think there is a possible redirect, especially with the mountain of continuing news about the subject. Thriley ( talk ) 04:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Comment - Avoiding rehashing all of the same arguments as above however, in addition: I think the article has continued to grow since its AfD nomination. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 12:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm assuming this is just a comment, since you've already ! voted? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for not bitting! I'm still getting used to things around here. MicrobiologyMarcus ( talk ) 13:26, 28 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

Polly (Doctor Who): Given that she is a companion, there may be bits and pieces of reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a full article. Worst comes to worst, she should be merged with Ben's article, or merged into the Companions article. As it stands right now, she doesn't meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 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 . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable character with some sources, and ample potential for more from DVD features/interviews. Improve, but don't delete. U-Mos ( talk ) 08:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak Keep Notable companion side character should stand in line with WP:WAF , makes sense to keep. Gerblinpete ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We were over this, if I recall, with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Potts . You seem to be living in some weird alternate universe where WP:ALLORNOTHING is a legitimate deletion argument, at least in regard to TV characters. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely different case, given Doctor Who companions are a well-defined subset of Doctor Who characters. They even have their own category ! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, not a completely different case. You’re literally making the exact same argument. Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In all my years editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever noticed any edict making you the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate and which are not. Care to point me in its direction? If it doesn't exist, I'll stick to my original comment, if it's all the same with you. This is, after all, an AfD, where editors are free to make whatever comment they wish. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No-one is acting like “the arbiter of which arguments are legitimate” here except you. Multiple editors have shot down this argument at three of at least four instances of your use of it (here, AfD linked above, and Vislor Turlough ) Dronebogus ( talk ) 13:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While editors are free to make the arguments they wish to make, the arguments are expected to correspond to accepted policy. Repeated arguments that ignore the general consensus can reach the level of WP:IDHT . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no accepted consensus on this particular issue. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Necrothesp : Now that secondary sources have been found after all, why not incorporate this into your argumentation as suggested by the neutral party, Liz , here? Daranios ( talk ) 10:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. Now meets W:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. As usual, it all comes down to, do available sources, in the article or found in current investigations, establish GNG for this article subject? For good or ill, notability that Keeps an article doesn't lie in the eye of the beholder but in the coverage that can be tracked down about this subject. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring her exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus : I highly doubt any sources exist discussing her in detail Well, there is at least Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations , p. 104-110. So I guess it's always better to search for oneself rather than simply speculate. @ Pokelego999 : Incidentally, that's right the first hit for me when I do the Google Scholar search. Now I wonder if there are more such sources out there... Daranios ( talk ) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) . No evidence of notability shown in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : As the current state of the article is not the decisive factor , what about the sources found outside the article? Daranios ( talk ) 10:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not the decisive factor for deletion at least. I'm not suggesting deletion however, nor do I think this was necessarily a matter to bring to AfD. If the section can be expanded to a sufficient amount, with good enough sources, it can easily be split off again and I have no prejudice towards doing that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural note that a redirect is not a merge. Are you suggesting a specific Polly section at Companion (Doctor Who) , where no other companion is covered in that way? U-Mos ( talk ) 16:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no reason no to for companions that are provably covered somewhere. I still think the article in its current state is largely plot, so there is not that much point in a merge, but creating a section on her at the target is not out of the question. The article needs significant cleanup and reorganization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Zero sigcov. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve, because Polly is a notable character after all: Women in Doctor Who: Damsels, Feminists and Monsters , p. 9, 13-17, is a another secondary source discussing the character. Together with the one mentioned above and multiple secondary sources with shorter mentions of Polly, that's enough to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG . Daranios ( talk ) 18:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Similar if somewhat shorter analysis: Doctor Who: A British Alien? , p. 65. Daranios ( talk ) 10:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Can you comment on how those sources meet SIGCOV? I think I see it in Ruminations... but I am having trouble finding it in Women... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : Women in Dr. Who , p. 9 as a group "female teenagers whose main job appears to be screaining for rescue", in need of babysitting, "disposable companions all playing the same role". P. 13-16 specific: "girl-in-distress", "Polly was the it girl, played by a popular actress", "more conventionally pretty…", relationship with Ben "evoking male fantasy of...", "very much the embodiment of the then-contemporary 1960's...", "refreshingly authentic" for the time, "upbeat", brings in emotion "as the traditional companion's role", another paragraph about the actress' intentions for the character, "good-bye to her is traditionally gender-coded...", contrasted as stronger "damsel" compared to past ages. Daranios ( talk ) 10:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Sources found by Daranios likely amount to SIGCOV. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Participants are divided between those arguing for a Redirection and those stating enough coverage exists to Keep. But there isn't a lot of policy-based argument on either side and stating "I highly doubt that any sources exist" translates to "I didn't look for sources". But that's okay, participants aren't obliged to look for sources but it's not a strong argument to make. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as nominator. I seem to have missed several of these secondary sources during my search, and I now agree with the consensus that coverage for Polly exists. As a result, it seems she definitely is passing GNG/SIGCOV. Not sure if that means anything this late in the game, but I felt that I may as well leave my thoughts regarding the discussion here. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable character with coverage and reliable sources. Companion is a major role in the series. Frond Dishlock ( talk ) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - Many sources exist and she has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Ben's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:14, 17 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

Jerry Lo: YE SIQI ( talk ) 06:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . YE SIQI ( talk ) 06:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Taiwan , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Lin, Hao-li (2020). "Muscular Vernaculars: Braggadocio, "Academic Rappers," and Alternative Hip-Hop Masculinity in Taiwan" . In Tsai, Eva; Ho, Tung-hung; Jian, Miaoju (eds.). Made in Taiwan: Studies in Popular Music . New York: Routledge . ISBN 978-1-351-11912-2 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Another example is Jerry Lo a.k.a. DJ Jerry. Also born and raised in southern California, Jerry Lo came to Taiwan at the age of seventeen and later became a prominent producer for his techno and hip-hop beats. He had his fingerprints on almost every early 1990s rap song in Taiwan, including "Shiam" ( Siám ) and "Jump" ( Tiao ) by LA Boyz, "You Think You're a Tough Guy" ( Lí Tsintsiànn Siōnglīhāi ) by Lim Kiong, "Kung Fu Party" ( Gongfu Party) and "Monkey on my Back" (Monkey Zaiwobei ) by The Party, "You Sick Suck Nutz Psycho Mania Crazy Taipei City" ( Guásī Sînkingpēnn ) and "Taiwan Language Battle" (If You Tiāmtiām No Body Say U Ékáu ) by Jutoupi. He dropped his solo album in 1994, which, despite its predominantly techno content, still has a rap song called "Walking Down the Street" ( Renzaizou Wozaizou )." Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1994-12-01). "新人榜 羅百吉'跳機'遊台灣 一身炫味遊戲創業踏上音樂之旅" [Newcomer list: Jerry Lo "jumped the plane" to travel to Taiwan, a dazzling game business venture, and embarked on a music journey]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "22歲的歌壇新人羅百吉，是在美國出生、長大，曾由美國州政府檢定為「天才兒童」。他來自台灣的父母，擔心他長期和黑人混在一起會學壞，原計畫把他送到較純樸的大陸地區讀書，但16歲的羅百吉卻在香港轉機時，擅作主張「跳機」到父母的故鄉台灣一遊，結果就遊出他6年的「音樂之旅」。 ... 父母都是擁有博士學位的羅百吉，雖然做的事在父執輩眼裡都是「不正經」，羅百吉卻自有他的看法，先後幫林強、L. A. Boyz、張震嶽、梅豔芳、杜德偉等人的專輯編寫歌曲後，羅百吉也將推出第一張個人專輯，從不會說國語到推出個人專輯，羅百吉頗令人感到不可思議，而專輯名稱就和他本人一樣「炫」，叫「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」。" From Google Translate: "The 22-year-old singer Jerry Lo was born and raised in the United States, and was certified as a "gifted child" by the US state government. His parents from Taiwan were worried that he would learn bad things from mixing with black people for a long time. They originally planned to send him to study in a more simple mainland area. A visit to Taiwan, the hometown of his parents, resulted in his 6-year "music journey". ... Both parents have Ph.D. Luo Baiji. Although what he does is "unserious" in the eyes of his parents, Luo Baiji has his own views. He has helped Lim Giong, L. A. Boyz, Zhang Chenyue, Anita Mui, Du Dewei and others After writing the songs for the album, Baiji Luo will also release his first solo album. From not being able to speak Mandarin to releasing a solo album, Jerry Lo is quite incredible, and the title of the album is just like him, "dazzling", called "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan"." Wang, Zhongyan 王中言 (1994-12-02). "新新新人類 羅百吉 登場 衝著歐巴桑來" [New new new human, Jerry Lo comes on stage, come to obasan]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). The article notes: "「新新新人類」來囉，為林強、張震嶽、「The Party」、梅艷芳、「L. A. Boyz」、杜德偉編曲、寫歌的羅百吉，一身很符合他二十出頭年紀的打扮，一點點的羞澀，很多很多的音樂奇想和自小生長在美國的活潑天真特質，給人一種完全不按牌理出牌的新鮮感受。羅百吉可說是衝著很多「歐巴桑」來的，就如他的新歌「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」是因他以前在Disco中當DJ，喜歡放「Techno」舞曲的他，卻碰見很多點播探戈、恰恰的歐巴桑，因而有感寫下。他的新，會真的讓樂壇「耳目一新」。" From Google Translate: ""New New New Humanity" is here. Jerry Lo, who arranges and writes songs for Lim Giong, Zhang Zhenyue, "The Party", Anita Mui, "L. A. Boyz", Du Dewei, is dressed in a dress that fits his early twenties, a little bit shy , a lot of musical fantasies and the lively and innocent characteristics of growing up in the United States, giving people a fresh feeling that they do not follow the rules at all. It can be said that Luo Baiji came here for many "Obasang", just like his new song "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan" because he used to be a DJ in disco, and he likes to play "Techno" dance music , but met a lot of tango and cha-cha Obasan on demand, so I wrote it down. His new songs will really "refresh" the music world. " Liu, Weili 劉衛莉 (1994-12-02). "金曲之夜 一秀驚人 羅百吉出專輯 林強是製作人" [Golden Melody Night, an amazing show: Jerry Lo released an album, Lim Giong is the producer]. United Daily News (in Chinese). The article notes: "在金曲獎頒獎典禮上，搭配吳宗憲露了一手「DJ秀」的羅百吉，昨天又在專輯發表會中使出渾身解數，教人看得目瞪口呆。 羅百吉多才多藝，他不只會作曲、編曲、跳舞，還是髮型設計師，更能耍一套「DJ秀」。 " From Google Translate: "At the Golden Melody Awards Ceremony, Luo Baiji, who accompanied Wu Zongxian to show off his "DJ show", did his best in the album release yesterday, leaving people dumbfounded. Luo Baiji is multi-talented. He not only composes, arranges, dances, but is also a hair stylist, and he can even perform a "DJ show". " Wang, Zhongyan 王中言 (1994-12-30). "二十歲的大孩子 已為人夫為人父 羅百吉MTV 女兒也入鏡" [A twenty-year-old boy is a husband and a father. Jerry Lo MTV: daughter also appears on camera]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). The article notes: "成功地幫「L. A. Boyz」、梅艷芳等製造出動人的舞曲風格的「Jerry」羅百吉，最近以自己的創作「I Don't Wanna See No歐巴桑」成為幕前歌手，羅百吉在美國生長，十六歲來台念書，令人意外的是，他二十歲便有了老婆、女兒，而且如今一歲多女兒羅潔英還在他的新歌「Baby Baby我最深的愛」TV中露臉，模樣就像和他一個模子刻出來的一樣。 " From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo, who successfully helped "L.A. Boyz", Anita Mui, etc. to create moving dance styles, recently became a front-screen singer with his own creation "I Don't Wanna See No Obasan". Jerry Lo grew up in the United States, He came to Taiwan to study at the age of sixteen. Surprisingly, he had a wife and daughter at the age of twenty, and now his one-year-old daughter Luo Jieying is still appearing in his new song "Baby Baby My Deepest Love" TV, looking like As if carved out of the same mold as him. " Liu, Weili 劉衛莉 (1995-03-23). "人物掃描 羅百吉/獲邀參賽東瀛音樂節" [People scan: Jerry Lo/Invited to participate in the Dongying Music Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). The article notes: "羅百吉不僅造型新鮮，音樂類型也十分「年輕」，在亞洲各國已引起相當大的注意，除了日本開始初次的合作，香港三人組「風火海」也請他跨刀做音樂。 韓國方面聽說他是L． A． B0YZ專輯的幕後製作，紛紛打探他何時將赴韓發展。 " From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo not only has a fresh style, but also has a very "young" music genre, which has attracted considerable attention in Asian countries. In addition to the first cooperation in Japan, the Hong Kong trio "Wind Sea Fire" also invited him to make music across swords. The South Korean side heard that he was L. A. The behind-the-scenes production of B0YZ's album has inquired about when he will go to Korea for development. " Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-04-06). "瘋狂日本行 首屆都市音樂節 羅百吉脫光唱 觀眾看昏了! 表演太過火 結果.... 總決賽泡湯" [Crazy Japan Tour. The First Urban Music Festival. Jerry Lo stripped off and sang, the audience fainted! The performance was too much, and the result... the finals were ruined]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "羅百吉日前參加日本第一屆「都市音樂節」，在比賽的過程裡，羅百吉不但在舞台上大玩音樂，甚至還演出「裸唱記」，讓日本觀眾為之瘋狂。 ... 最後羅百吉並未進入總決賽，評審事後曾對他表示，他們極為欣賞羅百吉的音樂風格，可惜卻嫌他的表演「太過火」了，所以沒把支持的一票投給他。 不過，羅百吉經過此事，已讓日本樂迷「徹頭徹尾」地瞭解他。 " From Google Translate: "Jerry Lo participated in the first "Urban Music Festival" in Japan a few days ago. During the competition, Jerry Lo not only played music on the stage, but even performed "Naked Singing", which made the Japanese audience crazy. ... In the end, Jerry Lo did not enter the finals. The judges told him afterwards that they admired Jerry Lo's music style very much, but unfortunately they thought his performance was "too much", so they did not vote for him. However, through this incident, Jerry Lo has let Japanese music fans understand him "thoroughly". " Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-07-15). "羅百吉 快樂小奶爸 太太么女在美國 只留長女伴身旁 有事沒事帶著跑 旁若無人玩開來" [Jerry Lo: Happy Little Daddy. The wife and daughter are in the United States, only the elder daughter is left by his side, and she runs with him when he has nothing to do, playing as if no one else is around]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "不久前又添一個女兒的23歲歌手羅百吉，是難得一見、作風獨特的「小爸爸」，因為太太與小女兒都還留在美國「坐月子」，所以羅百吉成了全職的小奶爸，自己一個人帶著大女兒在台北過日子。 " From Google Translate: "Not long ago, the 23-year-old singer Jerry Lo added another daughter. He is a rare "little dad" with a unique style. Because his wife and youngest daughter are still in the United States "confinement", Jerry Lo became a full-time baby dad, living alone in Taipei with his eldest daughter. " Liang, Daiqi 梁岱琦 (1995-09-27). "羅百吉 重圓導演夢 執導一支MTV 好樂 在家拍攝'搞怪' " [Jerry Lo relived his dream of being a director. Directing an MTV. Fun. Filming 'funny' videos at home]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "一向以搞怪出名的歌手羅百吉，在「I DON'T WANNA SEE NO歐巴桑」一曲崛起時，就以各種稀奇古怪的造型引人注目，這次他推出新專輯「神聖舞會BOOM」，不但依舊自己設計造型、包辦所有的音樂創作，連舞蹈的編排、甚至MTV都自己執導，處處都充滿羅百吉式的創意。 " From Google Translate: "The singer Luo Baiji, who has always been famous for his eccentricity, attracted attention with various weird looks when the song "I DON'T WANNA SEE NO Obasan" rose. This time he released a new album "Holy Ball BOOM", not only still He designs the looks by himself, arranges all the music creations, even arranges the choreography of the dance, and even directs MTV by himself, full of Luo Baiji's creativity everywhere. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jerry Lo ( traditional Chinese : 羅百吉 ; simplified Chinese : 罗百吉 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to consider sources Cunard provided. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The first source given seems detailed enough, the rest, lesser amounts of detail, enough all together for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the reliable sources identified in this discussion show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:46, 14 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

TestFreaks: Other than Mashable's article, there is no coverage about this topic. Plus, there is no article about it in Swedish Wikipedia. US-Verified ( talk ) 18:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites , and Sweden . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A quick look in a Swedish newspaper archives gives far more than what seems to be available online. There's a two-page article in Dagens Industri , "Prylfantasten redo för nästa steg" (18 May 2007), from the launch of the company, and a shorter piece in Svenska Dagbladet , "Freaks får ny sajt" (24 April 2007), some relevant content in "Come back!" in Veckans Affärer (23 May 2007), "Testsajt söker kvinnor" in Dagens Nyheter (5 September 2008). Some of these are partly interviews, but I think it points towards notability. National Swedish media considered this a fairly big thing in the later 00s, it seems. / Julle ( talk ) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added more refs to the article. / Julle ( talk ) 10:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I trust your judgement. Happy to withdraw it. US-Verified ( talk ) 23:45, 24 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

LooLa Adventure Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article is supported by a number of reliable, independent, in-depth discussion of the subject. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable resort. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Blofeld and Aymath JarrahTree 01:36, 22 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

Veho Tech: However, none of the other sources are sufficient to be the second in the multiple required to meet SIRS . Most of them, both inside and out of the article, are the routine reprints of funding and expansion announcements that exist for almost any company that bothers issuing press releases. It's worth noting there are two articles cited (WSJ, The Technology That’s Helping Companies Thrive Amid the Supply-Chain Chaos ; Bloomberg, Couriers Snatch Toehold in Biggest Shake-Up of FedEx Era ) plus BusinessInsider's Gig labor could have challenged FedEx and UPS. Now it's making them stronger. mentioning the company in relation to the broader market, however they do not appear to address the company itself in sufficient detail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH . Unfortunately, I don't think there will be enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article per our current criteria. I do see potential for this to be redirected to Last mile (transportation)#Last mile technology platforms , or a similar article on the intersection of gig economy and that market (the latter of which not yet written, of course, but does appear possilikely to likely a notable topic), so that first redirect would be my proposal for now. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , and New York . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I appreciate the WP:BOLD NESS for the nominator to begin what may be a controversial nomination with understandable rationales citing guidelines, as well as provide ideas on what to do if the article cannot be kept. With said that, there is a reason this is contestable: the suggestion that a lot of the sources, like the TechCrunch and Denver Business Journal ones, are simply routine announcements that are not independent sources. I am sorry, but [9] and [10] absolutely go above and beyond simply announcing funding, and they ARE independent sources, as they are written by authors not affiliated with the company for reliable sources with no connection to it. Articles like the examples I provide are way more than mentioning a fundraiser, summarizing Veho's place in the market and plans for the future. That is significant coverage. A merge into an article about the Gig economy would not be out of the question, however. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:32, 14 October 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! 21:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . To meet WP:GNG, we need two in-depth references. One has already been provided by the nominator in the form of The Information article ( [11] ). Per WP:BASIC , we can combine multiple partial in-depth articles to establish notability. The second reference can be pieced together using partial coverage from WSJ and Bloomberg articles already mention above. This is a major startup by any standard, having received funding from prestigious investors such as Tiger Club firm , Tiger Global Management , and a fund from SoftBank , another major investor. Lastly, this is a unicorn, and in-depth coverage for unicorns almost always exists , as demonstrated by the article already cited (with proper bylines, i.e. articles written by journalists ( earned media ), not press releases) from publications such as Reuters ( [12] ), WSJ ( [13] ), South Florida Business Journal ( [14] ), Bloomberg ( [15] ), Denver Business Journal ( [16] , [17] ), TechCrunch ( [18] , [19] ), Boston Globe ( [20] ), Jacksonville Business Journal ( [21] ), Orlando Business Journal ( [22] ), The Heights ( [23] ), Jacksonville Daily Record ( [24] , [25] ), Hartford Business Journal ( [26] ), and New York Business Journal ( [27] ). There more than enough to write and establish the notability of this topic. Vstekrk ( talk ) 14:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BASIC is for biographical notability. As far as I'm aware, Veho is not a person. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the listed references per an earlier discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_few_AfDs_deadlocked_on_source_evaluation_question . - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:23, 26 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

Kehkashan Awan: The sources provided for the PTV Award are unreliable. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Pakistan . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NACTOR . The subject appeared in significant roles in 2 TV plays which were aired on the national television. The source Daily Jang shows she was a known name back in the 80s. So its reasonable to assume that offline coverage exists. Insight 3 ( talk ) 16:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does it comply with WP:NACTOR ? As I mentioned in the nomination, she has primarily portrayed secondary characters, whereas WP:NACTOR requires individuals to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I put in a lot of effort to find offline sources during WP:BEFORE research, but unfortunately, I came up empty-handed. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She used to work in dramas in 80s and now she narratives stories. I have added her interviews which she talked about her career and Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV) is a relaible source because it was the first channel in the country and I have taken it from it official website. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 16:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Interviews are considered primary sources; we need secondary independent sources to meet the notability criteria. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . She is a former model back then she used to do modeling during 1980s and 1990s. She now works as Transformation consultant and is a advocate at PSTD also she continues to do promotional appearances for Dhoop Kinare. ( 192.140.148.96 ( talk ) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep . Before acting she was a well known model and appeared in many commercials in the 1980s. ( 2400:ADCC:105:2200:B101:D4DC:489C:7DA9 ( talk ) 14:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] @ BeauSuzanne , What we need from you are not quotes or lengthy extended arguments about how she worked before TV drama roles and after TV drama roles. Can you please provide links to three secondary reliable sources that are about Kehkashan Awan herself and meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG , or link to her significant roles in multiple TV series to meet WP:NACTOR ? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't write the comment. I am currently looking for other sources about Kehkashan. The off line sources can be found in the books link section. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 17:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The nominator has made the best arguments, in favour of deletion, but nobody else agrees with them. More input is needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The source [1] has information about her education background and she is advocate of Women's Empowerment and runs a coaching program called The Colour of my Shadow is Pink for women. ( 2400:ADCC:105:2200:F4D9:D810:B338:ABA8 ( talk ) 19:15, 14 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

Mitchell Amundsen: Seems non-notable. DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Fairly meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" listed as one of the Cinematrographers to Watch by Variety ( https://variety.com/2008/scene/markets-festivals/mitch-amundsen-1117994914/ ) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 14 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! 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Mushy Yank. Keep per WP:CREATIVE .3. This subject has director of photography (i.e cinematographer) credits on several films which would qualify for the critera (eg. The Country Bears , Transporter 2 , Transformers (film) , etc). The director of photography is an important creative credit on a film. — siro χ o 06:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy Yank. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 24 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

Intellectual property policy: What the article calls "National IP policies"—such as patent and copyright terms—are very different from, for example, university IP licensing agreements and corporate transparency/trade secrets. There does not appear to be a good reason to conflate each of those distinct concepts in a single article. Moreover, those concepts are all dealt with more extensively in other articles, such as Technology transfer (for universities), Intellectual property (for broad policy considerations in forming a national/international IP regime), and Trade secrets . As this article is poorly sourced and has several tone issues, I do not think merger is appropriate (or really possible) and recommend deletion. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , and Business . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve . In years past, I worked on intellectual property policies for a number of different kinds of institutions, and I am very comfortable saying that this is a notable concept that should be covered. With respect to the concept of "national IP policies", a distinction can be drawn between the intellectual property protections generally made available under national laws, and the policies of a national government regarding the use, licensure, or commitment to the public domain of its own content that would otherwise be subject to intellectual property protections. Some countries do claim copyright ownership, for example, over government decrees. BD2412 T 03:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think part of my issue is with the name of the article because, as we've both noted, there are distinctions in different kinds of IP policies; maybe one solution is moving the article to something like Institutional intellectual property policy ? voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve : per BD2412 T 's arguments Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve , not only per BD2412 , but also because Wikipedia editors (often used to dealing with public-domain documents due to their own nation's policies) really truly NEED to understand that there are differences elsewhere, making some documents unsuitable for direct inclusion here – they can be discussed, paraphrased, summarized, but not directly quoted at length. The topic is important to WP; it needs to be covered, and covered well. The solution to bad writing in this case is to improve it, not delete the coverage. – . Raven . talk 17:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve per BD2412 and . Raven. Both sum it up aptly. Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:09, 24 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

Death of Nicola Bulley: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabela84 ( talk • contribs ) 14:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If that's all it was, it might have got one mention on local news. But this was high drama, all over national news for weeks. Even the inquest was reported on national television. 86.187.230.208 ( talk ) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (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/2023 June 30 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The relevant WP guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTTEMPORARY . The topic (an accidental drowning) fails notability requirements and is eligible to be reconsidered for exclusion. My own line on this is that if Nicola were (a) black, or (b) working class, or (c) male or (d) over 60 years old, then nobody would be interested in her and we would not be having this discussion. That said, parts of the article's text might be absorbed in the Missing white woman syndrome article. Izzy ( talk ) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're "own line" is entirely that. We can't argue for the deletion of an article based on what might have happened or not happened if the circumstances had been entirely different. We also would not have an article if she had been a homeless drug addict, with no family, who had jumped into the sea at Blackpool and never been missed? 86.187.230.208 ( talk ) 15:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There might be nothing wrong with mentioning this case at the Missing white woman syndrome article, provided WP:RS sources actually use that description. Otherwise that's just your own personal prejudice? 86.187.165.146 ( talk ) 18:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Events , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - there was a clear consensus to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley . Now that we know she died, does that make the event less notable? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those keep votes propped up primary sources that were published while the event was still ongoing . Not only do none of them contribute to GNG, but to say that coverage is "sustained" before the event is even over warrants a chiding at the minimum. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The sources do not contribute to WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED , as they are primary sources from while the event was developing. It's not a historical event worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as defined by WP:EVENTCRIT . It fails WP:LASTING , it fails WP:GEOSCOPE , and it fails WP:SENSATIONAL . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The constant, sustained, and varied coverage is proof of notability. The use of social media, particularly the misuse of TikTok is interesting. Yes, it was an accidental death. Everything surrounding it makes it more than just that. doktorb words deeds 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Substantial referencing indicating substantial coverage and there was an official enquiry over it. We have featured articles that are over local bank robberies so there's no way this fails notability. Darkwarriorblake ( talk ) 20:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question Izzy - why have you voted? You're the creator of this discussion, you can't vote twice. Exemplo347 ( talk ) 21:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Exemplo347 . I will make sure the closing Administrator doesn't count my vote twice. Thanks for pointing out the matter. Izzy ( talk ) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Even in the last 24 hours, coverage is ongoing in reliable sources ( link ) proving that event notability guidelines, as linked above, are met. CT55555 ( talk ) 04:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The original incident itself has turned out to be rather more mundane than some wild imaginings had it, but the reactions have made it notable. Very few deaths by drowning draw mention by the PM and LOTO, or trigger two independent investigations into police conduct. Polyphemus Goode ( talk ) 06:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the simple, sad, drowning has become a much-discussed example of the effects of police and media behaviour - it was being discussed again on the BBC Radio 4 main morning news programme, Today , as I read this discussion. Pam D 07:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this case was a widely publicised event. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 16:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly has WP:LASTING impact considering reliable sources are still writing at length about it, even as recently as the last 7 days. See The Independent and BBC , the latter was published during this discussion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the volume of enduring RS coverage in national media clearly gives this WP:GNG status. Surprised there was no rationale from the nom as to why this might not be notable, given the previous "keep" result in the previous AFD.   — Amakuru ( talk ) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Covered by news and social media for weeks. Analysed to death. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're already getting academic, non-news, sources about this. [22] Phil Bridger ( talk ) 22:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : High volume of coverage from many national and international agencies. Clearly notable. 117.254.34.205 ( talk ) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per readily available sources and the extent of the interest. gidonb ( talk ) 18:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sustained coverage, in particular the recent sources highlighted here. Rupples ( talk ) 04:10, 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

Protests of 1968: They bear at most a family resemblance. (Indeed, one may cite an example of protests in the Soviet sphere and protests against the genocide in Mexico both being possibly anti-authoritarian. Perhaps the 2 case studies each may even have references to support the claim that they are anti-authoritarian. But to place them in the same article for that reason would be culpable of wp:synthesis .) Therefore, the link between the many protests lacks wp:notability . Wikipedia articles are not to be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", because WP:NOTCATALOG . On top of that, this page is guilty of wp:crosscat between the 1968 events and protests. Finally, one may argue that the indiscriminate lumping of disparate Left-leaning movements together, which possibly fabricates in readers a artificial narrative of a 1960s' revival of the Left or ascent of New social movements be culpable of wp:advocacy - be it lauding or derogating (and raising fear) the disparate left-leaning New social movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities ( talk • contribs ) 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose per 1968, Revolution in the World-System: Theses and Queries . ときさき くるみ not because they are easy , but because they are hard 11:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, this JSTOR article has been written by two academics with wp:notability . However, Many more wp:ref - which explicitly connect "Protests" (or Political demonstration , or revolution etc) and the year 1968 in particular - are needed to prevent the article topic itself from having wp:undue weight. (Undue-weight content ought be trimmed. But if the article's very heart is undue-weight, we may agree that the article itself ought be removed.) "1968 protests" in such wp:ref ought to be an expression by itself, as in " 2007–2008 financial crisis " or " 2019 novel coronavirus ". Otherwise, articles 'Protests of 1969' or '... of 1970' may exist. Therefore, Wikipedia's nonacceptance of wp:crosscat helps prevent such articles from existing. FatalSubjectivities ( talk ) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep / Oppose There are numerous sources that cover this. - SchroCat ( talk ) 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Malformed nomination fixed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per discussion above and sources already linked in article Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Numerous reliable sources cover this, the events seem to be somewhat connected. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I really don't understand the nom's rationale outside incomprehensible political jargon; these protests happened in 1968 and related to each other in some manner. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup- but, I guess, actually your move (to guard wikipedia from turning too academic) is precisely my point. This article is turning into some kind of research paper with its very own original theory of what happened . FatalSubjectivities ( talk ) 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meaning, you and I can't just create a page like " Protests of 1963 " made from snippets of articles from Category:1963 protests , and cite evidence (however truthful) to argue that several 1963 protests are related. Because that's just like we're creating a collaborative research paper. Same thing applies here. FatalSubjectivities ( talk ) 04:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I understand none of this at all, and you should stop unless you want this closed as a train wreck nom . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep I remember these vividly. There was a wave of interconnected upheavals around the world. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I not only remember various protests being interconnected in 1968, but also studied them as a unit in a university course later in life. Of course this is a notable topic. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs cleanup, sourcing, but meets the standard for an overview article per WP:SUMMARY . // Timothy :: talk 18:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic, meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUMMARY . A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 02:01, 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

Imperial Hotel (California): There are a few review articles I've found, but these seem to me to read like advertorial (and/or using uncited material from en.wiki) JMWt ( talk ) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Looks OK to me. Pinging article's creator Missvain . Not sure what nominator means by "guff", but perhaps article creator can add enough to save this. — Maile ( talk ) 16:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article has plenty of sources, including some noteworthy travel guides, and a bit of searching also turned up a recent in-depth profile in a Bay Area lifestyle publication. It's also been a hotel since the 19th century, which is a lot longer than the average B&B (in North America at least). There's some fluff in the article that should be trimmed, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a historic building comparable to other historic buildings listed at Category:Bed_and_breakfasts_in_California . If it was a newer building then obviously no. 5Q5 | ✉ 10:45, 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

Sadanandan Rangorath: Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , India , and Kerala . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 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! * 11:12, 8 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! 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete since subject fails WP:GNG . Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. - The Gnome ( talk ) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Considering the references; seems to marginally pass the criteria! Ekdalian ( talk ) 13:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree with Mushy Yank on WP:NCREATIVE ; at least 1 of those questions listed by The Gnome could be answered with "Yes" since the work has its own article on Wikipedia, demonstrating notability for the purposes here. There also seems to be some negative press https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/aashiq-abu-sidharth-bharathan-warns-film-aspirants-stay-away-lucsam-sadanandan/ , https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/salt-n-pepper-producer-lucsam-sadanandan-rangorath-accused-of-cheating-rs-4-lakhs/ regarding the subject which could be added to the article. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:19, 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

TRAZ: Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )! 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Plenty of reviews according to MobyGames. [4] + found three more sources via Newspapers.com [5] , [6] , [7] Timur9008 ( talk ) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per SIGCOV , I see it as cutting it very close with the sources. Also, the sources provided appear to be ADVERTS )note them all listing prices, and not reviewing, but exclusively viewing the subject in a positive light). Unfortunately, the organization my IP is attached to has blocked Mobygames, but I am not a deletionist and do, in fact, want the article to stay up. Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )! 19:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NEXIST , current state of the article is irrelevant. Clearly meets WP:GNG with reviews listed at MobyGames. More reviews (and a preview) can be found listed at Spectrum Computing: [8] -- Mika1h ( talk ) 08:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read the above reply. Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )! 14:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Definitely meets GNG due to the reviews listed on Mobygames/Spectrumcomputing. Waxworker ( talk ) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See reply to @ Timur9008 . Best regards, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )! 14:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be beneficial if the sources discovered during this discussion were assessed for reliability and independence and, if found acceptable, were added to the article under discussion. There seems to be some doubt that they are independent reviews and not just advertising or listing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . There is a full page review from The Games Machine , which used to be a magazine in English before it shut down in 1990 and an Italian version opened, and it is considered reliable by here . There is another review from the once very long running Computer and Video Games , which discussions here also consider reliable . This source dedicates half of Page 14 and half of Page 15 to this video game, so I would argue it is SIGCOV. Finally, the Cambridge News article linked to above appears to be a reliable newspaper and the entry seems to be a review (not a promotional advertisement) that is borderline SIGCOV. Some of the other sources linked above or I found in my search are situationally/questionably reliable or fails SIGCOV, but there is just enough for a GNG pass IMO. VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep editors above have found RS. Lightburst ( talk ) 01:34, 31 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

HijackThis: No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Info - Note to closer for soft deletion : While this discussion appears to have no quorum , it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Keep. Previous discussions : 2006-11 (closed as ✓ Keep) Related discussions : 2010-08 Merijn Bellekom (closed as redirect to HijackThis ) ← 2006-12 Wssecure (closed as ✗ delete) ← 2005-07 Help2Go Detective (closed as MERGE and REDIRECT) Logs : 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-03 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted ← 2005-01 ✗ deleted -- Cewbot ( talk ) 00:03, 5 May 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 ) 05:19, 5 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! 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : has had clear historical significance and has been site of lots of reviews (passes WP:NSOFT criterion 3): [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] . — Matrix(!) { user - talk? - useless contributions } 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above. Software with historical notability. Svartner ( talk ) 17:46, 15 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

Ruslan Shostak: Additionally, there is a possibility that the author of the page may be a UPEditor (nature of their edits speaks by itself). DreamlarT ( talk ) 12:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the first time I've been in this situation — I've never edited articles for a fee, except for those under contract with the Wikimedia Foundation, as noted on my user page on Meta . Regarding the Article about Ruslan Shostak and his charitable foundation, he himself is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. -- Perohanych ( talk ) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (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 ) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article has a promotional tone and seems to employ the tactics of reference bombing—a practice where numerous references are used to give an illusion of notability, commonly referred to as WP:Mill in Wikipedia's terminology. It lacks verifiable and reliable third-party sources from established news organizations. Due to these concerns, the page fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 13:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He is Chevalier of the Order of Merit — "for significant personal merits in strengthening interstate cooperation, support for state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, significant contribution to the popularization of the Ukrainian state in the world". The person has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. -- Perohanych ( talk ) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:18, 10 November 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, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep agree article is in need of significant overhaul but subject himself appears notable. In addition to the point raised above by Perohanych , a simple search turned up a number of recent independent news articles about him ( Yahoo! News , Interfax-Ukraine , Forbes , and 24 Kanal , among others). Also, if this article is kept, the Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation article, which is currently AfD'd, could be merged into this one (granted, it should be rewritten as well). Best, Dan the Animator 06:23, 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

1912 Morris Harvey football team: Playing Notre Dame doesn't grant a team its own season article. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and West Virginia . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Playing Notre Dame doesn't make it non-notable, either. This article, admittedly a stub, seems to be part of a series of articles about independent colleges' football seasons in 1912. Some articles in the series are obviously better-documented than others, but that doesn't mean that the smaller or lesser-known schools' seasons are non-notable. There are three independent, reliable sources, and presumably others could be found in newspapers that aren't available online. And given the subject—college football seasons—I'm reasonably sure that readers do want this information to be part of the encyclopedia. I see fifty page views over the last ninety days preceding this nomination (sixty-two now), and while that's not a lot, it's more than many "kept" articles about obscure, but technically notable topics get. This nomination seems more like a "podunk colleges aren't notable" argument to me. P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Though not the strongest pass, there seems to be some decent coverage of this season on Newspapers.com , including articles (albeit brief) from unrelated states covering some of their games, which seems to show prominence. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on sources found Lightburst ( talk ) 18:06, 18 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

Karl Filiga: Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT . LibStar ( talk ) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby league , Australia , and New Zealand . LibStar ( talk ) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 ( talk ) 13:11, 23 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! 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Lots of dead links in the sources which needs to be fixed, but they do establish WP:SPORTSCRIT . His name is even in the headline of one of the ones that still works. Article needs a cleanup and an update. David Palmer aka cloventt ( talk ) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : suggest that his failure at NRL is actually a notable event, which meets significant coverage threshold. Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 02:56, 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

Bernardo Huberman: Sources appear primary, commercial or autobiographical in nature. I am unable to find evidence of secondary coverage in news or google scholar. The citations provided are simply links to a few books he edited or authored. Zenomonoz ( talk ) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science . Zenomonoz ( talk ) 08:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - according to Google Scholar he has an h-index of 103; on Scopus, his h-index is 65. His work is highly cited by others (GS: 62,726) Netherzone ( talk ) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not evidence of notability. He lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Zenomonoz ( talk ) 17:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per WP:NACADEMIC as 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). . I looked into notability a while back and added a citation so this is documented. [10] . Fellow of APS (American Physical Society) is clearly highly selective honor akin to the Institute of Physics that's mentioned in the policy. Note that nominator prodded this first [11] . Nominator self-reverted the prod, only realized now, sorry. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, was not aware being a fellow of institutes was sufficient to establish notability. I would note it is a guideline, not a rule. But Huberman’s coverage in books and news is lacking IMO. Zenomonoz ( talk ) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He clearly meets several criteria of our guidelines for a notable academic, thus passes WP:NPROF . An academic only needs to meet one criteria of that SNG. His Index scores are high 103 h-index on Google Scholar, 65 h-index on Scopus, his work has been cited over 62-thousand times (62,716), therefore he has made a substantial impact on his field. Friendly question to nominator Zenomonoz : How many more book and journal articles does his work need to be cited in to be "enough" (and not lacking) in your opinion? Additionally I am finding numerous reviews of his books in academic journals, therefore meets WP:GNG . In addition, he's a Fellow of several notable associations: Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science , Fellow, Japan Society for the Advancement of Science, Fellow, American Physical Society [1] , CECOIA Prize on Economics and Artificial Intelligence, IBM Prize of the Society for Computational Economics, Trustee, Aspen Center for Physics , Chairman, Council of Fellows at Xerox Corporation and a Senior Fellow at HP Labs , where he also happened to be the Director of the Mechanisms and Design Lab. Please review WP:BEFORE . Netherzone ( talk ) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "APS Fellow Archive" . www.aps.org . Retrieved 2023-09-25 . happy to withdraw AfD nomination, although I would like to see some of those reviews for confirmation. I don’t think a single page noting that he is a fellow is sufficient content for a Wikipedia article, so yes, other sources would be needed to establish the notability of his contributions. Zenomonoz ( talk ) 19:31, 25 September 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

Swords (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Swords (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of swords . Swords (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of swords is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A) AFD really isn't "articles for discussion" and shouldn't be used for a merge proposal. B) per Uncle G they do appear different. C) I don't see a good reason why these 4 weren't done as a bundle--I find it unlikely that the arguments at each will be different. Would you mind closing these four and giving us one bundled proposal (or take it to the talk pages). Hobit ( talk ) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge . These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Swords (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas suit of swords is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming needs sorting out because the suit is called "swords" by both card players and occultists. So we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). In the other 3 cases, there are different names that can be used to distinguish them. HTH. Bermicourt ( talk ) 17:01, 14 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

Turpentine Creek Wildlife Refuge: Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 03:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Unsourced, yes, but sources exist for it. Here are some sources that I believe would qualify notability: [22] [23] [24] . Part of the problem seems to be the account TCWRCD ( t c ) , which edited the article a few times years ago and seems to be owned by the organization. However, I don't think it should be deleted considering the notability of the subject. StartOkayStop ( talk ) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 04:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There seems to be a lot of secondary coverage of this subject over many years. Here are some more sources in addition to the ones above, [25] [26] [27] . Plenty more. Note also that despite the TCWRCD account's involvement, the article as it stands is not overly promotional, and just need a minor npov pass (along with the need for verification) — siro χ o 05:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources cited above have WP:SIGCOV of the wildlife refuge and establish notability. The article can be copyedited to fix any neutrality issues. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:53, 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

Gypsy Girl (TV series): Tagged for notability Donald D23 talk to me 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:SIGCOV . As I stated in the first AFD, extensive searches in newspapers.com, JSTOR, EBSCOE, google books, my university library, and in several standard UK TV/media encyclopedias published after this series aired showed no significant coverage of this show. I do not believe that sources on this particular show exist given an exhaustive effort to locate them. The first AFD was closed largely due to a bad WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument which is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § There must be sources . Respectfully, I request that this time around that anyone voting keep actually provide evidence of significant coverage, because frankly I don't think it exists on or off-line after thoroughly looking. We need to see the sources, not just speculate that there are sources. Likewise, admins please don't close this as keep or no consensus if GNG isn't demonstrated with evidence. Arguments based on speculation aren't valid. Enforce our policies please. 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I question if things have changed since the last deletion discussion. PatGallacher ( talk ) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , because I'm wondering the same thing as PatGallacher above. (Reminder: "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept.") But, as another of the users in the last discussion suggested, I suppose that redirecting to Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer)#Folklore , where this series is mentioned, can be an alternative. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited: sources found by Cunard are convincing. Thank you) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Hardwick, Viv (2001-02-15). "Gem of a Gipsy" . The Northern Echo . p. 14. ProQuest 328951142 . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article notes: "GIPSIES, tramps and thieves... plus some of Britain's best-known actors, may well help 15-year-old Gemma Gregory to achieve her dream of making it in Hollywood. The young heroine of new Children's ITV series Gypsy Girl stars as a young Romany with special powers, which runs all next week. Gary Webster, Leslie Grantham and Eleanor Bron are among the co-stars who will feature with Gregory. ... The contemporary drama features Gregory as Freya, who has inherited the powers of a Chime Child from her grandmother (Bron). Destined to help people who are hurt or in trouble, Freya sets out in her magical caravan and is accompanied by her cool, enigmatic brother Tashar (Thomas Jamerson). Soon the pair have numerous adventures, making a host of friends along the way." "Dirty Den fame actor is back to his old ways" . Coventry Telegraph . 2000-08-05. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article notes: "Grantham, aged 53, will appear as a sinister second-hand car salesman in Gypsy Girl, a seven-part ITV series based on a trilogy of novels by Elizabeth Arnold. The actor will be joined by 14-year-old rising star Gemma Gregory, who appeared in BBC1's Great Expectations. She takes the title role of young Romany girl Freya." McGown, Alistair D. ; Docherty, Mark J. (2003). The Hill and Beyond: Children's Television Drama - An Encyclopedia . London: British Film Institute . p. 270. ISBN 978-0-85170-878-2 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books . The book notes: " The Gypsy Girl , shown in 2001, was an excellent seven-episode series that harked back to seemingly lost values. Though it was roundly marketed as a British Sabrina, and probably only commissioned in the hope that it would be, the reality was that the stories it told were rather more thoughtful. The broadcast of The Gypsy Girl marked another shift in children's programming when it became the first drama to air on consecutive days, Mondays to Fridays , and this 'stripped' schedule experiment is up for review at the beginning of 2002." Pottersman, Edna (2001-02-17). "Pick of the day" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com . The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "Two new daily shows for half-term. Gyspy Girl , adapted from Elizabeth Arnold's trilogy, stars Eleanor Bron as Romany Gran, whose remarkable powers have passed straight to her grand-daughter Freya (Gemma Gregory), who today encounters suburban fury" Helsby, Wendy, ed. (2005). Understanding Representation . London: British Film Institute . p. 155. ISBN 978-1-84457-080-5 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books . The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Children's television drama has also used the romantic, exotic, untrustworthy images, as in Gypsy Girl (ITV, February 2001)." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gypsy Girl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 01:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per sources identified by Cunard Donald D23 talk to me 11:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , looks like it has enough major references to pass ButtonPocketSquare899 ( talk ) 08:33, 20 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

The Showdown (rugby union): Fails WP:NRIVALRY as again no significant coverage of the matches. In my opinion, not really suitable for an encyclopedic article as it's only really relevant to Saracens, and reads as WP:FANCRUFT . I suggested a redirect to a specific section on Saracens F.C. but was reverted. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Rugby union , and England . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nature of the article is wholly consistent with similar approved articles linked to Premiership Rugby , including The Big Game (rugby union) , London Double Header and Slater Cup - none of which the OP has raised an objection to regarding WP:GNG . By the logic spelt out here, The Big Game (rugby union) should be considered WP:FANCRUFT , as it is only really relevant to Harlequin F.C. , and Slater Cup is only really relevant to Leicester Tigers and Gloucester Rugby , nor would that meet the threshold of WP:NRIVALRY , as it is not even a year old. Indeed, the coverage of the matches detailed in this article is consistent with, and no less significant, than the matches detailed in these other three articles which, again, the OP has raised no objection to. Therefore, the OP's consideration for what qualifies as notable or significant would seem to be fairly selective, arbitrary and inconsistent with the aforementioned approved articles. If necessary, I would be happy to update this article with further citations to demonstrate the extent of the coverage although, to reiterate, this would be going above and beyond what has already been accepted for both The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup . Lastly, the OP's final statement is not quite accurate - as the article's revision history shows, their action was less a suggestion, and more a blanket removal of the article's entire contents without any discussion. I would respectfully suggest refraining from making such unilateral decisions in future, in cases where there is no clearly no consensus for such an action. House of Laughs ( talk ) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: For all of the reasons outlined in the above reply, and with no objections having been lodged by anyone else, I propose keeping the article, closing this discussion and removing the WP:AfD in the next 24 hours. To further highlight the OP's inconsistent approach to WP:GNG between this article and other approved Premiership Rugby related articles, I cite The Clash (rugby union) , which concerns an event that lasted just three years, relates to Bath Rugby only, and the article itself has, at most, 2 meaningful citations. That article, along with The Big Game (rugby union) and Slater Cup , would all be nominated for deletion if we were to follow the OP's interpretation of WP:GNG , WP:NRIVALRY and WP:FANCRUFT in this AfD nomination. Yet, all 3 articles have been widely accepted for years - including by the OP themselves, who previously contributed to The Clash (rugby union) without raising any of the same objections. The OP's nomination of this article for deletion therefore does not seem to be based on WP:GNG , but rather on their personal views on specific clubs. House of Laughs ( talk ) 10:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is far more GNG related coverage for The Big Game than there is for The Showdown, given its longevity over a period of time. Also the Slater Cup features the same two sides each fixture, and there is coverage of the rivalry between the two sides. Dependent on the outcome of this AfD I will then consider nominations/redirecting for The Clash as I'm not seeing much in relation to that one, but given we have this AfD in process, and the lack of engagement rugby union AfDs get at the moment, another very similar AfD at the same time isn't in the best interests of other editors at this time, given that the outcome of this AfD will likely effect that one. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 10:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Longevity was clearly not the defining factor for either The Big Game (rugby union) , Slater Cup or The Clash (rugby union) to qualify for WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY . The article for The Big Game was created and reviewed in 2011, when the event was less than 2 years old, and the event has never consistently featured the same 2 teams. Meanwhile, the Slater Cup, as both an event and a rivalry, has existed for all of 6 months. As far as the coverage for each event goes, any cursory Google search would show that both the breadth and the amount of coverage of all of these showpiece event games each year is basically identical (a fact that is borne out in the citations within all of these articles, which frequently draw from the same sources). Given that each of these articles concern very similar annual showpiece event games within the same sports league, to so arbitrarily interpret them as notable or not notable, as this WP:AfD has done, is utterly bizarre. Finally, as a more general point, I think AfD nominations such as this one do nothing for the integrity of WP:GNG , and only serve to dissuade editors from contributing. House of Laughs ( talk ) 18:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Updated - As an olive branch, and in the interest of resolving this matter quickly, I have consolidated all of the showpiece fixtures hosted by Saracens F.C. in Premiership Rugby into this article (although The Showdown branding began in 2020, the actual event dates back to 2009, and was branded as Derby Day for many years, with the majority of the fixtures against rivals Harlequin F.C. - all of which is now detailed and sourced within the updated article). As this brings The Showdown article even more in line with The Big Game (rugby union) article, and should finally put to bed any issues you had regarding WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY , I would politely request that you review the latest version, and please consider withdrawing the WP:AfD . House of Laughs ( talk ) 22:34, 17 July 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! 18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If others are to ! vote here, we might benefit from WP:THREE sources to focus on, especially ones that can address WP:SPORTSEVENT . — siro χ o 22:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP: If this test would help to expedite the process, I am happy to oblige. To highlight 3 sources that should satisfy the nominator's personal definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY , I submit: [1] (Independent coverage on the profile of the two clubs as Premiership Rugby 's biggest rivalry) [2] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting the world record for a rugby union club match attendance in 2015, which remains a Premiership record) [3] (Independent source verifying this fixture's status as setting highest viewership for a Premiership match in history in 2023, which remains a record) Also, in the interest of consistency, it is important to consider this article in the context of 4 similar, approved articles about other showpiece fixtures in Premiership Rugby – The Big Game (rugby union) , Slater Cup , London Double Header and The Clash (rugby union) – to which, I highlight the following: None of those 4 articles have required such an extensive test to prove their satisfaction of either WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY as this one; None of those 4 articles' current versions have anywhere near the level of citations and demonstration of coverage as this one; If we were to treat the nominator's definition of WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY in this AfD as gospel, and apply it consistently, all 4 of those articles would fail and would all be nominated for deletion – yet all 4 have been accepted for a long period of time. Therefore, it is clear that the nominator has not treated this article on The Showdown – which, to any objective observer, is extremely similar to those other 4 articles – with a consistent approach to WP:GNG . And, to put it in stark terms, if they were being consistent, either all of these articles are acceptable, or none of them are. Given the precedent set by the acceptance of those 4 similar articles over the course of many years, it is only logical that this article is treated the same. House of Laughs ( talk ) 17:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Why Harlequins v Saracens is English rugby's bitterest rivalry" . The Times . 10 June 2022 . Retrieved 17 July 2023 . ^ "Saracens put on a show in front of world record crowd at Wembley" . Eurosport . Retrieved 17 July 2023 . ^ "Premiership Rugby smashes TV record with Farrell v Smith showdown" . Rugby World . 29 March 2023 . Retrieved 11 July 2023 . I'll say weak keep based on the example sources provided and an examination of those in the article. I cannot see the Eurosport source and am not familiar with coverage of rugby union, so I am not confident, but it seems likely there's enough independent coverage in the sources to put together an article without requiring original research. The key for me is that the idea of a rivalry is verifiable and not OR. — siro χ o 21:38, 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

The Africa Report: Fails WP:GNG . WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. Refunded after soft delete at prior AfD, and renominated for a fuller discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , News media , Organizations , Business , Advertising , Companies , and Africa . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — per my reasonings for contesting the soft deletion: While I doubt anyone thinks the page itself is fitting, even a cursory glance at the actual The Africa Report site would show that it is clearly notable — interviews with heads of state, interviews with business leaders, analysis on politics across the continent, mentions in the The New York Times and other papers, etc. This seems like a case of a bad article for a notable subject getting just deleted instead of flagged and fixed. Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Watercheetah99 Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages , because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox . If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment overall I oppose since per comment above it seems notable, however there is urgent need for better citations. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. "Seems notable" isn't sufficient, there needs to be some actual new sources brought to this discussion to address concerns in nomination statement. If this journal is "clearly notable", finding reliable sources shouldn't be difficult. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep . The subject lacks notability. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 15:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Micheal Kaluba , this opinion makes no sense at all. If you believe the subject lacks notability, why are you arguing for a Keep? And a Procedural Keep at that. I don't think you are taking participation in AFD discussions very seriously, investigating the article and reviewing the sources. L iz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Liz , there is no need to be hash to me. With Procedural keep, I mean more work needs to be done to the article or pushing it draft other than deleting it, someone dedicated their time to write that article. So don't think that I am not taking this serous, I personally have other things to do but here I am because I believe in this okay? Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet you are doing nothing but offering nonsensical rationales that provide no help whatsoever. Uncle G ( talk ) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisting . Delete. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 09:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why? Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 18:52, 27 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! 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article cites a press release and no independent sources. Looking, I can find no independent sources. This is clearly not a language problem, as this is an English language publication. This is a problem that no-one outwith the publishing company has documented the publishing company's magazine. Moreover the vaguely handwaved aforementioned "mentions in the The New York Times and other papers" simply do not exist at all, as far as I can determine. Uncle G ( talk ) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly, there is no possible way you actually looked if your takeaway was that the mentions "simply do not exist at all" — there is a button with "NYT" in the find sources parentheses above, there are three recent mentions right there. More in Foreign Policy , Africanews , the BBC , the Washington Post , DW , The Economist , The Guardian , Mail & Guardian , and more. You could’ve genuinely just asked for the other mentions and I would've replied with them instead of pretending to have looked and found none. Watercheetah99 ( talk ) 04:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per @Watercheetah99 (above), the AR gets mentioned—and recently—as a source in many WP:RS/Ps , such as New York Times 1 2 3 , BBC 1 2 , and Washington Post 1 . Here is one of the Editorial Board members of the notable African Affairs journal, Nic Cheeseman , noting in his bio that he also writes for the African Report . Here is the African Report appearing as a source in papers on JSTOR . Sympathy with the nom as it is not an obvious case (my initial searches were inconclusive), but I do think that very high-quality global news sources (and academics) have regard for this publication, and it therefore should be kept (and improved hopefully). Aszx5000 ( talk ) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And obviously, it is a part of the world that has proportionally fewer quality news sources, so when we find one that is well regarded by developed world quality sources, we should protect and help it—as sources is our thing :) Aszx5000 ( talk ) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources presented by Watercheetah99 against our GNG guideline. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Aszx5000 's well stated !vote. Here's to hoping they update the article to reflect informaiton from the sources they list. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 4 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

The Vipers: Not much to them with their brief existence. GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland . GamerPro64 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom. Not a notable band. Spleodrach ( talk ) 12:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS referencing them, nothing in newspapers.com, proquest, or newspaperarchive.com for anything thats plausibly them although it might have been buried by other groups with the same name and rugby teams. Shaws username . talk . 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The new sources are good and meet notability. Clearly I just failed miserably when I looked for sources, ResonantDistortion and Guliolopez have done a really good job adding sources. Shaws username . talk . 18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient WP:V sourcing has been added to the article since AfD to meet WP:NBAND . This includes WP:NBAND #12 featured significantly on a national radio station, and WP:NBAND #1, with a reliable independent source from Hot Press stating "We wrote about The Vipers regularly in Hot Press" even if these articles are not all available online due to it being >40 years ago. Also - The Vipers headlined a show above a little known band called U2 - how is that not notable? Resonant Dis tor tion 18:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In my own WP:BEFORE I found and, together with ResonantDistortion have added, a number of sources which would appear to contribute to a WP:GNG claim. While the subject band did not appear to have chart success, to the extent that "single or album on any country's national music chart" or "record certified gold or higher" of WP:NBAND are not met, there does appear to be enough coverage to warrant retention on SIGCOV grounds. Certainly the coverage in music journalism sources (like Hot Press ) and general news sources (like the Irish Independent ) are contributory. In all honesty, some of the coverage is somewhat "passing" in nature, and I was therefore minded to frame my recommendation as a weak keep . I can't support outright deletion however... Guliolopez ( talk ) 18:41, 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

Variety Tonight: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 22:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Subject most definitely does meet GNG; I was literally already in the middle of improving its sourcing before you nominated it, precisely because I noticed its lack of referencing in the process of agreeing with your prod on the related (but much less sourceable) Here Come the Seventies — so it now has twelve footnotes in it. Bearcat ( talk ) 22:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Hey, I remember this program. Yes, it meets WP:GNG . It does have some historic information. Articles does rely heavily on one source does include more valid sources - importantly, valid sources. I see no purpose to be served by axing this one. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Multiple reliable sources, meets WP:GNG . Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:02, 20 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

Aparajitha Raja: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Student politics is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL , and I still struggle to understand why Indian editors are so uniquely more prone than anybody else to thinking it would be — but the article cites absolutely nothing like the volume, depth or range of media coverage about her that it would take to satisfy WP:GNG . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the previous AfD closed as keep, and various sources identified in that discussion have not been added to the article. My search before reviewing the previous AfD had similar results, e.g. D Raja's daughter to contest elections for DUSU president ( PTI/Hindustan Times , 1 Sept 2010) - some biographical/educational background, some interview For Aparajitha,lineage alone won't seal victory ( The Indian Express , 2 September 2010) - based on an interview, with some context Aparajitha Raja is in the eye of a 'patriotic' storm ( Business Standard , 27 Feb 2016) - some interview, with context Insider-Out ( The New Indian Express , 13 Mar 2016) - "Well-known Bengali writer Mandakranta Sen has written a poem, I Am Aparajitha, dedicated to her." JNUSU polls: Women candidates fielded by all parties for president's post this year ( India Today , 31 Aug 2017) "...creating a buzz among all candidates is Rajya Sabha member and Communist Party of India leader D Raja's daughter Aparajitha Raja, who tore into JNU administration in her nomination speech on the campus..." with additional reporting on her platform JNU sedition case: Court to consider chargesheet against Kanhaiya, others on January 19 ( The Indian Express , 15 Jan 2019) - she is briefly mentioned with context and quoted JNU Sedition Row Serves Right-Wing Govt’s Agenda: Aparajitha Raja - ( The Quint , 19 Jan 2019) - an interview with some introductory context Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has several in-depth pieces almost entirely about her by major news outlets, alongside some smaller but still substantive coverage for her runs for student union presidencies. The reason Indian editors think that student politicians are notable is because student politics in India are vastly more important than in the rest of the world and several of our major universities are better-known for their politics than actual research. AryKun ( talk ) 09:48, 6 February 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 ) 04:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, NPOL provides inclusionary criteria to accord presumed notability, it cannot be a basis for exclusion. Those advocating delete provide no analysis of the sources from the last discussion, nor address the result at the last AfD, which was a fairly clear consensus for keep. Notability is not temporary. There is more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG/BIO. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree to AryKun 's comments -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NPOL is irrelevant here, the claim for notability is per WP: BASIC . The sourcing demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown also in the last AfD. AusLondonder ( talk ) 23:30, 18 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

Progressive Youth Organization: There is only one source provided in the article, and coverage in that is far from significant (see WP:ORGDEPTH ), since the PYO is only ever mentioned in passing. I have not been able to attribute any notable activities or events to the group, so I would argue it is safe to say that the scope of their activities was minimal. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Organizations , and Politics . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is not a difficult case, and WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been performed well here. The Sholaye movement had significant impact on Afghan politics and society, and is amply covered in academic literature. Here is a book wholly dedicated to the Sholaye movement, [35] , with an edition in Italian as well. A few additional examples of how the group is covered in literature, "The youth wing of Sho'la-yi Jawed, known as Sazman-i Jawanan-i Mutarraqi, the Progressive Youth Organization, was noted for its militancy and between 1963 and 1973 its members clashed violently with Islamists, pdpa supporters and state security organs." [1] ""During a bitter ideological debate that arose between the Islamists and supporters of the pro-Beijing Sazman-e-Javana-e-Mutarqi (Progressive Youth Organization) known as Shula-e-Javid (Eternal Flame) on the campus of Kabul University in June 1972 , a bloody fight broke out which resulted in the death of Saidal Sukhandan , a well known member of the organization , and the injury of numerous others ." [2] "Sazman - e - Demokratik- e - Nawin , the Neo - Democratic Organization of Afghanistan ( NDOA ) , was also founded in 1965. The organization stressed class struggle and revolu- tionary armed uprising as a means of ending class oppression and building a socialist society. A great number of women of both white- and blue - collar backgrounds supported the organization , and some even became active members." [3] "Sazman - e - Jawanan - e - Mutaraqi , the Progressive Youth Organization or PYO that split into several factions in the mid - 1970s ( Akhgar , Paikar , Khurasan , Sazman - e - Azadi Bakhsh - e - Mardum - e - Afghanistan , People's Liberation Organization or SAMA , Sazman - e - Azadi - e - Afghanistan , Afghanistan Liberation Organization or ALO , and others ) advocated revolu- tionary armed struggle as the only means to bring fundamental political..." [4] "...which was followed by formation of the Progressive Youth Organization (PYO), popularly known as Sholay-i Jawid, a year later. These two organisations became fierce rivals as proponents of the Soviet- and Chinese-style communisms in the country. From the outset, the PYO included a number included a number of prominent Hazaras in its leadership, placing it in a superior position in recruitment of Hazara intelligentsia." [5] -- Soman ( talk ) 02:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Jonathan L. Lee (8 March 2022). Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the Present . Reaktion Books. p. 563. ISBN 978-1-78914-019-4 . ^ Internationales Asien Forum . International quarterly for Asian studies · Volume 30. 1999. p. ^ Hafizullah Emadi (2002). Repression, Resistance, and Women in Afghanistan . Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-275-97671-2 . ^ Hafizullah Emadi (2005). Culture and Customs of Afghanistan . Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-313-33089-6 . ^ Niamatullah Ibrahimi (1 October 2017). The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for Recognition . Oxford University Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-84904-980-1 . Keep satisfies the WP:GNG per reliable sources identified by

keep

Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless: There's nothing particularly notable about what they do that stands out and make them globally noteworthy. It is run of the mill in a sense that organizations that provides xx services for yy demographics in zz area are highly common. Article has a long history of promotional publicity editing as well. Graywalls ( talk ) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , Companies , and Washington, D.C. . Graywalls ( talk ) 02:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "make them globally noteworthy"? I don't believe that's a requirement here. The fact that they were established by the District of Columbia Bar, and is overseen by a board of governors, in order to provide the pro bono services for the homeless, does make them noteworthy. — Maile ( talk ) 18:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, per WP:INHERITORG , companies and organizations are not notable simply because it is associated with notable/big/prominent person/group for the purpose of articles. Notability is evaluated by significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH with adequate readership WP:AUD Graywalls ( talk ) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:ORG . WaPo has dozens of articles over decades which taken together encompass a SIRS source. Here's a PhD dissertation with secondary coverage of statements, positions and effects (or lack thereof) [33] . Here's a trade pub with some coverage as well [34] [35] . WP:AUD is satisfied by either of the first two sources. — siro χ o 19:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In this case, many of those articles are serving as local reporting and I believe it doesn't meet the intent of WP:AUD . Similar examples: A local law clinic in Seattle called Northwest Justice Project has tens of articles on Seattletimes.com just as a point of reference. https://www.google.com/search? q=%22Northwest+Justice+Project%22+site%3Aseattletimes.com Another example of local law clinic called Inner City Law Center in Los Angeles has lots of articles in Los Angeles Times https://www.google.com/search? q=%22Inner+City+Law+Center%22+site%3Alatimes.com Graywalls ( talk ) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your comments above are starting to leak a little. By your thinking above, location of the source might indicate prejudice in favor of, or against, or promoting of, any subject. — Maile ( talk ) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I purposely chose examples of similar organizations that provide similar services, in major cities. I intentionally compared against something similar so they're as relevant as possible. Graywalls ( talk ) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see an assessment of newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this seems like a similar case to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public_Counsel . References such as from Georgetown Law and https://wamu.org/story/17/05/03/d-c-s-widely-used-program-move-homeless-families-housing-failing-says-advocacy-group/ indicate the subject meets notability standards for inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:36, 18 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

Sannarpsgymnasiet: There is coverage in the local newspaper ( Hallandsposten ) but to my eye this falls under WP:ROUTINE . However I'm not entirely certain so didn't just want to PROD it. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator , BabbaQ and Necrothesp are right, and I think I was a bit too BOLD . -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sweden . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A Google search turns up sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs an upgrade. But the article subject meets WP:GNG . BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:07, 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

Olivier Sadran: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Football , and France . UtherSRG (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seriously... I found [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , and many many more French sources. He is Cleary a significant figure in French football and has a comprehensive French wikipedia page. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly passes GNG from sources above, just needs someone to expand the article with it really Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] snow keep I don't think nominator did any research! Govvy ( talk ) 06:08, 16 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

Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts: The goal has been to provide articles for all of OSU's colleges over time, just as many other universities do on Wikipedia. Each of these articles has been growing with the additions from multiple writers - especially the Liberal Arts College article. Inside the article's talk page you will note that there have been no recent discussions about issues from anyone - although old and resolved issues still remain. Elkebvo placed, what I feel is a random and unnecessary, Request for Deletion (7/8/23) on this article due to the subject not being "notable". I, of course, couldn't disagree more and question how it is even possible to consider a major public university's college not "notable". There has been zero correspondence leading up to this notification and no history of abuse with this article. I am dumbfounded by the argument as a whole since hundreds of universities on Wikipedia have an article for their college of liberal arts, college of arts and letters and college of arts and sciences. Why is OSU's CLA article being singled out? Not a single sentence is duplicated on the parent article. From the "Not Notable" Wikipedia page: "avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics" Are these "really" indiscriminate topics? Schools History Academics Student awards Budget cuts Expansion Notable alumni Notable faculty The whole "presumed" and "trivial" question is subjective, to say in the least. We could have the same debate over every single page on Wikipedia, which brings me back to why is this article being singled out with no precedential communication from Elkevbo or other Wikipedia editors. As I remember, all issues have been addressed up until this very random notification for this article. I am not the only writer for this article, but I am a regular contributor. Everything on this page is sourced and are well-known historical facts. If Wikipedia readers believed a source was not accurate, they would have provided a "Talk" comment over the last +2 years so it could be debated or addressed. I see no history of that. One of the issues we all have when writing an article about a university college is finding secondary sources. Mostly, because mainstream news rarely provides in-depth historical information about individual colleges within universities. In addition, many of the NP archives are paywalled. Does that make individual colleges less "notable?" Of course not, it does however make it more difficult to find secondary sources. I will admit that ALL university college pages are universally low on secondary sources. In most cases, the secondary sources used in the majority of these articles was a rewrite from a college press release. Is that really bad or make it "not notable"? Again, no. College press releases are routinely used as reliable information by all outlets and should be considered a highly reliable source of information by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludviggy ( talk • contribs ) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ludviggy Keep( talk ) A "keep" argument would probably be most convincing to other editors if you could provide - here or in the article - reliable sources that clearly and explicitly discuss this college in sufficient detail to establish that it's independently notable . Sources that are independent of the college would probably be more convincing to many editors. ElKevbo ( talk ) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is well written and well sourced. , PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the sources don't discuss the subject of the article - that is what WP:N requires. ElKevbo ( talk ) 22:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like a lot of material to merge back into the parent article. Will the other colleges such as Oregon State University College of Business be merged back as well upon review? There is a lot of WP:PRIMARY references but might be worth keeping or at least draftifying. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not merge most of the material back into the parent article; much of it is unnecessarily detailed. My initial sense is that several of the other colleges meet WP:GNG as there are multiple, independent sources that explicitly discuss them. That's just not the case for this particular one (in my experience, colleges of art, science, or both typically don't have the same cohesion of mission and identity as other colleges that focus on a specific, cohesive discipline or set of closely related disciplines - that also means that many of them have not been the subject of focused inquiry and documentation hence they're often not independently notable). We should not expect all subunits of a notable organization, including many universities, to themselves be notable. ElKevbo ( talk ) 22:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The other 3 colleges do not have articles that are really any better in my opinion, it would either have to be all or none. If only this article gets deleted then it might be unfair discrimination against liberal arts. However merging all of that content from the 4 articles back into the parent article would be unwieldy, so I would probably just leave them and try cleaning them up at this point. - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are other articles that should also be nominated for deletion that they should be nominated, too. "Wikipedia editors have written a long article using sources that are about other, related subjects" is not a good reason to keep an article. It's unfortunate that volunteers spent time on an article that could or should be deleted but that isn't a reason to keep that article. The notion of Wikipedia editors practicing "unfair discrimination against liberal arts" is silly. Other colleges tend to attract specific, focused attention in part because many programs outside of arts and sciences are programmatically accredited and that tends to attract media attention every _ years when accreditation is reviewed. Professional licensure rates - engineers, teachers, nurses, etc. - also tend to attract attention and generate focused media articles. Agricultural schools often have long histories tied to land grant acts, federal law, and state laws so they also tend to attract some focused attention (for example, at my current university, the "Master of the Grange" - the state's leading farmer - is an ex officio member of our board of trustees). ElKevbo ( talk ) 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should nominate the other colleges at OSU for deletion on the same grounds then in my opinion, I feel uncomfortable on principle voting to delete this when there would be a discrepancy in comparison with the other articles. Currently it seems like this article for the liberal arts has more coverage over the others, I do not see why it should be deleted and the others not. But frankly I would still just leave them, primary sources in some cases are valid and might be good enough. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a reasonable split from the main article, even if not strictly required. If the split was truly done too early, propose a merge on the Oregon State University talk page so editors focused on that article can evaluate in-depth instead of in a rushed AFD. In other words, it would be disruptive for the quality of the main article for this AFD to result in a merge. There are no major NPOV violations here, and the vast majority is verifiable, so, with respect to the nom, "unnecessarily detailed" does not seem like a reason for deletion. — siro χ o 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is it reasonable to split this information into a new article when only one source - a 3-page summary written for the subject itself - in the new article is actually about the subject? There doesn't seem to be nearly enough to meet WP:N or to write an article about the subject. That one editor has continued to expand the article by using references that are about the university or other subjects doesn't support the contention that the subject is notable. ElKevbo ( talk ) 00:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Okoslavia ( talk ) 07:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. The arguments presented that the article is well-distanced from the main article or otherwise properly sourced or well-written is missing the point. The notability of the subject needs to be presented, and as it stands much of the sources don't demonstrate that. In fact, the majority of the sources in the article seem to be primary, or exclusively local and connected with the College of the Liberal Arts. GuardianH ( talk ) 00:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm seeing plenty of independent reliable sources cited in the article; I guess the question is whether coverage of e.g. the school of visual arts counts as coverage of the College of which it is a part. This is an issue on which the GNG is silent, and which can get into some weird metaphysical territory if one thinks about it too hard. But as a practical matter I don't really see why such coverage wouldn't count. Ultimately this is a "how should we break up this large blob of content" question rather than a "should we have any content on this at all" question. The notability guidelines can furnish some guidance there but following any set of rules too rigidly is a recipe for trouble. On the whole it seems to me that we are going to have a much more manageable set of articles if we use the college as the unit of coverage rather than having articles on any individual school, program or department that can clear the GNG (and that someone feels motivated to write) -- and much more manageable than trying to smoosh all coverage of the university into a single article. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) explicitly addresses this: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable....This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not 'inherit' notability from being owned by the corporation." ElKevbo ( talk ) 03:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, the language of INHERITORG pretty clearly doesn't contemplate this kind of situation, and was more about the abuse of corporate and product articles. But even if we're approaching this legalistically (which we really shouldn't ), then we have to consider that WP:NSCHOOL expressly bypasses NORG: All universities, colleges and schools [...] must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both (my emphasis). INHERITORG is part of NORG and is not part of the GNG, so (as long as this meets the GNG) INHERITORG does not apply. -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG - there is only source that is substantively focused on this subject. (It's telling that (a) that one source is closely connected to the subject and (b) another editor has been working quite hard to improve this article and they haven't been able to find another source specifically focused on this subject. ) ElKevbo ( talk ) 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The consensus seems to be leaning towards keep, however, the nomination is being fiercely defended by the nom and I would like to see more discussion on his points and about the keep consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a quick follow up nearly two weeks after this nomination was made: Ludviggy has been working quite hard to improve the article and it currently has 102 sources. However, all of those sources either (a) only mention this college in passing or (b) were written by people who work for the university or college. Therefore, this article still fails WP:GNG . ElKevbo ( talk ) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the criteria Elkevbo is applying to this particular article is not standardized across Wikipedia. I think we all know most articles suffer from a lack of outside independent sources. There is no set number or ratio of "independent" source required by Wikipedia. Again, this is subjective. This is especially true for university college articles, which all suffer from a very high ratio of non-independent sourcing because the main sources, available online and tracking a university college history is generally the university itself. Does this really make it a bad source? No. The information I am sourcing is generally dates of events, names of programs and chairs of departments, which are not controversial or political. Major public universities aren't motivated to lie about the type of facts I use in this article. Why Elkevbo is so focused on deleting this particular university college article leads me to believe he is not an unbiased editor. What Elkevbo fails to mention is that most newspapers today are paywalled and this has a significant impact on a writer's ability to source historic information from independent sources online - especially historical information about public institutions with histories over 100 years. We writers do our very best to source a document like this with all the information that is still available online. Most of the original independent news articles for this topic are only partially available online from independent archives. Even still, I believe I have provided the necessary sources, many from a combination of independent archives and non-independent (but highly reliable university) sources, to fulfil Wikipedia's minimum criteria for notability. 50.35.127.4 ( talk ) 50.35.127.4 ( talk ) 02:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your accusations of bad faith are growing tiresome; cut it out. ElKevbo ( talk ) 02:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I do not agree with ElKevbo's position. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment following relist: I fear I am not quite following the guideline-based argument above. It seems we all agree that INHERITORG is not part of the GNG and does not apply here per NSCHOOL. That means we are back to the ordinary English-language understanding of what it means for a source to cover something. I don't think anyone would dispute that coverage of the Whoville Arts District is also coverage of Whoville, or that coverage of some building's historic cupola is also coverage of the building, etc. Of course some part-whole relationships are so attenuated or obscure that they can't reasonably be counted in this way without slipping into OR, but I don't think the straightforward relationship of a college to its component schools and buildings falls into that category. Given the above, it seems plain that the sources already at hand meet the GNG, e.g. [9] , [10] , [11] . (This is not to say that I think we are obligated to cover the college as a whole rather than an assemblage of parts, but I am not persuaded that anything prohibits it, and it seems like better encyclopedic practice to me.) -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand the reference to WP:NSCHOOL . It states: "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." It's not clear if it's intended to apply to colleges that are part of universities or only standalone colleges but I'll concede that it's plausible that it should apply to constituent colleges. Even if that is the case, the available sources do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG . GNG says that the topic must have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." ORG says that the subject must have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources don't meet those criteria. this source is about a creative arts center, this source is about the university's history, and this source is about a couple of new majors at the university. In each of them - and all of the other sources in the article - the subject of the article, the college, is only mentioned in passing. I understand that it seems weird that a college at an accredited research university has not been the subject of significant documentation. But it's reality - some colleges simply have not had cohesive identities and missions such that they have lent themselves to scholarly study, internal navel gazing, media attention, and other forms of meaningful, focused documentation. Some colleges exist primarily or exclusively as a way to organize a bunch of academic units. There are several of those kinds of colleges at my university. They're not bad or dysfunctional organizations and nor is this college. But they don't meet our notability criteria. And frankly we'd have to really contort ourselves to piece together an article about them - just as editors are doing now for this college. If someone wants to propose that WP:ORG be amended to make colleges and equivalent constituent units of legitimate universities automatically notable, please do so. But until there is a change along those lines this college - and many others - don't meet our notability guidelines. (And if someone wants to just WP:IAR this, please do so explicitly - it's not an unreasonable position.) ElKevbo ( talk ) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a college affiliated with a major public university. How much more obviously notable can you get? Steven Walling • talk 06:47, 26 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

CoastAlaska: PROD was declined with no rationale. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Organizations , and Alaska . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , fails on several levels. Only one source, and its the official website. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - I did an internet search on this, and added sources. It's legitimate and a big-deal lifeline for public radio stations in Alaska. The sourcing is out there, for anyone who wants to dig in and do a search. — Maile ( talk ) 18:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per additions by Maile66. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NORG with sources added to the article by Maile. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:50, 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

Joshua Kelley (sailor): Despite a flurry of media coverage in May 2023, I have concerns on the notability of this individual. Cssiitcic ( talk ) 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military . Cssiitcic ( talk ) 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Kelley can be mentioned in the US Navy article, or possibly in an article about non-binary members of the military. I don't' think they need their own article. Cortador ( talk ) 09:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge. Perhaps this article on gender identity in the US military might be a good fit. However, if this article were expanded upon to discuss Kelley's drag queen performances, and the ensuing controversy and coverage, it could possibly meet notability guidelines. Jdweikler ( talk ) 09:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as article creator). Media coverage throughout at least May through August 2023 is already established by article sources. Notability is not contingent on the current status of the article, so if this article were expanded …, it could possibly meet notability guidelines is a non sequitur. Meets NBIO based on sustained, personal media note, and expansion is not a valid deletion or keep criterion nor contingency. Additional sources, not currently included in the article, embrace two articles in Stripes [77] [78] ; one in The Independent [79] ; one in NewsNation [80] ; one in Newsweek [81] ; and several by the New York Daily News [82] , The New York Post [83] , the Washington Examiner [84] , and by conservative opinion outlets [85] [86] . I would not use the latter for the article, but they do help to establish notability. BTW these are all on the first two pages of a widely used search engine on the terms "Joshua Kelly sailor" so I wonder if WP:BEFORE has been attempted. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 15:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reliable sources ( The Independent , Stars and Stripes , Military Times , Daily News ) in this discussion and in the article indicate WP:BASIC , WP:SUSTAINED coverage May though September of this year. Note that I am not considering WP:IBTIMES , WP:NYPOST , Washington Examiner or Newsweek as RS. Alternatively, a merge to Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military could be a better option. — siro χ o 04:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; the extant sources plus User:Bri's sources here meet the threshold for WP:N . — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also like to share: the article's fully-sourced prose has now been expanded 16.6 times since the deletion nomination, the number of sources has doubled (and spans 4.68 years), and there are a further four reliable sources on the talk page (in a {{ refideas }} I've yet to mine & incorporate into the article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:21, 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

Jonathan Pageau: Fails WP:GNG . Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , France , and Canada . Jamiebuba ( talk ) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources: East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age" . ChristianityToday.com . Retrieved 2024-06-24 . Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions (a good part of which is about Pageau)" . Premier Christianity . Retrieved 2024-03-13 . Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube" . europeanconservative.com . Retrieved 2024-03-13 . Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse" . Crisis Magazine . Retrieved 2024-05-21 . Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau" . Catholic Art Institute . Retrieved 2024-03-13 . Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life" . The Catholic Voice . Retrieved 2024-05-21 . " 'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC" . OrthoChristian.Com . Retrieved 2024-05-31 . And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie ( talk ) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion). I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published. Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson , Robert Barron , Paul Kingsnorth , and Gavin Ashenden : they think he is notable. Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk ) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice to have you join in the discussion @ Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau , all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie ( talk ) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet ( talk ) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes: Rod Dreher describing Jonathan Pageau as — for him, as a writer at least — one of the most important public intellectuals Robert Barton describing Jonathan Pageau as a leading thinker on meaning I don't know of an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable . Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today . MatthewDalhousie ( talk ) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An update I did a comb through the article today, and removed material from the Orthodox Arts Journal as the subject is a member of the editorial team. Turns out everything from that source was found in better sources, which I've now added. So, the article now leans on: Several articles by Terry Mattingly , a subject matter specialist on religion in the United States, in particular "On Religion" published in the Daily Review , New telescopes, old question: Where is heaven? in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and "On Religion: Facing modern chaos, priests need old symbols and truths" in the Tahlequah Daily Press ' Christianity Today ' and its article Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age by Brad East ' The American Conservative ', particularly its article "Portrait of the Artist as Iconographer: Searching for meaning in the postmodern wasteland" by Bradley Anderson The Gospel Coalition, especially its article "Christ and Consciousness" by Phil Cotnoir 'Institute of Public Affairs Review' "Liberalism to the Barricades, Again" by Scott Hargreaves . 76 (1): 34. My long night with Jordan Peterson — and his superfans, originally in 'The Times' but also in 'The Australian' ] by James Marriott. The British online publishing house ' Premier Christianity ', in particular the article I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He’s asking all the right questions" by Justin Brierley. ] The European Conservative , with regards its article "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube" ] by Rod Dreher Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse: What I learned at the Symbolic World Summit ] by the academic Darrick Taylor. A book review of Pageau's work in the online poetry journal from 'Age of Muses' by David B. Gosselin The journal, 'Modern Age' and its piece from 2022 by Grayson Quay, "The Perils of Re-Enchantment: Beyond the end of materialism, G.K. Chesterton and Darren Aronofsky see nightmares: Modern Age". Acknowledging that that secondary sources like the above are what we use to settle WP:GNG I believe we now have the sources required, following the outline in such as are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per WP:BASIC . When it comes to primary sources, following the guidance, only a few have been used and only with regards straightforward statements of facts, these include The piece "Jonathan Pageau on icons, political dehumanisation, and befriending Jordan Peterson" by the broadcaster Elizabeth Oldfield in 'Theos' The Greek online journal 'Antifono', and its 2022 article by Kornarou titled "Orthodoxy is the last stronghold of Christianity" In short, revisions and edits are concluded for now and I submit the article has been improved and reasonable concerns about the notability of the subject have been addressed. MatthewDalhousie ( talk ) 06:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be! Alex IslaCara ( talk ) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader and was surprised as well. Never heard of this individual until yesterday and I didn't want to immediately launch into his YouTube videos, so I'm glad there was a Wikipedia page I could read. Please don't delete it. 2600:8800:49B:7800:3418:2EA0:3C86:BCCC ( talk ) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given the subject's notability is established by wide coverage. On top of being discussed in specialist journal articles (such as 'Modern Age') Pageau has received coverage in reliable sources here , here , here , here , here , here , here here and here . MatthewDalhousie ( talk ) Keep because subject is referenced in new publications, such as The Classroom as Cosmos by David Mathwin, published by Kalos Publishing in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSimonson ( talk • contribs ) 06:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — WilliamSimonson ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep - Just because the references are from niche publications, does not diminish them from going towards GNG, which this person meets. Onel 5969 TT me 10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Jonathan Pageau is the only Orthodox icon carver in Canada, and he's received significant coverage for that in reliable publications such as the Catholic Art Institute , where he was featured artist. Other than being a distinguished artist, he also is active in teaching iconography and the methodology of Orthodox art, by appearing in important religious organizations such as the Institute of Sacred Arts of the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary . Because this is reported, the subject is notable. MariaMKorn ( talk ) — MariaMKorn ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep because there is significant coverage in multiple sources with editorial integrity, including (but not limited to) The European Conservative and Crisis Magazine. There are many updated sources in the main article that reflect this, since the deletion discussion began on 23 June 24. Sir Awesomness ( talk ) 14:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Sir_awesomness ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ 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 Movie Channel (British TV channel): I googled it, and found no reliable sources. Avishai11 ( talk ) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep Please read WP:BEFORE comprehensively before attempting another nomination; 'it's not on Google' is by far not a proper rationale for deletion, especially for a network that predated that website. It also has a plausible redirect target so this isn't getting deleted. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This was originally a separate channel from Sky Movies/Sky Cinema so it needs to have its own article, separate from Sky Cinema. Also, a redirect is effectively a delete. And to remove any doubt about its notability on the grounds of not finding anything via Googling it, I have added a number of references to the article. Rillington ( talk ) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thank you, I definitely had a feeling sources were out there, and the 'redirection=deletion' line certainly fits; just letting the nom know that this isn't getting redlinked anytime soon. Nate • ( chatter ) 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made by Rillington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhivuti45 ( talk • contribs ) 11:06, 30 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

Jiuyin Zhenjing: A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Condor Trilogy , but I think it would unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Martial arts , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My search did not find significant reliable independent coverage of this subject. The two references in the article are both from the book, meaning they're not independent. I didn't find mention of this in the WP articles of any of the books in the trilogy, so I question how significant a role it played in the trilogy--which is why I didn't vote to redirect or merge. Papaursa ( talk ) 03:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on the sources and explanations added by 1.47.133.86 . 1.47.133.86 , I hope you will add these sources and some text to the article. Papaursa ( talk ) 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The Nine Yin Manual (九陰真經) is a crucial martial arts skill in wuxia fiction, prominently featured in all of Jin Rong's works. Well Should we delete Pokemon just because it is a fictional? The Nine Yin Manual holds greater prominence than Iron Man's armor in South Asian regions. Numerous literary works explore and research the subject, including "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" and many scholarly articles analyzing the Nine Yin Manual can be found on Google Scholar [53] . Please conduct research and find sources in the Chinese language before proposing deletion. Wikipedia is not exclusively an English language source center, and the absence of English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Thanks 1.47.133.86 ( talk ) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that English sources are not required, but providing some specific Chinese sources to evaluate (not a giant list) would be appreciated. Doesn't "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" refer to prescription compatibility? Sorry, I'm out of my element with Chinese. Don't see what Iron Man's armor has to do with the WP notability of this article ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ). Papaursa ( talk ) 03:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't do this: [54] , [55] . That's campaigning . A neutrally-worded statement would have been OK. Jfire ( talk ) 03:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Jfire : , I've been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and have learned about canvassing. I want to clarify that I notified related projects without explicitly requesting "keep" votes or to "save the article." My message only encouraged expressing opinions on the AfD, which is not canvassing. Many editors adopt this approach. If you've observed similar notifications from others, why not address them too? Over the past five years, during quiet or inactive country projects, when a notable article is in AfD, I've sent notifications on the project talk page. This isn't a request for votes, just an invitation for opinions, whether they be "delete" or merge" votes. As you are one of the respected editors I mentioned before, I never intended to oppose you. Pls pardon me. 1.47.133.86 ( talk ) 08:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the considerable Chinese-language coverage. — Remsense 诉 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point to some of the best sources? The results on Google Scholar and for "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" as the above IP user suggested look like content farms and/or different topics. Admittedly I am going off Google Translate though, so I'd appreciate a more detailed assessment from a native speaker. Jfire ( talk ) 04:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See below. 1.47.133.86 ( talk ) 13:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Nine Yin Manual or Jiuyin Zhenjing (simplified Chinese: 九陰真經) to pass the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. " Sources Jiuyin Zhenjing is the subject of a mobile game source . 中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍 中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍 (The Prescription of the Nine Yin Manual in Chinese Medicine: A Discussion on the Combination of Herbs) is a scholarly article written by Zhou Minlan (周敏郎), a Taiwanese physician and scholar of traditional Chinese medicine. The article was published in the Taiwan Medical Journal in 2012. In the article, Zhou Minlan discusses the relationship between the Nine Yin Manual, a fictional martial arts manual from the Legend of the Condor Heroes novels, and the principles of Chinese medicine. He argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a metaphor for the principles of Chinese medicine, particularly the concept of a combination of herbs. He begins by discussing the history and content of the Nine Yin Manual. He notes that the manual is divided into two parts: the internal martial arts and the external martial arts. The article argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a valuable resource for understanding the principles of Chinese medicine. 李连杰亲临现场，《九阴真经》全球首届武侠电竞大赛收官 - The inaugural "Nine Yin Manual" Global Wuxia Esports Tournament is named to honor the Nine Yin Manual in Jing Yong’s novel. Tencent Games and Perfect World co-hosted the tournament. The opening ceremony saw the presence of renowned martial arts star Jet Li . The Study of Martial Arts Secret Books on Jin Yong Novel Edition Correction: "Jiuyin-zhen-jing" as The Main Example is a scholarly article by Chen Junhong, published in Chinese Literature World in 2012. The article discussed the importance of the Nine Yin Manual with other manuals such as Jade Maiden's Heart Sutra, Wu Mu's Legacy, Sunflower Manual, and Six Yang Palm. That stated, "In Jin Yong's early works, particularly Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Return of the Condor Heroes, the manuals are often epitomized by the "Nine Yin Manual". This comprehensive text encompasses various aspects of martial arts, including internal and external skills, weaponry, light body techniques, and hidden weapons. Protagonists like Guo Jing and Yang Guo owe their advancements in martial prowess to studying this manual. " The article 道"的阐释与追寻——《射雕英雄传》的原型解读 (The Interpretation and Pursuit of "Dao"—The Prototype Interpretation of "The Legend of the Condor Heroes") is a critical essay by Chinese scholar Li Xiaoping published in the Journal of the Gansu Institute of Education. The essay explores the theme of "dao" (道, the Way) in Jin Yong's martial arts novel and the Nine Yin Manual. The book 武俠小說話古今 discusses the close relationship between the "九陰真經" (Jiuyin Zhenjing) and the "道德經" (Tao Te Ching). (Page 68) The Nine Yin True Scripture is closely related to the Dao De Jing. The Nine Yin True Scripture was written by Huang Shang of the Northern Song Dynasty after he had read all the Daoist books in the world and comprehended the true meaning of martial arts. The first line of the scripture, "The way of heaven is to subtract from the excess and supplement the deficiency; therefore, the weak and the insufficient can overcome the strong and the excessive," is the same as the meaning of the Dao De Jing by Laozi. It can be said that the Dao De Jing is the mother of the Nine Yin True Scripture. (Page 100) Yang Kang, who was obsessed with the Nine Yin True Scripture, became insane and a madman, but his martial arts became even more powerful. Even the combined efforts of Hong Qigong and Huang Yaoshi were not his match. Another person who is astonishing is Wuqing, the leader of the Four Constables. The book says that this person has an empty abdomen, and his legs are all missing. He has neither internal energy nor martial arts, but his lightness skills are superb and his hidden weapons are the best in the world. I wonder how he practiced these light skills and hidden weapons. (Page 146) The Nine Yin True Scripture, the Northern Divine Art, and the Empty-Void Fist are all closely related to the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi. In his novels, he often quoted Buddhist scriptures and verses, and he was not just a martial artist who knew how to fight. The book Discussing Martial Arts and Analyzing Swords by Hong Zhenkuai, 2007, discusses the significance of the "Jiuyin Zhenjing" in Jin Yong's novels, particularly in "The Legend of the Condor Heroes," "The Return of the Condor Heroes," and "Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils." "Jiuyin Zhenjing" is portrayed as a pivotal element, influencing major events in these novels. Page 216 In his book "The True and False Classics: The Phenomenon of Martial Arts Manuals in Martial Arts Novels," Hong Zhenkuai argues that the most famous martial arts manual in Jin Yong's novels is the Nine Yin True Scripture. The major events of Jin Yong's best novels, including The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber, were all caused by the Nine Yin True Scripture. The Nine Yin True Scripture is a powerful and mysterious manual that has been passed down for generations. Page 222 The Nine Yin True Scripture was created by a Daoist monk named Huang Shang in the Northern Song Dynasty. It was hidden in a secret location for many years, but it suddenly appeared in the world one day. The appearance of the Nine Yin True Scripture caused a great stir in the martial arts world. Many people wanted to possess the manual, including the leaders of the major martial arts sects. Page 227 The first Huashan Sword Meeting was held to determine who would be the rightful owner of the Nine Yin True Scripture. The winner of the meeting would be the one who could defeat all the other participants. In the end, the meeting was won by Wang Chongyang, the founder of the Quanzhen sect. Hong Zhenkuai argues that the Nine Yin True Scripture should have been kept by Wang Chongyang. He believes that giving the manual to anyone else would have led to a change in the cultural and religious beliefs of the martial arts world. This is evident in the effects that the Nine Yin True Scripture had on those who practiced it. Guo Jing, who learned the manual from Wang Chongyang, became a powerful and righteous warrior. However, Yang Kang, who also learned the manual, became a ruthless and ambitious man. 1.47.133.86 ( talk ) 12:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above sources provided by 1.47.133.86. That's convincing, thanks for taking the time to translate and summarize. Hope those sources make it into the article, which except for the first sentence, is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Jfire ( talk ) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by 1.47.133.86. Significant coverage in journal articles, books based on it and news of the esports tournament which is named after it. 94rain Talk 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided, and tidy up a bit. Bduke ( talk ) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep by sources provided above. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 14:06, 24 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

Mojo (programming language): Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing , and Software . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week delete . InfoWorld seems fine. Others do not seem to be independent. Definitely has the feel of a promotional article, too. — siro χ o 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update, I am fine with draftify proposed below as well — siro χ o 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge (see comment below). The sources are in the front: 2 infoworld, the register, and analytics india magazine. As far as I can tell they are all independent, reliable, and cover the language in depth, as required for WP:GNG . The fact that infoworld wrote about it again shows there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There is more coverage too, they're just blogs and stuff that's not really reliable. But what is there seems sufficient, and I'm sure if something interesting happens, e.g. it goes out of beta, there will be another round of news coverage, allowing improvements in the article's tone and quality to make it less hype-y. Mathnerd314159 ( talk ) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I concur with @ Mathnerd314159 . A quick news search of "Mojo programming language" will show a number of reliable sources including Medium, Adafruit, and yahoo! finance. Additionally, the project lead for Mojo, Chris Lattner , is the creator of several widely used projects including the LLVM , Clang , and MLIR (co-founder) compiler frameworks, as well as Swift , Apple's de facto programming language. If Lattner's record holds, Mojo has a high likelihood of being widely adopted among machine-learning researchers and systems developers alike once it is released to the public. I will look into revising the page to reflect the wider range of sources available. Zramsey11 ( talk ) 17:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP . - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The above vote being Zramsey11 's sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify in my opinion, this article is a bit early but subject may continue to develop and meet notability. The InfoWorld article mentioned above seems good, more sources like that would help the article to sufficiently meet the requirements without much doubt. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The article may seem iffy to some now but there will only continue to be more sources on the topic. Not to say I think the current sources are bad though. Rlink2 ( talk ) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like WP:CRYSTAL though, I agree it might become notable but right now feels somewhat premature. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles. Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub . This in-depth review from The New Stack , a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS . And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo . -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a skeptical of the independence of Analytics India source due to their "branded content" program: [5] "Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint." I'm very skeptical of The New Stack , they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [6] [7] . And the author is referred to as a developer marketing writer [8] Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article. — siro χ o 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't seen WP:CORPDEPTH , but looking at it now there is a line about discounting "any material that is substantially based on press releases ( churnalism ), even if published by independent sources". The register article is substantially based on quoting the Modular blog post announcing Mojo and the non-independent fast.ai article, so I think would count as churnalism. And maybe the first infoworld article, it doesn't cite any sources and the talking points ("Full compatibility", "low-level control", etc.) are suspiciously similar to the blog post. But I think the Analytics India is independent - the author is on the staff, not a contributor, so it's not syndicated material, and the comparison with Julia seems out of place for a corporate piece. And the second infoworld article seems like a legitimate "I read Mojo's documentation" kind of piece. I did see the New Stack article but I think it's a contributed article (as described in [9] ), as the author is not listed on the staff , (although, she has many more posts than 1 per 3 months, so maybe she does have a close relationship with TNS?). But, regardless, from the colloquial language like "Advertising, amirite?" I don't think it went through much of an editorial review, let alone fact-checking like a reputable news source. I think it just counts as a blog post hence unreliable. So that leaves us at 2 reliable sources. I like the merging idea, certainly in this discussion Zramsey11's primary argument for notability was that the team is led by Chris Lattner and he has a good track record of releasing languages, so discussing Mojo in the context of Chris Lattner seems warranted. Mathnerd314159 ( talk ) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo . I agree with other participants that Infoworld is IMO SIGCOV by GNG standards (though I'm neutral on whether it meets the mark using the stricter corporate product standards) and is a RS. However, I'm not especially convinced by the other sources. NewStack has an about us page but no clear editorial policies and the author does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert ( developer marketing writer is very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source. Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence. I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources. Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT , so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG. However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I heard about it recently. As a software developement project it has a space on Wikipedia, per long consensus. Coverage on three continents. scope_creep Talk 10:41, 21 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! * 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems pretty rare for Scope creep to vote keep on AFD. Reviewed the current sources again, guess they should be good enough. - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - reliable sources with significant coverage found: [10] [11] [12] 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a tricky call, but I think that the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles are sufficient for WP:GNG . MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:55, 29 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

Addie Walsh: I have completed a quick search for additional sources, though I couldn't find anything aside from IMDb and other unreliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 03:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Television , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:CREATIVE . Credited writer/head writer/etc for more than 1000 episodes of notable soap operas. Verifiable multiple-time winner of multiple well-known awards for multiple shows ( WGA Award , Daytime Emmy ) (eg [31] [32] [33] ). — siro χ o 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasoning above. Kazamzam ( talk ) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No proper relevant sources. Is using only one reference. killer bee 09:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - the lack of sources is not a reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process ). Regardless, I have added in sources for some of the statements in the article. I have no comment on notability. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, DaffodilOcean ! You're right that lack of sources on a page is not a cause for deletion in and of itself. However, if sources cannot be found, the subject of the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As such, the subject would not require a Wikipedia page. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 19:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources exist to verify notability as defined by WP:CREATIVE . Rublamb ( talk ) 14:29, 13 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

Matthew Irmas: The three citations are all reviews of films associated with the subject, failing WP:SIGCOV . The article is over a decade old and has been a stub the entire time, I believe both because the subject is not notable enough to generate much interest and because there has been little to add in terms of reliable, substantive, secondary coverage. Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Vegantics ( talk ) 19:36, 29 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 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Directed 3 notable films, thus meeting WP:DIRECTOR . NB- I DeproDed the page today (same nominator; see article TP) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural note: Is this the second Afd for this director?? Where is the first? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Forgive my inexperienced Wikipedia editing, I regarded my nomination for deletion earlier today as the first nomination, making this the second. I couldn't find clarification on if the nomination count only applied to those that underwent a discussion. Vegantics ( talk ) 20:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, thanks (not a big deal, now that this is clear; this page can be moved (renamed) later). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Vegantics ( talk ) 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:CREATIVE #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". He served as a director for three notable films and was also producer for the film Three of Hearts . MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk ) 00:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article could definitely be expanded, but it does pass notability guidelines at this point in time. You can always try to make the guidelines more strict, but I don't know that there would be consensus in making them so strict that having 2+ notable films wouldn't give notability to a director. To be fair, I think I know where you're coming from. However keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't limited to the same things that say, Brittanica would be. There are no page limits and we haven't been given any sort of austere limits on server space. Also keep in mind that what is considered to be useful or encyclopedic is kind of dependent on the individual. A page like this may not be helpful for you or I beyond entertainment value, but someone writing an article or book about 90s films could find it useful. If/when notability standards get strict enough to where a page like this would be deleted, then it can be re-addressed then. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the perspectives in this vote. My interpretation of WP:N was that a subject should meet WP:NBASIC and only then be considered under WP:NDIRECTOR , but am seeing from this discussion that others read it diifferently. Vegantics ( talk ) 15:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 3 notable films should be fine for BASIC Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 09:57, 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

Raba Khan: May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK ( talk ) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Internet , and Bangladesh . AlbeitPK ( talk ) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Radio , Entertainment , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them. The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual. No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable. And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X ( talk ) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AlbeitPK , I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE , which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user . As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces. Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X ( talk ) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Source analysis: This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video. Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her A short interview with a little more significant commentary Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement An entire article on her , which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid. Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers , only a little but it is there More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner Article on her , though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know The interview mentioned , which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do) Short article Plus: A full 12-ish-paragraph article reviewing her book and her Another 12-ish-paragraph one disagreeing with the first one So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X ( talk ) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles . I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N . Spinifex&Sand ( talk ) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:11, 15 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

Fremont Lake: Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 22:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm usually in favor of deleting articles on ponds and remote lakes that have little human activity, but this is the second largest in Wyoming and has a campground, lodge, and beach on it. Sources with decent coverage include [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] . Reywas92 Talk 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Reywas92 and WP:GEOLAND : Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Here is another reference, and there are others like it. Stony Brook babble 03:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Reywas92 , particularly the Gillette News Record article. FOARP ( talk ) 16:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the sources cited by Reywas92 have WP:SIGCOV and indicate that the subject of the article passes WP:GEOLAND . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 12:23, 30 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

Kirk Lynn: JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , and United States of America . JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 ( talk ) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB ) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona ( talk ) 04:32, 11 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! 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Guardian review and [1] , Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . The Guardian being on another continent counters the argument about local press, though I did find yet another local review: https://www.austinchronicle.com/arts/2015-12-11/rules-for-werewolves/ . Furthermore, the writeup in a year-end list by Anna Wiener at Longreads seems like editorial content. Would this summary at NPR count as secondary comment? This is more passing than significant coverage. I would not be opposed to transform this into an article about the book, where the film also would be covered. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:20, 17 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

Chatchai Narkwijit: — S Marshall T / C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . — S Marshall T / C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Thailand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Has been profiled by PPTV in a three-minute news scoop [31] , and in a spotlight article on the Thai League's website [32] . Most other top search results are transfer news and match reports. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 02:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , among many more Thai sources. Clearly significant figure in Thai lower league football (he's been called the "God" of Thai lower league by multiple sources, with Thai League 1 experience and fefin9eltyh has offline sources, having played in 2000s. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:38, 18 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

Mary Lou Allison Gardner Little: Could possibly be merged, but I don't think that will accomplish class goals, so we're here. Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women . Star Mississippi 22:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed) : as you apper to be working with this class. Can you help? Star Mississippi 22:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Little is mentioned as a Sigma Gamma Rho founder in The AJC in 2022, and her obituary is published by the LAT in 1992. A Butler University archive description states she "was one of the seven founding members of Sigma Gamma Rho and is considered the sorority's primary founder." Local news reports Butler University has a monument to the founders; the school paper reported honorary degrees for the founders in 2022; EBONY also reports this along with other historical events for the sorority. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's part of why I think she should be merged. One of the founders is of significant history, but I don't think it's enough for standalone. Star Mississippi 23:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't accessed the WP Library yet to check the Journal of Southern History reference, but Gregory S. Parks and Caryn Neumann, Lifting as They Climb: Race, Sorority, and African American Uplift in the 20th Century , 27 Hastings Women's L.J. 109 (2016) includes biographical information for Little (along with other founders) in fn 13; the law review could also support content in the Sigma Gamma Rho and Zeta Phi Beta articles. From my view, it seems possible to create a Founders section in the Sigma Gamma Rho article (perhaps as a subsection in the History section), with biographies of the founders, and Little listed first based on her being considered the primary founder, being listed first in a variety of sources, and having a sorority award named after her. Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would make total sense to me. I don't know about the sorority award or honoree degrees, but that could be handled editorially. I guess my question is what these students are expected to deliver to meet their assignment. Of course folks could find more , I'm just saying what if/do they need a full "article" for their professors, which is where I hope Wiki Ed folks can help Star Mississippi 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A book now generally cited in the article, Black Greek-letter Organizations in the Twenty-First Century (University of Kentucky Press, 2008) has a full page biography of Little at p. 127 (which notes Little wrote the sorority pledge) and at pp. 125 - 126 includes contextual history of the sorority (the chapter is titled "Seven Schoolteachers Challenge the Klan"), and at pp. 128 - 133, biographical information of other founders, as well as further context and history about the sorority at pp. 133 - 134. I would also like to hear from Wiki Ed folks, because I think there is potential for expansion at Sigma Gamma Rho that could make inclusion of concise biographies for Little and other founders WP:DUE per WP:BIO1E . Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beccaynr , this might be good as with band members bios in groups like Meg and Dia , or cast members for a single television series. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff ) 14:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . I found two books that provide a short (full page) biography, so she at least meets WP:BASIC . I made improvements to the article before ! voting. I only said "weak" because I don't have time to check how robust my ! vote is, but I should maybe just have said "keep". CT55555 ( talk ) 02:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sigma Gamma Rho as {{ R from founder }} until it is clear she has independent notability from the sorority's foundation. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff ) 14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Parks (cited in the article) includes a page length biography. McClure (also cited) notes that the sorority was her "brain child." Also see the sources provided by User:Beccaynr in the comment above. I think establishing one of the "divine nine" and having secondary sources stating that fact, is sufficient for notability. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 14:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Leaning merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE , which includes: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Our notability guideline is a broader consideration than WP:GNG / WP:BASIC , and includes context and what may best help readers. For this subject, she is known for her work with others to found the sorority, and secondary sources seem to present them as a group with similar depth of biographical information and context; for example, they have the same historical context, have been honored with a monument, and were awarded honorary degrees. While there are details that distinguish Little's role as a primary founder, drafter of the pledge, first president, etc, I think developing a Founders section or subsection in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article, along with adding relevant content to other parts of that article, provides the most contextual understanding of the topics, and per WP:SUMMARY , it may eventually make sense to create a standalone article for the founders, with a link and a summary paragraph in the main Sigma Gamma Rho article. For now, the content would first need to be developed to assess how to proceed. From my view, a permanent stub for Little is less helpful for readers than a redirect to an article with contextual significance. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; subject was president and founder of a national organization still in existence. Article has been somewhat improved since nomination (has an image now). Penny Richards ( talk ) 16:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as notability has been established in the above discussion per WP:GNG , and because many editors have helped improve the article, which was in poor shape at the time it was nominated for deletion and was clearly moved into mainspace prematurely. The main debate now seems to be whether or not this article should be merged into Sigma Gamma Rho , or if it's deserving of a standalone article. In the past, I have been skeptical about whether sorority founders really deserve their own standalone Wikipedia articles, but in this particular case, this is a huge international sorority with a history of over 100 years, and the primary founder who was the first president, wrote the pledge, and has the biennial award named after her, whose founding story is significant in historical context and who remained involved in sorority activities through much of her life, seems justified. (And equally, that founding story and the biographical history of the founders is a big enough topic that trying to cram it all into the main sorority page would probably be disproportionate relative to the rest of the history of the sorority, which is significant.) That said, it is indeed the case that the original founders as a group are known as the "Seven Pearls of Sigma Gamma Rho" and have coverage as a group (although it seems Mary Lou Allison (Gardner) (Little) had the most and is also recognized separately), so I would not be opposed if other members of this WikiEd course at Allen University (or other editors) were to decide to expand this article to include all seven founders; at that point, we could use redirects with the individual founder names to redirect to the Seven Pearls of Sigma Gamma Rho page. But right now, that article content does not exist, so it's fine to keep the Mary Lou Allison (Gardner Little) article as is. Cc: Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed) and course instructor Kazooch . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:40, 23 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

Diesel (donkey): This subject was covered by just two news cycles: briefly and only locally in 2019 when the subject ran away, and another just recently when it was speculated that a donkey spotted in the wild was him. "Human mother", "human father"? "May have been Diesel"? Choice of language and speculation is something I would expect from a video short posted on The Dodo , but not a Wikipedia article. Simply a human-interest story to color the news cycle; not lasting, not important, not notable. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and California . ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There has been broad, international coverage of this animal, both significant and published in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. Coverage is sustained, with dozens of articles spanning several months both in 2019 ( [17] , [18] , [19] ) and 2024 ( [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] ). That the subject happens to be of human interest has no bearing on notability; mixed-species herding with elk, especially with animals captured during roundups, is rare and of ethological interest. Issues with phrasing have been addressed, though it should be noted that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . gobonobo + c 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is full of speculation: "suspected that", "speculated that", "believed to have belonged", "appeared to have been", "suspect that", "might be". How does this level of uncertainty make for an encyclopedic article? There is nothing in the article about the rarity of "mixed-species herding with elk" (no content, no studies, no sources) which might have some interest. However if the real point was the oddity of donkeys herding with elk then the focus of the article wouldn't be "Diesel the donkey", but Diesel would be a side note in another article that did cover inter-species herding. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . This is not the appropriate venue for discussing article improvements. If you have issues with wording, please bring suggestions to the article's talk page. gobonobo + c 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not suggesting the article needs improvement, but I am pointing out that a subject matter which is brimming with speculation while slim on facts essentially isn't WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in the first place. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete somebody lost their donkey, then it was found. The claims of importance are not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The donkey has received coverage over several years, and by multiple RS. "But it's just a donkey" doesn't change that. Cortador ( talk ) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction, the coverage spanned several years, was not sustained, but was only two news cycles: once when the donkey went missing, and once when it was spotted. Per WP:SUSTAINED , brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability . This hardly passes for "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG , which also cautions that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article ... perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not (NOTNEWS). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is an alarmingly disingenuous mischaracterization of the sourcing and a misreading of the guidelines. News cycles don't last for months at a time. News articles were written when Diesel went missing, again when search parties were formed to find him, again when he was seen on a trail camera, again when he was spotted in 2023, and again when he was spotted in 2024. Reading the references is part of WP:BEFORE . When I said dozens of references, I was being literal. Only the best 13 or so are included in the article, but every one of these is full-length, with multiple paragraphs devoted exclusively to the subject, clearly meeting WP:SIGCOV and surpassing WP:GNG . The anti-donkey sentiment here strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT . gobonobo + c 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, I like donkeys. This has nothing to do with donkey hating. I understand this is your article so you want to defend it, but please stick to content issues and assume good faith of other editors. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is kind of lame logic, but we have all kinds of temporarily viral tale from Lawnchair Larry to Rickrolling in WP. The donkey is not particularly notable by the animal "biography" standards, but as a cultural news story that went viral, it's got adequate coverage to meet the basic WP:N criteria. And it's humorous. Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Montanabw and others. Grorp, please stop badgering opposers. Mini apolis 13:56, 30 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

ArtZuid: fails general notability guideline . coverage is not enough for a comprehensive article. ltb d l ( talk ) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . ltb d l ( talk ) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just added a few references. There is more than enough coverage for a comprehensive article. That said, I agree that the style and lay-out needs improvement. Will work on it. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ruud, the GNG, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb ( talk ) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Rudd Buite, has been improved and additional sources added. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:57, 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

Inside Voices / Outside Voices: Some (not many) come from generally reliable sources, but the lack of reviews, charting, or other signifiers of notability does not impress me much. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Turns out I launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now. Totally forgot about that. My opinion clearly hasn't changed though. I don't question Alternative Press ' s reliability, but their coverage of this consists of a Q&A interview (essentially a primary source) which I don't think conveys notability. If that's the best we got then I don't think it's good enough for an article. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the same sources and stance I provided earlier in the year. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; reasons provided in the previous AfD nomination. You know my opinion. SaltieChips ( talk ) 22:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Keep adequately sourced article. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged to K. Flay . On a side note, if someone "launched the previous AfD on this article back in June when it was in basically the same position as it is now", does this not border on an "abuse of process"? -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AfDs were months apart so I'm pretty sure I clear any minimum time requirements, and I volunteered the info before anyone voted so it could've been voted as procedural close if anyone felt it was inappropriate. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Then I request a procedural close. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With it being all keep stances so far, I believe either a procedural keep close or a "nomination withdrawn" stance can still be done. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does QuietHere wish to withdraw their nomination? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk ) 02:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's already a keep so it doesn't matter. I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments which have been made in either AfD, but clearly I haven't convinced anyone else so I'm leaving this be now. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:23, 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

Isabel, North Dakota: At any rate there's nothing there now except a sign memorializing the school building which once stood here, and that was just about all there was to the place except a store mentioned in one of the comments to the post. The school didn't appear until 1922 and was supposedly the result of consolidating the other schools in the township. At any rate, I doubt that this adds up to a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Dakota and Geography . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: 47 people lived there in 2020. (The place is growing! 46 lived there during the 2010 census.) Do we delete U.S. places with a population? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it seems to be a census settlement so would likely be notable per WP:GEOLAND . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The census numbers are for the whole township , not just this spot. Mangoe ( talk ) 22:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source makes reference to "city". Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 06:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, they are obviously wrong as soon as one looks at GMaps, as there simply is no town now . And at any rate, I looked directly at the township on the census website, and it gives a population of 46 for the township. Mangoe ( talk ) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the 2010 census the population was 46. After 10 years, in 2020, the city had an estimated population of 47 inhabitants. https://www.mapsof.net/isabel-nd and no it is not a wikipedia mirror, i added the info to the wikipedia page. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and it has been listed in the USGNI Database since February 13, 1980 PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please go read WP:GNIS , as we have been working for some years now getting rid of all the spurious places entered as "unincorporated communities" in WP. And please go look at the place in GMaps. Is there really a possibility that 46 people live in a sign and a ruined building? As I said before, I looked directly in the census, not on some aggregator site, and it says the township has a population of 46. A township is not the same as a town; it's a subdivision of a county in the the same way that a county is a subdivision of a state. It's an area, not a spot. Isabel-the-supposed-town has no population, because there is nothing there but a sign and the ruins of a house or farm structure. You have to check all these sources against each other. Mangoe ( talk ) 17:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Accourding to google maps what you have said is not true: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Isabel,+ND+58332/@48.0628577,-99.6603015,2883m/data=! 3m1! 1e3! 4m6! 3m5! 1s0x52db9eadd7598a43:0x5a1e15bbd3435067! 8m2! 3d48.0647286! 4d-99.6534652! 16s%2Fm%2F04b7spm? entry=ttu PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What am I supposed to be seeing? The text on the left is simply our article : click on "more" if you don't believe me. If you zoom in on the marked spot, there is nothing there but plants and roads. If you go to street view at the spot and look north, you can see the sign that marks the location of the former school, and that's it. How are there 47 people here? Mangoe ( talk ) 12:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what I am sayig is that there are buildings/ remnent of buildings PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also The GNIS was not corrupt in 1980. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination and the nominator's subsequent presented facts. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] : •Delete - We have enough info to know it was/is a community, though we don't have enough information to include it in a wikipedia article. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 03:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep MERGE to Isabel, township Keep since multiple sources mention clearly Isabel and not Isabel twp. If both are the same town merge to isabel township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by बिनोद थारू ( talk • contribs ) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also newspaper source are: Roundup Record-Tribune & Winnett Times - Jul 26, 2006 - page 3 The Calgary Herald - ‎Nov 6, 1939 - page 8 They mention some citizens from Isabel, ND. Finally The American Missionary - Volume 77 - Page 551 (1923) mentions the Church of Isabel, ND, so KEEP. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it looks like it at least was populated based on some historical source searching and therefore passes WP:GEOLAND . SportingFlyer T · C 09:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Delete- We have enough info to know it was/is a community, though we don't have enough information to prove weather it is notable, and not enough information to include it in a wikipedia article. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Duplicate ! vote: PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk • contribs ) has already cast a ! vote above. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @BeanieFan11 - Because this is a relisting the votes above do not count. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're only allowed to vote once in a discussion - the fact that this has been relisted doesn't mean all the votes above it don't count. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PaulGamerBoy360 , you are only allowed to case one "vote", no matter how many times the discussion is relisted. Have you participated in many AFDs because this is a basic practice in deletion discussions. L iz Read! Talk! 03:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . WP:GEOLAND policy above and historical source brought up by myself. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]" Legal recognition is US census of course बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ●Keep- New Information and sources have been added to the article have inclined me to change my ! vote to keep. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Isabel Township. I'm fine with keep but I checked NARA: Post Office Reports of Site Locations, 1837–1950, for Benson County and unless it was misfiled I don't think it ever had a post office. I cant find it on any old USGS maps (although that's somewhat of a crapshoot because, you know, time and space and the historical record). But also this township plat map does not give me confidence that Isabel was ever a distinct settled place. I think at most Isabel (v Isabel Twp) was a crossroads or a road sign where people said they were from, but also it's hard to prove a negative and/or with rural locations the notability standards have to be a little more flexible IMHO. jengod ( talk ) 19:24, 20 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

Magyar szótár: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . See hu:Bartos Tibor for an article on the dictionary's creator. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The inability of one Wikipedian to find sources in a language they don't read is not a reason to delete an article. [1] [2] look like they might be potentially usable. Someone who reads Hungarian or has access to Hungarian library resources might well be able to find more. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 October 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! 23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "Too hard for me to find sources as I don't speak Hungarian and there is no Hungarian Wikipedia article" is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:46, 16 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

2023 Fenland District Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel 5969 TT me 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for all the same reasons that have been discussed on every other one of these you've proposed for deletion. You are setting a very high standard for sourcing and notability that does not currently exist. All one has to do is go to the BBC and regional news sites and you'll find plenty of coverage of many local elections. Bentley4 ( talk ) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the same reasons we have discussed on all the other equivalent pages you have proposed for deletion (Wigan, Luton, Cambridge, Cheshire West and Chester, and possibly others I have yet to find). Stortford ( talk ) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The rationale for the nomination seems moot now that the election has been held and the results reported. Coverage here [12] , here [13] and here [14] . The nomination was valid as no WP:SIGCOV had been demonstrated, but for practical purposes it does seem more or less guaranteed that coverage sufficient to pass GNG would be available a few days after the nomination was made, so I'm critical of the nomination for coming across as WP:Waste of Time . Rupples ( talk ) 23:16, 6 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

Tanya Sarne: NO reliable sources Edit.pdf ( talk ) 07:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there. I did look to increase the referencing substantially when a BLP flag was raised on 21.04.23, and spent some time looking at online sources for alternatives. I'm not sure what else can be done, certainly without recourse to paywalled news archives which you would not necessarily be able to verify. She has done a number of podcast appearances to promote the book, but I sense that wouldn't satisfy the standards you are seeking. Sarne is a significant figure in British fashion and in my view it would be better to have a page about her rather than no page. There was no Wiki page before this one was written. Iangreaves ( talk ) 08:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like there's some discussion of Sarne in Style City: How London Became a Fashion Capital (2009) by Robert O'Byrne. Only one reliable source isn't enough to meet WP:GNG though, and I can't immediately find a second – can anyone else? Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 09:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi. I've luckily regained access to Newsbank, so I have been able to add a few contemporaneous press references to the main article just now. Could someone check and see if this is sufficient? Iangreaves ( talk ) 09:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the Style City link. I have added a couple of references (though it does seem to rely on cuttings already accessed). Iangreaves ( talk ) 09:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iangreaves : I've checked several of the newspaper sources, and they seem to be based on interviews with Sarne and are therefore not independent and don't count towards notability . It would be helpful if you could list here the best two or three sources which are all three of independent of Sarne, reliable , and in-depth. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 11:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the difficulty here is that we are talking about a fashion designer who worked almost exclusively during the age of intensively PR-controlled coverage, so it is hard to see how an in-depth piece (other than a hatchet job or an obituary) would not rely on interviews with the subject. The tight controlling of an image was completely integral to the outward-facing work of a design company in this era, and fashion journalism is not generally in the habit of writing long company histories or hatchet pieces that would ensure notoriety if not notability. Sarne was not a controversial figure. I have used reviews or news reports to substantiate certain elements of the page, such as the buy out of Ghost, the launching of stores, and New York Fashion Week shows. (see notes 32, 38, 45) There are 358 results on Newsbank about her from 1989 onwards. The majority will be either short references (which verify certain claims in her memoir) or interviews. Iangreaves ( talk ) 11:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have added a few more news sources to the page. It is now around 50% sources other than the memoir. Iangreaves ( talk ) 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have also added four citations for her awards. The notes referred to in my 11.28 message are now numbered 32, 39 and 46. Iangreaves ( talk ) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Fashion , and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : OBE goes a fair way to notability, and the Bookseller source demonstrates it too, amongst other RS. Formatting of refs needs a bit of a tweak. Pam D 08:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This from the BBC may help too. Pam D 08:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That Bookseller source is just regurgitating the marketing spiel of Sarne's publisher; it's not independent. Loads of people get OBEs - I don't think it's a prestigious enough honour to count towards WP:ANYBIO . Is the BBC source a discussion of Sarne or an interview with her? If the former I think that plus the book I mentioned above would probably hit WP:GNG ; if the latter then it's not an independent source and again wouldn't count for notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 09:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This by Kirby in RS newspaper looks like independent coverage. (Ref 47 at present) Pam D 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Not Wikipedia's Terry Kirby , but a TK who does seems to be a reference for quite a few articles). Pam D 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, nice. That's definitely good. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk ) 21:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Style City and "Fashion Queen defrocked: Ghost story" are enough to make me think she meets GNG. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk ) 21:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Enough coverage for basic notability. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG . The OBE, while not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO , adds to notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:27, 16 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

Maycon (footballer, born 1985): WP:GNG is failed. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There is sufficient coverage of the athlete's career. [39] , [40] , [41] . Svartner ( talk ) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, these don't lack the requisite WP:DEPTH necessary to count as coverage except, perhaps [3] and that's only a perhaps. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible weak keep There are two sources on pt:Maycon Vieira de Freitas and according to that he has played 50 games and scored 16 times for SC Internacional who are one of the big teams in Brazil. I would like to see more sources know, if anyone can provide please do. Govvy ( talk ) 18:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources and per an extensive, if not particularly successful, professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:37, 22 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

World Jewish Relief: Then, I tried to improve the page by incorporating some secondary and tertiary sources but I've drawn a blank. I am confident that at this point I have explored WP:ATD but after putting together the source assessment table below it's become clear to me that there isn't actually enough significant coverage in independent secondary sources to form an objective overview of this British charity. I contemplated doing prod but doing so would have sent other editors on a wild goose chase for reliable secondary sources which I don't want to do. So I've arrived at the conclusion that AfD is the only way forward. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/290767/governance ? I think the charities register functions like Companies House in that organisations have to submit their own details but I could be wrong. It's a legally binding document Just a registry ✘ No https://archive.org/details/menofvision00amyz/page/99/mode/2up In this interview https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/us-005578-irn504457-irn507288 this book's author discusses joining the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry". Therefore, this source isn't independent because she's writing about an organisation that she was a member of. I've had a good flick through the book and it's very well written, very thorough and well citated. The book goes into a lot of depth about this organisation's formation. It's just a shame it's not independent. ✘ No https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/05/windermere-children-arek-hersh-survivor-bbc-drama It's The Guardian It's The Guardian I added this source for verification purposes but it doesn't actually mention World Jewish Relief. ✘ No http://www.wjr.org.uk/about-us/ One of many links to the organisation's website that I removed from the page. ~ Organisation's websites are reliable up to a point but we can't use them to support notability. There's lot's of coverage about the organisation's history on their website but it's not independent and can't support notability ✘ No https://search.worldcat.org/title/31047514? oclcNum=31047514 World Cat lists this books publisher as (you guessed it) World Jewish Relief. ~ Probably reliable up to a point but because it's not independent it's not reliable enough to support notability It's a book about the organisation. ✘ No https://www.gale.com/intl/essays/amy-zahl-gottlieb-central-british-fund-world-jewish-relief-first-ten-years I added this source because it's easier to verify than checking Gottlieb's book out of a library but when I researched the author I realised that the author was part of the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry" I'm not disputing this historian's research skills and literary prowess. It's just a shame it's not independent because WP requires independent secondary sources to verify notability. It's incredibly detailed and very well-referenced. ✘ 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 }} . 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While the subject's current iteration fails WP:CORPDEPTH there's probably been enough written about this organisation's earlier iterations in pre-Internet sources to rescue this article and turn it into a C-Class article. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per source assessment table and WP:TNT , given it was tagged for conflict of interest for over a year. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hi बिनोद थारू thanks for your contribution. Your WP:TNT idea is viable. However, WP:AFD discussions are to determine whether there is enough coverage, independent of the subject to create a coherent encyclopaedia entry about the subject. Anything else is off-piste. Therefore, I have struck through the last part of your contribution because it isn't relevant to this discussion. Thanks for understanding. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update I've struck through बिनोद थारू's entire contribution because it doesn't address the WP:NCORP issue that we're here to discuss. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If बिनोद थारू doesn't wish to strike out the parts of their comment that aren't relevant to this discussion then would they please expand their comment a little bit? We're trying to determine whether there's enough coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources to justify retaining this article. I struck through your comment to elicit a more detailed response from you and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As shown in the source table above, none of the sourcing used to build this article is WP:INDEPENDENT , prompting a WP:TNT delete. Also, I struggle to find significant coverage on Google that meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just wanted to check to see if you are aware that I created the source evaluation table above when I took this article to WP:AFD ? Hence why I am encouraging you to base your comments on your research, not mine. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So you want to WP:SNOWCLOSE this discussion and start the page over again per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over ? 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDX420 ( talk • contribs ) 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why? 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 17:02, 30 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! 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I will admit that independent sources about this subject are hard to come by by simply Googling the subject. However, I find it hard to believe that this orgnisation previously known as Central British Fund for German Jewry has no significant coverage. We're talking about an organisation that played a significant part in helping (and I'm choosing my words wisely) establish the state of Israel and save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children before and during World War Two many of whom became notable people and made notable contributions in their own right. Now it may be that World Jewish Releif is the wrong namespace and perhaps Central British Fund for German Jewry might be a better location for this entry. I just find it hard to believe that an organisation with so much historical significance hasn't had anything written about it by any historians. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I'm sure we can find pre-internet sources. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I agree. I'll go to the library and see if I can find something a bit more independent than the Gottlieb book and thanks for your help here No Swan So Fine . I wonder if a WP:SNOWCLOSE is possible now? I feel there's a consensus in the air. 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 06:24, 2 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

Robert Trebor: Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , United States of America , and Pennsylvania . Natg 19 ( talk ) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep. Might meets WP:NACTOR for some roles played in notable films. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited after seeing sources presented by Moonswimmer, below) [ reply ] Keep . Significant roles in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys , Out of the Darkness , 52 Pick-Up and My Demon Lover are good for NACTOR. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Well, there's this [8] , not the most flattering role, but there seems to be some indication of notability. Still need sourcing that talks about this individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve or draftify . He has been in so many films, some of them non-minor roles, as well as a one-man show that sounds pretty interesting - I am sure that there is more press coverage out there to establish his notability. Llajwa ( talk ) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While he has mostly been cast in supporting roles, the number of films he has starred in makes Trebor notable, in my opinion. The article is poorly sourced but most of the information is verifiable. Trebor has received some attention even for his minor roles: Variety : "Trebor is superb as the acerbic Davidykov, ironically bemoaning, “We used to be such a beautiful police state,” and then affectingly describing how for all of communism’s faults, how important it was that the whole country was experiencing it together. Trebor’s Russian accent is excellent, and his perf is multilayered and nimble." Los Angeles Times : "Beautifully performed by Armstrong and Trebor, Will and Viktor are moral men adrift in societies that reward avarice over character" Los Angeles Times : "Martin Sheen is first-rate as Zigo, and there are convincing supporting performances here by Jennifer Salt as Ann and Robert Trebor as Berkowitz." The New York Times : "His partners in crime are Robert Trebor, who provides comic relief as the proprietor of a pornographic photo studio." The New York Times : "Robert Trebor is gripping as the community leader." RogerEbert.com : "Seidelman also has fun populating the outskirts of her plot with good character actors, especially Robert Trebor as the tuxedo salesman. You may remember him as the smarmy, sweating porno store operator in "52 Pick-Up. " The distance between these two good performances is impressive." Mooonswimmer 18:27, 24 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

List of largest libraries in the United States: I think the same information can be used in that article. It is also the only article of its type tailored to a specific country. Interstellarity ( talk ) 02:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Out of date statistics: List of largest libraries data back to 2009, and List of largest libraries in the United States as old as 2016. The internet has had significant impact on libraries and their holdings. — Maile ( talk ) 03:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries , Lists , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Not a content fork, but an article with a focus on a specific nation, one that happens to be one of the larger English speaking countries in the world. Out of date statistics are fine here and seem to be clearly labeled at this time. (And considering Maile's point above about the impact of the internet, there may even be value in keeping statistics for various time periods.) Meets the general criterion of WP:NLIST , for example: [31] [32] [33] . — siro χ o 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as a United States stand-alone list. Different criteria from Largest libraries in the world. i.e. - there is no way to quantify how many people visit the US libraries. — Maile ( talk ) 15:23, 15 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

Agnostic theism: Moreover the page contains what looks like original research. The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage. There are exactly three references on this page; This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism. This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept. This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism , which has it's own page. Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is this not a more general term for this? Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal ( talk ) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth Alexanderkowal ( talk ) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people. Psychastes ( talk ) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What a good find! Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Psychastes. I'd rewrite the article if I had full access to those books too. Oh well. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:14, 25 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

Mariusz Handzlik: Non-notable minor bureaucrat/politician (Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland) who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (obits, plus minor coverage related to a minor scandal he was involved in shortly before his death). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta , likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It is true that all those killed in the crash were given the order . However, he was appointed Commander of the Order of Polonia Restituta rather than one of the lower grades, which probably qualifies for WP:ANYBIO #1, although the lower grades probably don't. We would certainly consider the equivalent grades in the British honours system to meet ANYBIO (and have done so many times). -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But context is relevant: getting an award for being in the wrong place/time (dying int he aforementioned incident) is just a nice tweak to WP:NOTMEMORIAL . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you considered that maybe these people would have been up for the honour in life anyway, but died before they could receive it? For the lower levels I would agree with you, just "recognition" for dying in a notable incident (a bit weird, in my opinion, but often done in some countries; France tends to hand out the Légion d'honneur for things like this, for instance), but not the higher levels. There's a reason these people were not made a knight or officer, but received a higher honour. And it's not just seniority, as some senior people did receive one of the lower grades. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If they are notable for other reasons, we need other sources to say so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . If I'm reading the source on the PlWiki article correctly, this individual also seems to have been awarded the Portuguese Order of Merit in 2009 (before his death), and there's also some coverage of him in 2009 in Wiadomosci regarding alleged collaboration with the Communist regime. On the scholarly/diplomatic side, he appears to be mentioned by name on multiple occasions in a speech by the President of Estonia , he led a Delegation between Poland and Turkey, met with Syrian officials on behalf of the Poles, and performed other diplomatic functions. There some coverage of his analysis on the Partnership for Peace that I can find, and he appears to have been awarded the Freedom House 's Palmer Prize (see list ). Aside from all that, there's a fairly in-depth article from 1996 in The Jewish Voice about his work regarding Polish-Jewish reconciliation (as well as a few JTA pieces that also refer to this). And of course there's also the flurry of coverage around the time of his death; many of these sources are in the PlWiki article already, and WP:SIGCOV is easily met. What this all makes clear is that we have a case here where it's clearly not WP:1E , and where we have significant coverage by multiple independent RS. WP:NOTMEMORIAL states Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. But this person easily meets WP:ANYBIO #1 for the Polish and Portuguese state honors, and also meets WP:NBASIC , so NOTMEMORIAL is not violated. On top of that, I think there's substantial enough coverage that an article can be written about him in a standalone fashion, so I see no need to redirect or merge. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning towards keep : he was a high-ranking public officer, chief of Foreign Affairs Office at the Presidental Chancery, but also he received number of awards, among them US Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service . Marcelus ( talk ) 13:11, 6 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

Cook Partisan Voting Index: Cortador ( talk ) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] retain : there are enough varied sources discussing this index in different ways, another example: [1] References ^ Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al. State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children. Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022). HudecEmil ( talk ) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue with these sources is that they utilise the CPVI without being about it. Cortador ( talk ) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] retain : There are several seemingly independent sites about the index, but also---if an article describes the index in detail , even if it's not about the index, doens't that satisfy notability? AriTheHorse 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, you don't need a source to explicitly be about something to be SIGCOV. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's plenty of coverage about the index, for example [4] . This is a widely-used metric for covering elections (cited by almost everyone who analyzes US elections, even though most of its mentions don't go into much coverage) and deletion would not benefit our readers at all. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. AryKun ( talk ) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We need to be careful not to conflate notability with sources that cite Index reports (as both sources presented here so far do) as against those that analyse the Index. So, for example a source such as this [5] indicating that the PVI influenced their own Index would count towards notability (albeit this is a passing mention). I suspect that there's enough out there describing the Index with SIGCOV, but we need to see those sources, rarther than just flooding this with examples of reports about PVI reports. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The cited references are more than enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 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

Voice of the Turtle: From analyzing the sources, they are either passing mentions of the group and don't cover the group in depth(Wachs' obituary, the NYT source) or they are primary sources(Rootsworld is an interview, one of the sources is just a video of their concert, and Marini's book, as far as I can tell, contains an interview with Wachs as coverage of the group.) I also found no independent/third-party and notable sources that could be used to improve the page. Jaguarnik ( talk ) 02:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The group disbanded after Wachs died, so there isn't a whole lot of new news. I will see if I can find updates that are relevant. They have a dozen albums on an established record label, which is way above the notability criteria for a band. Their work is also significant from an ethnomusicology point of view. Behind each album is significant historical research, which involved travel all over the world to find historical records. Asbruckman ( talk ) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added an additional cite to comments by an ethnomusicologist about the archival research that supports their music. Does that help at all? Asbruckman ( talk ) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, this is Joel Bresler, the publisher of www.sephardicmusic.org, one of the leading sources of information about Sephardic music on the web. VOT had a profound impact on the evolution of Sephardic music performance and recordings for numerous reasons. First, they released 12 albums, more than any other group. Second, they were well integrated into the *substantial* Boston Early Music community and so made quite an impression. Third, they were involved quite early, which increased their importance still further. Fourth, Ms. Wachs undertook substantial research including trips to Israel where she used the documentary print and sound resources at the National Sound Archive and (I believe) the Voice of Israel to collect repertory, tunes, performance practice, etc. Rather than remove this article - which seems to me off to a very solid start - I would suggest keeping it and letting the community embellish and expand it. Thanks for the chance to offer my thoughts. JB Discoguy ( talk ) 22:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:52, 7 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! 02:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Discoguy . — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:21, 14 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! 01:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets multiple prongs of WP:NBAND including WP:NBAND#C1 , #C7 and #C5 . Here's some in-depth secondary coverage intermingled with an interview in the Boston Globe [97] , one quote short but relevant from that coverage: "Wachs and her quartet, Voice of the Turtle, are the preeminent exponents of Sephardic folk music in the country, perhaps the world." In depth coverage from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [98] including: "Voice of the Turtle, an ensemble dedicated to preserving and performing music of the Iberian Jews, was presented in concert by Early Music Now. Voice of the Turtle has spent the past 19 years collecting and studying Sephardic music. Saturday's performance featured pieces reflecting the culture in diaspora. Melodies came from Turkey, Jerusalem and Bulgaria, places to which the Sephardim fled. The ensemble, Derek Burrows, Lisle Kulbach, Jay Rosenberg and founder/artistic director Judith Wachs, played a bevy of instruments ranging from a Medieval Spanish bagpipe to various flutes, lutes and percussion instruments, as well as harp, guitar and various bowed string instruments." Here's some coverage from Washington Post discussing a performance [99] including: "On this occasion, a concert titled "Rites of Spring" given at the first annual Washington Jewish Music Festival, they sang three versions of "Had Gadya," an Aramaic song celebrating Passover. Then, in a spectacular demonstration of the vitality and diversity of the music they have collected in 21 years of performing medieval and folk music together, Voice of the Turtle sang a suite of more than a dozen other versions from Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Provence, Morocco, Yemen, Romania and Yugoslavia--countries in which the Sephardim took refuge when they were driven out of Spain in 1492." There is more in ProQuest. I didn't check any other databases or search engines. — siro χ o 05:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Discoguy and siro Jacona ( talk ) 01:05, 22 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 fellows of IEEE Computer Society: [19] (a possibly incomplete list, according to that page). May be better suited for a category for the fellows, but as a list it seems rather impractical and not distinctive or selective enough as an award. Fram ( talk ) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Computing . Fram ( talk ) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not versed in list versus category policy but there are 16 already-created equivalent pages (IEEE Fellows grouped by member society, per IEEE custom) gathered at List of IEEE fellows along with some red links, so I was trying to follow the existing pattern. Turtlecrown ( talk ) 17:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . By separating fellows out into groups by sub-organizations within IEEE, providing sortable tables, and giving the reason for each fellow's election, these list articles provide useful structure beyond the category Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE . All members of these lists are automatically notable by WP:PROF , so I don't think there is a problem with them being indiscriminate. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, true, it says " which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ", but is a +5000 membership really "highly selective"? There are about 250 new IEEE fellows every year (all societies combined). Fram ( talk ) 18:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So? There are on average more US state legislators elected per year and yet we consider them all notable. It is not about raw numbers; "a highly selective honor" means one reserved to a small fraction of the total membership. In the case of IEEE Fellowship, that fraction is that only 0.1% of the total membership (one in every thousand members) can be elected per year, by an in-depth process that involves soliciting detailed letters of recommendation from experts about the proposed fellows' accomplishments. So yes, it is highly selective. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can be elected as Fellow only once, so comparing the yearly addition with the total membership is not accurate. More than 1% of the membership are fellows actually, 5000+ of 400,000 [20] . Fram ( talk ) 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and that compares favorably with other selective fellowships that are limited to, say, 2% of total membership rather than 0.1%/year. It is still highly selective. Only a very small fraction of members will ever achieve that distinction. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to IEEE Computer Society . We don't need a separate list just to display one person. Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The list is woefully incomplete and should be expanded. The reason for its incomplete state is that it was barely begun before Fram dragged it here to AfD. There is far more than one person who could be listed even if we limited it to bluelinks (which the other IEEE society lists do not currently do). See the other society lists collected at List of IEEE fellows for examples of what this should be. Also, your merge target makes no sense; we should not single out this one society's fellows for merger there when IEEE has many other societies for which we have well-developed lists of fellows. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I initally thought that all these pages should be tables on their respective pages. However: IEEE Computer Society was deleted and redirected in 2022 so a merge wouldn't currently be practicable. As far as I understand (which is not entirely), the fellows are fellows of the IEEE as a whole, not fellows of the society. They are just internally categorised by society membership. If this is true, then all these list pages are somewhat of a misnomer. The IEEE Electronics Packaging Society uses the wording "List of IEEE Fellows in EPS", for example. So it's unclear if a merge, even if possible, would be quite correct. Turtlecrown ( talk ) 14:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is short now, but the nomination itself indicates that it can be expanded, and it provides information in an at-a-glance way that a category can't. XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment In some ways the closest analogue to this list is not the ones for the other IEEE societies, but List of fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery . Which seems to be complete, although it doesn't describe fellows' contributions. Wasted Time R ( talk ) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This meets NLIST and likely LISTPEOPLE becaus it is likely that many of the individuals designated fellows are notable. The list should be expanded, not deleted. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . ミラP @ Miraclepine 23:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NLIST as every name listed is notable, and although it is expansive it is finite. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Members are notable, list potentially provides other ways of browsing our content on these academics, well-defined group of subjects. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:59, 31 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

Akari Saho: Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG as an individual. Boleyn ( talk ) 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Japan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it would make more sense if all members of the group (current and former) had at least a small bio section, if it were to be merged. Then maybe it would be slightly unbalanced but not so terribly much. It wouldn't be that hard to at least include their basic info and other accomplishments, because a lot of them have appeared in various media before, which could fill out a general "members" section. Just my two cents as a fan of Akari and the group, but not really an active editor. Yamakirisei ( talk ) 02:20, 11 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! 08:54, 17 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! 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough coverage to establish notability within the article. Clearly a notable person, for example, could quickly find two pieces of coverage about her recently getting a black belt in karate [22] [23] [24] . Scant evidence of a WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources not just English . DCsansei ( talk ) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree there does not seem to be WP:BEFORE ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:SIGCOV in Japanese media. She was a fairy 09:23, 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

The Lost City of Faar: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1 (The Garage) 18:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Pendragon: Journal of an Adventure Through Time and Space . Kazamzam ( talk ) 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NBOOK /GNG Publishers Weekly review [9] Kirkus Reviews magazine review [10] Two reviews by two different authors in School Library Journal (one of text, one of audio) [11] [12] — siro χ o 19:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The reviews provided above should be sufficient for passing WP:NBOOK . A reception section using the reviews should be added to the article, of course, but they do exist. Rorshacma ( talk ) 00:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Kazamzam : wrote the following on my talk page "Hi, I saw your AfD for the second book in the Pendragon series and proposed a redirect to the main series article. Going through, I think that is the appropriate move for all of the other books as well. I checked all time of them and the best they had as an independent source was the Publisher's Weekly blurb and most didn't even have that. Would you be willing to put up the rest of the series under the umbrella of the AfD for the sake of expediency? Happy to discuss further but to me, none of these cut the mustard. Thanks" I have no objection to anything you guys decide here so long as I don't have to do anything myself! I am sure your collective wisdom will figure out what is best. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBOOK per sources provided by Siroxo. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 13:35, 15 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

Raja Changez Sultan: Exhibitions at many minor galleries (the Louvre, but in Karachi) and no record of enduring impact, critical review or significant monument do not pass WP:ARTIST. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Poetry , and Pakistan . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another lazy nomination without a proper WP:BEFORE . Easily passes WP:NARTIST as there is a ton of coverage: [89] , [90] , [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] , [96] . 74.14.185.53 ( talk ) 11:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After reviewing the article and looking at ALL the references, my conclusion is that this article about a veteran painter-artist is worth keeping. I saw many references not only from the reliable sources like Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune and Youlin magazine and others. This is a veteran painter-artist whose first paintings go back to the 1960s and continue to the present tme. His paintings have been shown at many international galleries including Europe and the United States. In my opinion, the subject passes WP:NARTIST ... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 20:37, 23 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

Aage Leidersdorff: While the article was kept at a previous AfD on the basis that winning an award from a Danish tabloid met WP:ANYBIO #1, and thus Leidersdorff was likely to be notable , in the 18 months since that AfD no one has been able to find additional suitable sources. Even if an award from a tabloid newspaper is a well-known and significant award , an assertion that seems dubious to me, the failure to find any suitable sources is strong evidence that in this case it is not a predictor of notability. In addition meeting ANYBIO doesn't create an exception from the requirements of SPORTSCRIT #5, and thus if we cannot find any significant coverage we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal ( talk ) 10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark . BilledMammal ( talk ) 10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article also includes this reference: # Paul Yogi Mayer, 2000: Jüdische Olympiasieger: Sport - Ein Sprungbrett für Minoritäten , Agon Sportverlag Kassel, p.107 which you can see here reference https://www.google.com/books/edition/J%C3%BCdische_Olympiasieger/0kYTAQAAIAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Aage+Leidersdorff&dq=Aage+Leidersdorff&printsec=frontcover Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I understand that only contains a passing mention; if you disagree can you provide a more extensive quote? BilledMammal ( talk ) 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also notable as a furrier. See new references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at those references none seem to constitute WP:SIGCOV ; they all appear to be passing mentions. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . Ingratis ( talk ) 17:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - What the nom has not mentioned is that the lack of SIGCOV is mostly down to the fact that Danish newspapers are not accessible outside Denmark for 100 years after publication, so in the absence of an editor physically located in Denmark it's not possible to check in what will be the principal source. However, a name search is still possible even if the articles themselves are not accessible (see Mediestream ). Aage Leidersdorff died on 19 Feb 1970: in February 1970 16 newspapers mentioned him. In 1945, when he was awarded the B.T. sportsperson of the year award, his name occurs 24 times, doubtless in part because of the significance of a Jewish sportsman receiving the award in the same year as the end of the Nazi occupation of Denmark. I haven't checked other years. Without seeing the articles it's obviously not possible to gauge the quality of the coverage but it is possible to be sure that there's a quantity of it, and that there could well be more. Ingratis ( talk ) 06:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - WP:ATD . I'm aware that he competed in three Olympics: just pick one as the main entry - e.g. Denmark at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Fencing - and cross-reference to/from the others. Ingratis ( talk ) 06:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Eastmain and editors at the prior AfD. We should be able to presume coverage exists (COMMONSENSE) for someone good enough to make the Olympics over a span of 1932-48 who was named the national athlete of the year in a country with close to 6,000,000 people (that newspaper most certainly gave an in-depth article with the announcement - also, per ANYBIO, we should be able to keep since the newspapers that covered him are not available ). I strongly dislike the practice of BilledMammal and others to continually re-nominate articles which have been kept at prior deletion discussions because they dislike the outcome. Also, pinging participants from the prior discussion (besides two who have been blocked): @ Løken , Jevansen , Garuda3 , Geschichte , and Liz : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We should be able to presume coverage If we can find one example of WP:SIGCOV then we can. If we can't, then we are forbidden from doing so per WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and a local consensus is not permitted to overrule that restriction - if you disagree with it, I suggest proposing that #5 is rescinded. BilledMammal ( talk ) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clearly there are times when exceptions need to be made, and WP:NSPORT (which includes WP:SPORTCRIT ) agrees: [This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I wasn't able to find anything definitive in Danish to pass GNG, but there is some contemporary coverage available, and he was sort of notable for a fur business according to the Danish wikipedia. SportingFlyer T · C 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe there could be more out there but as we all know, our access to older, non-English materials is very limited due to factors out of our control. I think it would be highly unlikely of him to be a sportsperson of the year, own a store and make three olympics yet not be covered. See WP:SBEXT . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as WP:OSO is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Between his appearance in the documentary film (which no one here has watched) and the multiple obituaries in Danish newspapers in 1970 (which no one has been able to access but are indexed in the Danish Digital Newspaper Collection), not to mention the many other Danish newspaper clippings across all years (over 1,000 on the name which was admittedly passed down together with the family furrier business), there appears to be ample offline coverage that could satisfy WP:BASIC that we simply cannot access and do not have the language skills to assess here and now. The story of Aage Leidersdorff is more than "just a typical sports bio" as he was a Danish Jew competing in the Olympics before and after the Nazi occupation of Denmark, and was evacuated to Sweden during World War II (as discussed in the Jewish Olympians book). So in addition to the main Danish newspaper archives and books, I would also suggest visiting the Danish Jewish Museum library for additional sources. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cielquiparle's sound analysis above. Pointless and POINTY AfD. C avarrone 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm not part particularly fond on these kinds of ! votes, I am leaning keep despite the missing SIGCOV due to a few things: a) Winning the B.T. Guld award is a strong indication that an individual was a notable athlete. b) There is evidence on him getting coverage in the Danish media both when he won the award and when he died but we can't fully access them because c) Offline sources from that period seem to be impossible to fully access unless you visit a Danish library due to local copyright laws. d) I further found this coverage on him in the 1949 edition of Nordisk familjeboks sportlexikon that describes him as the "Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935." Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is also covered in the fifth Volume from 1943 [27] [28] Alvaldi ( talk ) 09:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - no one has found additional suitable sources in the 18 months since the last AFD as they continue to remain inaccessible. We can be confident these sources exists as Cielquiparle has outlined. Jevansen ( talk ) 09:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jevansen For additional sources, I point to the above mentioned sources from the 1943 and 1949 editions of the Swedish Nordisk familjeboks sportlexikon where he is described as the "Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935" and his career highlights are listed. Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . ANYBIO is irrelevant if the award is related to sports, as we had a global consensus that no sporting achievement can be used to presume notability directly. Same with NBASIC, as we also had global consensus that sportspeople articles must contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV. No such SIGCOV has been identified, and the ambiguity in Danish newspaper hits for him versus his father makes it pointless to speculate on newspaper coverage, so a redirect would be most appropriate to retain the history until we can access those sources. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You need to realize that there are times that the rules are not to be strictly followed; per policy and the guideline NSPORT/SPORTCRIT: [This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Also FWIW, in my opinion if the proposal at that NSPORT2022 discussion was "all articles must have significant coverage or they must be deleted no matter how great their athletic achievements were even if coverage is impossible to find and we know it is near-certain to exist" it would have assuredly not achieved consensus. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ANYBIO is as much a guideline as NSPORT so NSPORT does not override ANYBIO (nor vice versa). And with guidelines there are no "musts". All guidelines are subject to exceptions when warranted. Rlendog ( talk ) 20:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please note that the B.T. Guld award is not some nondescript tabloid award, it is a major Danish sports award presented at the annual sports gala held by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Alvaldi ( talk ) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cielquiparle. Rlendog ( talk ) 20:45, 20 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

The Fifth Patient: Basically a mirror of the IMDB entry. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no critical reviews found on Rotten Tomatoes, I can't see anything in Gnewspapers. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Keep , review at Variety [1] Donald D23 talk to me 03:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Variety , mentioned by Donaldd23 above, and [2] Las Vegas Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter [3] The film has received international distribution (different titles in Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, German, etc.). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the film being shown internationally, showing notability, and the reviews that have been brought on this page, which should be sourced in the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources listed above are sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:18, 22 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

2023 Brownsville crash: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Texas . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as NOTNEWS and failing SUSTAINED Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . 8 dead, 10 injured in this ramming. Extensive coverage. Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. gidonb ( talk ) 14:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gidonb , the number of dead people related to an article is not relevant when weighing notability, and I don't know what you think that has to do with this. Breaking news sources do not count toward extensive coverage. Hypothetical future sources do not count toward sustained coverage. Your ! vote currently has no policy-based argument toward keeping. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the time and to date, there was breaking news and there was more WP:SUSTAINED coverage. For example, there was a comprehensive analysis of the event that appeared 16 days later in the New York Times [8] and an item on Texas Public Radio 2.5 months after the event. [9] The extensive and sustained coverage makes that the article meets the WP:GNG with the caveat that only 4 months have passed since this apparent attack on Latino homeless in the US. Hence the comment that it is Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. Moreover, the sustained coverage is already evident. Also, while it is true that all the sources IN the article appeared from May 7 to May 9, per WP:NEXIST , Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article . gidonb ( talk ) 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions . gidonb ( talk ) 05:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unlike events in the United States such as mass shootings, an attack against a migrants shelter is a lot more uncommon, not to mention the amount of deaths and injured. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 09:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To complement on gidonb's articles: as recently as August, there have been articles covering the crash after the release of the toxicology report results, [10] , after a ramming in North Carolina, [11] [12] and during the anniversary of El Paso mass shooting. [13] There has definitely been WP:SUSTAINED coverage. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The NYTimes and Texas Public Radio article provided by Gidonb should demonstrate that there is coverage even after the initial news cycle. S5A-0043 Talk 12:50, 20 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! 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This nomination is not well-rooted in fact and policy. Sure, policies are quoted, yet their application is in error. The nomination looked no further than the references in the article and is in defiance of the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb ( talk ) 02:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because there was in fact sustained coverage as demonstrated by Gidonb, it's just that the nominator didn't bother to look for it. CVDX ( talk ) 22:31, 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

Wildstyle: Glossary of graffiti#Wildstyle is sufficient to cover this topic. Recommend moving the current Wildstyle (disambiguation) page to the main title. 162 etc. ( talk ) 16:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's an entire chapter "Ornament as Armament: Playing Defense in Wildstyle Graffiti" [9] by Gabrielle Gopinath, p. 117-128 in Understanding Graffiti (2015) ed. by Troy Lovata and Elizabeth Olton. It's extensively discussed in the article "Graffiti" p. 336-338 by Pat Rafferty [10] in The Guide to United States Popular Culture (2001) ed. by Pat Browne and Ray Broadus Browne. Wildstyle is discussed on 10 different pages in Anssi Arte's Forms of Rockin': Graffiti Letters and Popular Culture (2015) [11] , this book contains a number of footnotes to other sources. Please ping me if anyone thinks these academic sources are not sufficient. Jahaza ( talk ) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jahaza : The article, as it reads today, cites none of these sources. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, your help in improving the article would be appreciated. 162 etc. ( talk ) 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I wrote an article on pieces funnily enough the same day this got put up for deletion. Would be happy to merge it with that article as there's already a section on wildstyle. -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 13:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jahaza and listed sources. As an aside, I would think that the sources being on the page would be secondary to the discovery of their existence, and if not used on the page (I haven't checked) then a morecites tag would now be more appropriate than a deletion nomination. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tag has been on the article for over 6 years, with no apparent improvement since. 162 etc. ( talk ) 01:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, but with Jahaza 's newly discovered sources, detailed above, this AfD has done the job that the tag didn't do. Good AfD's tend to do that. If none of us are going to edit them in, and I don't really have that much interest in the topic, at least add them to the talk page and someone will get around to them. Since we now know they exist and will likely end up in the article, at what point does the AfD seem complete in serving what should be its purpose. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the existence of sources is what matters, not whether they're used in the article. 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

TV's Naughtiest Blunders: pinktoebeans (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom . pinktoebeans (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Lawson, Mark (2000-04-16). "Going live" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The review notes: "That the rudeness was an illusion on that occasion sadly renders it ineligible for TV'S Naughtiest Blunders (ITV, Wednesday, 10pm), which promises "a series of four-lettered utterances from a variety of famous faces". Presented by Steve Penk (pictured), it's an adult version of Dennis Norden's It'll Be All Right On The Night shows. Like most shows featuring out-takes, it uses too loose a definition of broadcasting embarrassment. ... On TV's Naughtiest Blunders, it's amusing when Martin Clunes gets sexually explicit on This Morning With Richard & Judy because the presenters look so terrified. But news reporters swearing when taped pieces to camera go wrong is no more interesting than other workplace cursing. The most intriguing aspect of the show is that the expletives aren't bleeped." Purnell, Tony (2000-12-13). "Last Night's View: ITV goes on the offensive" . Daily Mirror . Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The review notes: "Proof if proof be needed that those in power don't give a monkey's for public opinion was there for all to see in TV's Naughtiest Blunders (ITV) which was put out in the old News At Ten slot. It was crammed full of four letter words even though that sort of thing tops the list of complaints in all viewer surveys. Stars caught effing and blinding included Frank Skinner, Caroline Quentin, Amanda Holden, Keith Barron, Brian Blessed and Jim Bowen. The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. There were lots of shots of animals farting, fornicating and going to the toilet." "Nowhere to hide for TV stars - TV's Naughtiest Blunders ITV, 10.00pm" . Daily Record . 2001-04-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The review notes: "Uncensored and unbleeped, Steve unveils TV's Naughtiest Blunders showing the clips that television's favourite actors, presenters and news reporters would rather the viewers never saw. From GMTV to CiTV, London's Burning to Animal Magic, Steve shows us the stars of the small screen getting it wrong in a programme not for the faint-hearted. ... Steve brings to TV the cheekiest and most embarrassing foul-ups from some of the country's best known celebrities. ... Standby for Barbara Windsor, Mike Reid, Amanda Holden, Gary Myers, Neil Morrissey, Martin Clunes and Eamonn Holmes as they make their naughtiest blunders in full glare of TV cameras. There's nowhere to hide for the guilty celebrities." "Bleeper working overtime" . Daily Record . 2000-12-09. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The review notes: "It will be all right on the night, or perhaps not. It's time for more outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders 2. ... With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on." "Getting caught out being naughty" . Bristol Post . 2000-04-19. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The review notes: "Tonight Steve takes another big stride in his burgeoning screen career by presenting an hour of outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders. The Capital Radio disc jockey, legendary for his own on-air set-ups, sets out to bring us some of the more embarrassing foul-ups from other famous faces and shows. They include a celebrity error on This Morning with Richard and Judy , to a male streak on a mass scale at a big rugby match. It's a one-off special and there's a chunk of never before seen or heard blunders which are definitely not for the faint-hearted viewer. These clips include ones featuring Kiss Me Kate stars Caroline Quentin and Amanda Holden, some chaos on The Generation Game with Jim Davidson, and some four-lettered utterances from some of the nation's famous faces." Johnson, Debra (2002-11-22). "Fox picks up Carlton clip show" . Variety . Archived from the original on 2024-02-13 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 . The article notes: "Carlton Productions’ entertainment department has been commissioned to produce three special editions of its British clip show “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” for Fox in the U.S. ... In the U.K., the sixth edition of “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” is now in production for ITV, along with a further special “The Naughtiest of TV’s Naughtiest Blunders.”" "TV's Naughtiest Blunders" . Sunday World . 2005-08-28 . Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive . The article notes: "Given a slightly later slot than other shows of its ilk, Neil Morrissey introduces a series of clips that claim to be too risque for young eyes. This edition's fall guys include Hollywood heartthrob George Clooney, as well as comedians Ardal O'Hanlon and Rik Mayall, singer Rod Stewart, and bloopers from the casts of Bad Girls and The League of Gentlemen." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TV's Naughtiest Blunders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Going through the sources I would not say any of these make up significant coverage - these all seem to be routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing. Source 4 is seven sentences long. Source 3 and 5 seem to be more about Steve Penk than the show itself. Source 2 is the only one I would describe as potentially being significant. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are not "routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing". The sources provide critical analysis of the television show. The fourth source, which provides 204 words of coverage about the show, says, "With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on." The second source provides critical analysis and commentary: "The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. ... The funniest moment for me did not involve swearing, nudity or any kind of naughtiness, just Gary Mavers attempting to open a door and act at the same time." Cunard ( talk ) 11:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources identified by Cunard. Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For deeper discussion of the sources found by Cunard. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard 's refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:40, 26 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

Joker's Favor: Indagate ( talk ) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Found several sources on this episode ( [33] , [34] , [35] ). I'm not certain of the reliability of all of those sources, so I could also support a redirect to Batman: The Animated Series . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. First appearance of Harley Quinn is likely to have more than a few references out there. If consensus is to merge/redirect, then List_of_Batman:_The_Animated_Series_episodes , exists, as well. - jc37 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This episode is the first appearance of Harley Quinn in any medium. She was invented for the TV show and was only later added to the comics and movies. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Articles should not be nominated because an editor took a single glance at it and thought it was poor, articles should be nominated because an editor can not find sources, clearly sources do exist here. ★Trekker ( talk ) 08:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , continuing what User:StarTrekker said above, the sources are quality. Especially source 2 which is from the Hollywood Reporter and mentions the episode multiple times! So, not just a barely-mention. Gatemansgc ( TɅ̊LK ) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This topic is clearly both notable and well-documented. The episode was critical to the inception of a character that is likely to survive permanently in English literature, even if relatively contemporary. Albanaco ( talk ) 15:27, 28 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

Roshani Rasaili: The sources obfuscate verification. Expressive101 ( talk ) 09:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Nepal . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Even if there are no resources where you live, plenty of online courses are available in Nepali. [19] If you do not trust machine translation you could withdraw this nomination and only resubmit it when you have been able to assess the available material. Thincat ( talk ) Comment : Agree with Thincat . You can always ask for help at WP:TRLA . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep one English language source found and added and no reason not to AGF that the many sources are reliable and support notability. En.wiki accepts sourcing in other languages, so one editor's inability to read Nepali is not a valid reason to propose deletion. The sources for an article might have been printed books not held in the editor's local library, equally difficult to verify, equally acceptable as valid. Pam D 07:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PamD. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 19:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are lots of reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject. I agree with PamD statements. Fade258 ( talk ) 06:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PamD. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:40, 23 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

St Mellitus College: Article is currently cited solely to the college website. Time for it to go. Sionk ( talk ) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Religion . Sionk ( talk ) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools , Christianity , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In fact, the Church Times articles provide a pass for WP:GNG . [1] [2] But then there is also an article from The Royal Gazette about how they have a programme in Bermuda. [3] St Anselm ( talk ) 04:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:52, 19 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

Didine Canon 16: Not meeting anything for musical notability, no charted singles, no awards won. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 04:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Greetings everyone! I hope you're all doing well. Since this is my first time in this kind of discussion, I'm not entirely sure where the appropriate place to post this is. If my message is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to the suitable one. __ I've made updates to the articles by adding various sources. There are 16 local sources, including Ennahar and others, as well as international press like " Radio France " and " Egypt Today. " The content mainly revolves around a rapper, who has achieved significant success. His YouTube channel has garnered over a billion views, and he's also dominating the top charts on platforms like Spotify and Deezer in the North African region. Additionally, he has acted in a successful series, and he is working with Netflix to produce a new series around his story. When discussing awards, it's essential to consider the context of the African continent. Unlike the United States, where rap is a major industry with numerous awards and festivals, Africa doesn't have such events until now. Algeria, in particular, is predominantly known for its music style, RAI music, which receives most of the recognition and awards. However, rap is a new and emerging genre in the region, and Didine Canon 16, is leading the way as the number one rapper in North Africa, supported by the numbers and the sources. Regards Riad Salih ( talk ) 15:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:BASIC for having wide news coverage. Possibly he may have some chart rankings based on provided info, but I have not researched it. Naomijeans ( talk ) 17:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has reliable sources coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as explained. Riad Salih ( talk ) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as explained. -- Panam2014 ( talk ) 12:25, 31 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

Newpark Resources: In addition, the prose seem to be a factsheet, not really encyclopedic. Ebbedlila ( talk ) 20:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are more articles if you search deep such as 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , and 6 . Kakara69 ( talk ) 08:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't even have to search deep. I've put this company's name on my search engine and there were a lot of RS talking about them. I wonder if the nominator did his WP:BEFORE before opening this afd. The prose is surely not the best in the world, but that is no reason to delete the article, just change the lead and put some tags around so people who care will improve it in the future. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The sources in the article and those provided about are the usual PR churnalism about stock prices and investment outlooks. There is hardly anything substantive in reliable sources discussing the company itself to suggest WP:NCORP is met. -- Kinu t / c 17:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 21:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Source eval: Comments Source Stats, primary Newpark, Inc Stock - Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Primary 2. ^ "Industry Partners". Newpark Resources. Retrieved 2014-02-23. Stats, primary 3. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc. Yahoo Finance". finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22. One of several corps in list, not SIGCOV 4. ^ "Several Suppliers Repeat Top Customer Satisfaction Scores in Annual EnergyPoint Research Global Oil & Gas Industry Survey". Prweb.com. 2014-02-13. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Routine business news 5. ^ Olivia Pulsinelli (2014-02-11). "Newpark Resources to sell business unit for $100M". bizjournals.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Stats, primary 6. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc (NR.N) Quote Reuters.com". Reuters.com. Archived from the original on 2014-02-26. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Stats, primary 7. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc. Google Finance". Google.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Routine business news 8. ^ "Newpark Resources to sell business unit for $100M". Bizjournals.com. 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-02-22. From above What's Happening With NR Stock Today? Stock market price news https://www.investorsobserver.com/news/stock-update/what-is-the-markets-view-on-newpark-resources-inc-nr-stocks-price-and-volume-trends-monday Navigate the Stock Market with Seeking Alpha, stockmarket news https://seekingalpha.com/article/4576885-newpark-resources-potential-catalyst Stock market news https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/energy/nyse-nr/newpark-resources/news/newpark-resources-incs-nysenr-high-institutional-ownership-s Stats, primary https://finance.yahoo.com/news/newpark-resources-nyse-nr-shareholders-155458143.html Routine business news https://www.offshore-mag.com/drilling-completion/article/14287674/newpark-resources-finalizes-exit-from-gulf-of-mexico-market Routine business news https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/newpark-resources-pressed-separate-units-by-activist-investor-2021-11-23/ BEFORE showed more primary promo, routine business news, nothing that is IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree that sourcing discussed here, and present in the article, consists of PR style reporting, or routine mentions of business activity/stock performance. I do not believe this sort of coverage satisfies NCORP . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I am searching for sources for Newpark Resources and will post here with the results of my searches within the next two hours. Cunard ( talk ) 08:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Rothburd, Carrie (2004). "Newpark Resources, Inc." . In Pederson, Jay P. (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories Volume: 63 . Detroit: St. James Press . pp. 305 , 306 , 307 . ISBN 1-55862-508-9 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Internet Archive . The book has these sections: "From Old-Line Metal Mining to Oilfield Waste Servicing: 1932–70s", Industry Downturn Leading to New Directions in Site Construction and Cleanup: 1980s to Early 1990s", and Building a Niche Market Position in North America: Late 1990s". The book notes: "In 1932, New Park Mining Company formed as the consolidation of three mining companies: Star of Utah Mining Company, Mayflower Mines Corporation, and Park Galena Mining Company. For the next three decades, the publicly owned, old-line mining company expanded through acquisitions of similar companies, until, by the late 1960s, the mining of metals as an industry fell on hard times. ... The oil industry downturn of the early to mid-1980s led to overcapacity, price-cutting, and consolidation among oil companies, and to difficult times for Newpark. From 1982 to 1987. Newpark did not turn a profit. As a result, in 1986, the company, which had traded on the New York Stock Exchange since 1977, was delisted and moved to the NASDAQ. ... Newpark also began a process of restructuring in 1986, after being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. That process culminated in a private financing transaction in 1987, after which only a small public shareholder base remained. Newpark also reincorporated in Delaware in 1987, and began trading on the NASDAQ in 1991. It conducted a secondary stock offering in 1996." Compton, Hal; Hampshire, David (2006). "Park City" . From the Ground Up: A History of Mining in Utah . Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press . pp. 337–339. ISBN 978-0-87421-639-4 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Project MUSE . The book notes on page 337: "By the late 1930s, another company, the New Park Mining Company, had begun making ore shipments from the east side of the Park City Mining District. Organized in May 1932, the New Park was a consolidation of several old companies, including the Park Galena Mining Company, the Star of Utah Mining Company and the Mayflower Mines Corporation. To develop new ore bodies, the New Park began extending the Mayflower tunnel toward the Park Galena. ... By the early 1940s, production from the New Park rivaled that of the Park Utah and the Silver King Coalition. By the end of World War II, the New Park was regularly shipping more ore than all the other major local mines combined." The book notes on page 338: "By the end of the month, the Silver King Coalition, Park Utah, and New Park had suspended operations entirely, bringing total layoffs at area mines to 875. ... By September metal prices had recovered enough to convince management at the New Park to resume production, ... As 1953 became 1954, the properties of United Park City Mines stayed closed. Only the New Park managed to keep producing ore." The book notes on page 339: "This meant that the two largest surviving mining companies in the Park City District, United Park and New Park, were shipping most of their production from the east side of the district in Wasatch County. ... According to a 1956 newspaper story, about two-thirds of the New Park’s 290-man workforce lived in Wasatch County and the Kamas Valley. ... Meanwhile, the management of the New Park had signed a contract leasing its Mayfl ower Mine to the Hecla Mining Company of Wallace, Idaho." Weiner, Sam (1974-01-14). "Giltless Midas Touch: Mine That Vanished Proves Boon to Newpark" . Financial Trend . pp. 11 – 12 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "The story of the gold mine that was born too soon began in 1932 when a "nickel mining stock" at San Francisco produced a company then known as New Park Mining, Inc., which was to be the predecessor to Newpark Resources. ...  By 1939, Newpark had managed to dig its way to an ore vein which made it an immediate winner as small mining companies go. The mine not only had enough gold to make Newpark the fourth largest gold producer in the U.S., but also enough silver to make it the country's ninth biggest silver producer. Large amounts of lead, copper, zinc and cadmium also were discovered in the mine. ...  The mine, Newpark's only producing asset, kept the company at a fairly profitable level until the late 1960s, when it began going downhill at the same time that prices of gold, silver, copper and other metals were rising because of overseas attacks on the dollar." Bogoslaw, David (2005-06-22). "Newpark Banks on Environment Rules". The Wall Street Journal . p.  B.9A. EBSCO host 398989881 . The article notes: "Newpark Resources Inc. is trying to cash in on a cleaner environment.  The Metairie, La., company's stock has edged up gradually over recent years, but at $7.09 it is still only slightly above half its 2001 high. The company, which provides products and services to firms drilling for oil and natural gas, was too bullish with earnings projections when demand for rigs drilling in the Gulf Coast was expected to recover after plunging in 2001. Now, some analysts think two of its three divisions -- mat sales and rentals and drilling fluids, plus a startup water-treatment business -- are poised for growth, fueled by tighter environmental regulations." The article further notes: "The company's involvement in both waste disposal and drilling fluids gave them a lot of knowledge early on about how the waste regulations would change and what Newpark could do to gain a foothold in a cleaner market," said John Tasdemir, an analyst at Raymond James & Associates. He doesn't own shares, and Raymond James hasn't done investment banking with the company in the past 12 months. ...  Newpark has been a step ahead of the competition in developing a high-performance water-based drilling fluid, he said. ...  Although its fluids business is dwarfed by much bigger competitors such as Halliburton Co.'s Baroid unit and M-I Swaco, a joint venture between Smith International Inc. and Schlumberger Ltd., analysts say they have been impressed by Newpark's success in gaining market share. Mr. Tasdemir estimated Newpark has an 18% share of the Gulf Coast fluids market. " BusinessWeek articles: Marcial, Gene G. (2000-12-04). "A Newpark Gusher?". BusinessWeek . No. 3710. p. 175. EBSCO host 3797855 . The article notes: "Such a concern, however, is a bonanza to Newpark Resources (NR), a Big Board-listed provider of environmental services to oil-and-gas explorers. Newpark processes and disposes of exploration and production refuse, including that contaminated with radioactive material. ... Shares of Newpark, trading at 10½ in August, have fallen to 7 11/16, even though Newpark's business — mainly in Louisiana and Texas — has picked up. It recently added on-site processing of wastes to its services. "It is rapidly expanding its capacity," says Robert Trace of Hibernia South-coast Capital, who rates the stock a strong buy, with a 12-month target of 20. Newpark is receiving 5 million barrels of waste a day, says Trace. New Environmental Protection Agency rules calling for reduced discharges into federal waters will boost the demand for Newpark's services, he says. That, plus the rise in rig operations, should allow Newpark to boost prices. The analyst figures the company will earn 170 a share in 2000 and 50¢ in 2001, vs. 1999's 21¢ loss. " Norman, James R. (1985-11-04). "Matt Simmons: Doctor to the Oil Fields' Walking Wounded. His cure is to arrange partnerships among ailing companies—even if they are rivals". BusinessWeek . p. 82. EBSCO host 504164851 . The article notes: "Newpark, too poor to buy its way to bigness, couldn't see selling its assets while new drilling rigs and sophisticated tools are going for scrap at less than a dime per pound. So Cole has put major parts of his company into new partnerships with competitors (table). Newpark will be a minority owner. Many of its employees will lose their jobs, but Cole will have a stake in viable companies. " "You Have to Eat, Sleep, and Breathe Mining". BusinessWeek . No. 1296. 1954-06-03. pp. 98–104. EBSCO host 57629156 . The article notes: "New Park Mining had commercial ore all right, but it was a very sick company in 1934 when Cranmer arrived. It had been a one-man company, as it still is, essentially. Its president had been a promoter, like Cranmer, but he had lacked Cranmer's sense of order. He had kept all his records on scraps of paper and in private notebooks, and the company was embroiled in law suits that were hard to defend without documentary evidence. Moreover, no one seemed to know how to get profitably into production. And the new Securities & Exchange Commission was casting a critical eye at the company's stock promotion. Three million shares of stock had been sold all over the U. S. as a result of an ad campaign in such publications as the Police Gazette. ... Under Cranmer's leadership, New Park increased its holdings from 1,100 acres to more than 10,000 acres, installed modern machinery, and paid a total of $2-million in dividends over the 20-year period. The company also ran into the big problem: how to cope with recurrent slumps in lead-zinc. " "Corporate Insight - Newpark Resources Inc. - Top 50 Rank: 6" . The Times-Picayune . 1996-05-16. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . The article notes: "Though the company operates an array of oil field services, including waste disposal sites, tankers and a sawmill, Newpark Resources' fortunes rest largely on one factor, oil prices. And throughout 1998, as oil patch drilling dried up, so did business at Newpark Resources Inc. Newpark, based in Metairie, has 1,150 employees. " Judice, Mary (1996-08-24). "Newpark Reborn: Oilfield Cleanup Company Sees Profit Below the Surface" . The Times-Picayune . Archived from the original on 2023-04-23 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . The article notes: "For Newpark Resources, 1993 was a bad year. Its core business, oilfield cleanup, just about dried up. The other business segment, building drilling sites for oil and gas companies, was down because drilling was way off. But 1994 has been far kinder. Louisiana regulators issued rules on disposal of radioactive oilfield waste, allowing disposal work to resume. Higher natural gas prices have spurred a 30 percent increase in drilling in south Texas and Louisiana, the markets Newpark serves. As a result, Newpark's earnings have doubled over the last year, said Thomas A. Escott, an analyst at Robinson-Humphrey Co. Inc. in Atlanta. In the latest quarter, net income jumped from $900,000 to $2.3 million. " Gentry, Dave (2015). Small Stocks, Big Money: Interviews With Microcap Superstars . Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley . p. 86. ISBN 978-1-119-17255-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Another investment that generated hundreds of millions in profits for his group was Newpark Resources (NYSE: NR), which he funded at $0.20 a share. The company was incorporated as New Park Mining in 1932 but changed its name to Newpark Resources in 1972. In 1977, it listed on the New York Stock Exchange but was delisted in 1986 after it sold off one of its divisions to a bank to relieve its debt load. This is around the time that Sassower took an interest in the company. The company began a restructuring in 1986. In 1987, Sassower's group invested $10 million. The company refocused its business and became a major player in hazardous waste cleanup. Again, Sassower had the foresight to redirect the company into a fast growing industry. ... In 1991, Newpark listed on the NASDAQ and then four years later as revenue topped $80 million it listed again on the NYSE (Figure 9.1). Adjusted for splits and dividends, the price of Newpark Resources reached $105.00 per share in the mid-1990s. The Phoenix Group made $200 million on their "calculated risk play." Newpark Resources' 2013 revenue was $1.1 billion with $65.3 million in net income. The company is a leading international oil services company with three major divisions: drilling fluids; mats and integrated services; and environmental services. " "25 Years Ago. Thursday, August 20, 1942. Mining Matters for Week: Producing Ore for War" . Park Record . 1967-08-31. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "The New Park Mining company, Utah's newest major producing mine, is located in the East Park City District, 40 miles southeast of Salt Lake City, in Wasatch county, Utah. The New Park property includes the Flagstaff Group; the Gold Queen Group which is being developed by tunnel work; the Mayflower and Sar of Utah Mines company groups, and the Park Galena Mine company group which controlled the Park Galena fissure. ... These earlier interests were incorporated to form the New Park Mining company, which operated through the Park Galena tunnel until funds were raised in 1939 to finish driving the Mayflower Tunnel. All mining operations have been conducted from the Mayflower portal since February, 1940. The company now owns 1577 acres of patented mining claims--594 acres of ranch and other land and 895 acres leased from the State of Utah. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Newpark Resources (known as New Park Mining between 1932 and 1972)  to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : ROUTINE business news, nothing that shows notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although most of the reference Cunard lists above fail GNG/NCORP criteria, the following analysis shows there are at least two that do: 1. International Directory of Company Histories Volume: 63 meets the criteria and is a great source. 8. Small Stocks, Big Money: Interviews With Microcap Superstars also meets the criteria. 25 Years Ago article appears to summarise an older five page write-up on the company and also meets the criteria. While the rest of Cunard's sources invariably lack sufficient detail the above establish the company meets the notability threshold. HighKing ++ 19:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The referencing in the article such as finance.Yahoo is routine financial detail and doesn't provide analysis/commentary so by itself is not sufficient. However, the additional sources identified by Cunard provide sufficient indepth coverage on the company's history to satisfy GNG/NCORP. Rupples ( talk ) 01:26, 1 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

Isn't It Now?: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm a bit concerned about some of the details of this nomination - the album isn't out until September, so there aren't going to be reviews yet. And there's already a dedicated WP:RSMUSIC -approved source ( https://exclaim.ca/amparticle/animal_collective_announce_new_album_isnt_it_now ) in the article so I don't know about the claim of there being no RS coverage either. That aside, at this exact moment, it does seem to be a bit WP:TOOSOON to meet the GNG. But the album was also seemingly just announced today? So probably draftify it if no more coverage arises during the run of the AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The album tracklist was announced 7/24, but it has been confirmed since 2022 when the previous album was released. They were both recorded in 2021. The 2nd single from this new album will be released tomorrow 7/26. The first single was released last month. BRIAN 0918 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising my stance to Keep - as I suspected, RS coverage was coming. Plenty of RSMUSIC sources wrote dedicated articles about the album, and I don't believe in redirecting or drafting when there's already coverage like this. It's still short, but its far more likely to be better developed in the mainspace than tucked away in the draftspace. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until the album releases per WP:TOOSOON . The source linked above is RS but definitely WP:MILL , but its existence makes be believe that there will be more RS once it releases. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Revising my ! vote to Keep , as there are now 11 reliable refs clearly showing notability. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 04:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per JML. Worth noting that you can also boldly move articles to draftspace without need for an AfD rather than just deleting them. I would recommend it for upcoming releases, especially ones that are freshly announced and have obvious potential for a good article in the future. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree that more reliable sources will be available once the album is released. Charsaddian ( talk ) 16:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to Keep after seeing the addition of more sources. Charsaddian ( talk ) 13:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article now includes 11 refs that are listed at WP:RSMUSIC , as well as some critical reception for the single, and background info. BRIAN 0918 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Classic example of what's know as a WP:REFBOMB . All of the reliable sources on the page are mainly saying the same thing with some slight variation or small bits of added commentary. This is not what makes a notable subject. I stand by my vote above. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] REFBOMBing is more about misleading through passing mentions or sourcing content irrelevant/off-topic content. Its valid editorial philosophy to take exception to the fact that they're all announcements with minimal difference in content, but it's not really refbombing per se. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believed the main criticism to be the lack of reliable sources. So that was my primary focus. The next criticisms were lack of content, so those sections have been and are being expanded where possible. BRIAN 0918 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This has about as much detail as can be expected for a just-announced album, and is absolutely "notable" by virtue of being the work of an artist with such cultural cachet. I'm not sure what the issue is with it existing. Musiceasel ( talk ) 02:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agree with the statements by Sergecross73 and Musiceasel. There is sufficient reliable independent sources covering the album that it satisfies basic notability requirements. Mburrell ( talk ) 03:54, 27 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

Rachel Amber: There aren't sources that appear to discuss the character outside of the scope of the games itself, or even the story for the first game as much. She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character, and what is there is failing SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE turned up much of the same, Rachel just doesn't seem to be independently notable. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a notation that the nominator has asked for this AFD to be Withdrawn here and at the bottom of this AFD. But because there have been several editors advocating a Merger, this AFD will not be automatically closed. It will be formally closed by an administrator at some point in the near future. L iz Read! Talk! 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it is not clear to me that PopMatters is non-RS. Can you point to a discussion where this consensus has been reached? I don't see anything on RSN. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not saying PopMatters isn't reliable, I'm arguing the author of that article isn't a reliable source for the reasons given. It's a site that encourages submissions without payment and the individual authors of those submissions should be considered accordingly. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PopMatters is considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC . They're a major publication in the music world. I didn't think they did much in the video game works though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They were actively publishing in the vg topic space at one point, like between 10 to 12 years ago. I found some useful material about vg topics. Haleth ( talk ) 06:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Odin famously traded his eye for the secrets of blockchain. Dronebogus ( talk ) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm a bit torn because while I do largely agree with the nominator's assessment of the article, this article did go through an AFD less than a year ago that resulted in an uncontroversial Keep consensus. I feel there should have at least been some attempt to bring up these concerns on the Talk page of the article to discuss a possible Merger before bringing it back to AFD within such a relatively short time after it was already Kept at AFD. Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the 1st afd lacks more participants and was maybe thoughtless closed. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I considered a merge proposal, but given how the previous AfD went felt it may trainwreck without a more organized discussion. Not to mention there seems to be an ongoing problem with those discussions being actually closed. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, believe me, I am very sympathetic to the fact that Merge proposals on Talk pages very often have little participation and often go ages without a closure, which is why I usually don't bring this up in AFD discussions where merging or redirecting is the obvious correct option. Its just the fact that this particular article had a very recent AFD in which no one in it actually advocated deletion which kind of gives a bad look to the process. But, that's just my two cents - as I said, I actually do agree with the nomination, and would support a merge. Rorshacma ( talk ) 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Article could only come up with is a short paragraph about LGBT representation in Life is Strange and not specifically about Rachel. Also, there is zero developmental info specifically about the character from a real world perspective, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any better. Not to mention the WP:REFBOMBING of the article so it'll be like "Wow there are so many sources, this has to be notable". Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a super expert on it, but am I wrong in believing this character is this franchise's example of Dead lesbian syndrome ? Jclemens ( talk ) 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Greenish Pickle! : Did you mean developmental info as in "that was the thought process of the developers for the development this character"? This and this have bits on that, not a lot but more than zero; this has the side of the voice actress. Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely dead lesbian syndrome. She did spend most of the relevant games' runtime being...dead in-universe. Haleth ( talk ) 05:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, yeah, I did participate in the last AfD. I thought it looked familiar. Keep per my reasoning then. And can we agree that deletion is off the table, and this is really a discussion substantially constrained to whether the character article should be kept standalone, or merged to the various installments in which she appears? Jclemens ( talk ) 00:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course, or a full on redirect. That said how exactly do you feel it meets notability in light of things here? Your statement in the previous AfD was that the "article improvements" showed coverage in reliable sources, but that's being contested here as anything sufficient. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 00:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to the game's article - I think a lot of the sources being put forth are critiques of the story itself rather than the character or their actions. Notability is not inherited, so just because a story elicited controversy over treating a character poorly does not make the character immediately notable. I believe the previous AfD conflated these two things incorrectly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As I said last time, even after the removal of PopMatters we still have sourced, non-stubby article, which has a recepetion section to balance plot summary even if that is not very long. So WP:WHYN is fullfilled and I see no reason for merge or even deletion. I also wonder if really all secondary sources have been analysed in WP:BEFORE . E.g. PC Invasion has an interesting characterization for Amber having (or being seen as having) two sides, which has not yet been worked into the article, which (at least for Before the Storm ) flies into the face of She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character . Procedurally I think this should have be a merge discussion rather than an AfD. Daranios ( talk ) 15:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Part of the problem is it's still primarily a review of the game. Even by the reviewer's own admission the characterization here is up to the player's interpretation and not an analysis on their part as that's the case with all the game's characters. So maybe assume a bit of good faith as to why I said what I did. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, sorry about my phrasing. What I should have said was that I see more in the secondary sources than you described. Like, I believe it's a good thing to have a multi-faceted character ( Game of Thrones anyone?) which allows to say more about them. WP:GNG also specifically says that the topic does not need to be the source's main topic in order to count as significant coverage. Daranios ( talk ) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios Can you tell me which sources meet WP:SIGCOV here? I just scanned the titles so far, but those suggest the artices are about the game rather than the character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : The short answer, basically already present in my reply to Greenish Pickle! : The secondary sources collectively allow us to create a sourced, meaningful article which fullfills the requirement of WP:ALLPLOT and WP:WHYN , so as usual I personally am satisfied with that. Individually, I'd say " Life is Strange: Before the Storm broke our hearts in good and bad ways " has a significant amount to say on the character, both plot and commentary. I did not yet have time look into all secondary sources, but have already found that there was more in those I have looked at than was previously present in the article. Maybe I'll find time to look more next week. Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios , I like your arguments as they have merit, and I personally believe that most if not all the out of universe information presented in the article should be preserved without question. However, I am indecisive as to whether the character's dead lesbian trope, as noted by Jclemens, should be refocused and covered within a dedicated reception section in the series article (since we have one now), or in a dedicated standalone article for the character as per status quo. Weak Keep if there is a consensus that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, but I am not opposed to a merge into the series article if and only if someone is willing to do up a proper section about the reception and analysis of her role as a plot device over the course of two games. Often people who advocate a merge or redirect simply will not bother with preserving adequately cited content , they just want that article gone from mainspace and such a position works as an adequate compromise per AfD guidelines. Haleth ( talk ) 05:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Haleth : I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge if there should be a majority who thinks the character analysis we have uncovered would be better presented within the context of the games'/series' articles. However I personally fall on the side of a stand-alone presentation being both feasible and preferable. And I do share the concern with regard to merges that really all relevant information is preserved (including the recent additions ). Daranios ( talk ) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would prefer a merge myself, generally echoing Haleth, weak keep being second choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the other way. Weak keep as a preference at this stage, merge being a second choice. Haleth ( talk ) 11:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I don't think there's enough significant sources talking about the character outside of the games itself to work as a standalone article, and a lot of the commentary around the character is essentially commentary on the game's tropes itself versus Rachel. And I agree that the PopMatters article isn't reliable in this case; it's someone with a pseudonym, not a staff-bylined article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : My reasons for the keep ! vote remains unchanged from last time . Daranios arguments are pretty convincing too. MoonJet ( talk ) 04:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Most of the keep votes like the one above me would be counted as WP:NOTAVOTE "sources have to exist look at this one" which didn't say something. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 04:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It should be noted that the keep opinions are NOT based any unproven assumption that sources have to exist somewhere , but rather existing sources are present and linked for everyone to see and check both in the article and the previous deletion discussion, which is the most basic argument when notability has been put in question . So keep statments here are argument-based, not votes. The content of the sources is such that we have "a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "a few sentences" , including a ( now slightly expanded ) decent-sized reception section. As that is the whole point why we have a notability requirement in the first place, I don't see why this article should be merged, much less deleted. Daranios ( talk ) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You didn't even replied to Piotrus' question. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So? Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a relevant set of sources for the topic. If Laura Palmer’s worth a page, this character is too. LingLass ( talk ) 01:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:TRIVIAL are both insufficient arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re missing the main point. To elaborate on my first sentence: the most recent five articles listed are themselves enough to show the significance of this character in this world. My second line was partly meant to be amusing. But, the fact that this comparison to Twin Peaks' Laura Plamer is also richly elaborated on in sources that don’t count here (e.g.,in Tumblr lore), does not make the other print sources less worthy. LingLass ( talk ) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Further secondary sources, where Rachel is not the main topic but which have non -trivial analysis of the character: " What's Past Is Prologue: Rewriting and Interfacing Shakespeare in Life Is Strange: Before the Storm ", " Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in​ Gone Home and​ Life is Strange . Daranios ( talk ) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And another scholarly source analyzing Rachel (and Chloe) in a way which surely is not trivial (and talks about aspects different from the trope in question): Der ästhetische Vektor , p. 172 bottom-173, 181 bottom-182. Pinging Piotrus . Daranios ( talk ) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented immediately above... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here’s the full citation of the second article that is archived above: Drouin, R. A. (2019) ‘Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in Gone Home and Life is Strange', Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media , 16, pp. 24-37. doi: 10.33178/alpha.16.02 Some relevant quotes that show the centering of Amber: “The exigency of numerous characters in their devotion to the missing Rachel Amber, a queer girl, links trauma to the premise of the game. By the game’s conclusion, players find Rachel’s corpse and realise she has been kidnapped, murdered, and potentially raped, shattering Chloe. Rachel, as the subject of a queer trauma archive, possesses a dual role of spectre and centrepiece. Haunting the archive, she is voiceless; details about her come second hand, and there are limited artefacts to compose her history. Players cannot fully understand her sexuality without the biased influence of Chloe, who is in love with her, or the prequel game, Life Is Strange: Before the Storm. It is also queer Chloe who preserves Rachel’s memory and memorialises her.” (p. 31) “Sexuality and gender are overt themes and concerns of both Life Is Strange and Gone Home. This undisguised attention to queer girls prevents audiences from misconstruing the representation either game offers.” p. 34 “Despite relying on the deaths of queer girls to chronicle, the Life Is Strange universe equally hinges upon female devotion, from Chloe’s attachment of Rachel to the healing relationship between Chloe and Max. Rhetoric and archival theory influence queer representation in gaming.” p 34. LingLass ( talk ) 03:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to all merge opinions: After some expansions , which do not yet incorporate all secondary sources found, Rachel Amber currently has a longer Reception/analysis section than Max Caulfield or Chloe Price . I think incorporating these sourced parts into either the series' or the individual games' articles would be either akward or require a major restructuring, as none of these articles has a characters section yet. So do you believe a merge is really the most beneficial course of action at this point? Daranios ( talk ) 10:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess whether recent changes in expanding the article impact any editor's opinion on what should happen with this article. Also, I'd like to confirm where those advocating Merge want as a target article. Life Is Strange was referred to but there is no place on this article that is devoted to game characters. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While there have been modifications to the article since this started, and I applaud those efforts...I still feel the sources even the new ones are looking at the story of the games and not her as an independently notable character outside of them. It's just not being demonstrated. I would almost suggest merging the respective bits of commentary to their corresponding titles, as nothing would be lost then. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources added by Daranios. I feel that there's a bit of goalpost-shifting with how "independently notable" is being construed by some participants here. We can certainly agree that simply being a character in a notable game does not by itself make the article subject notable. But that does not mean that the character can only be notable if they are covered outside of any connection to the game (which would be an impossible standard). Rather, it is simply necessary that the character be covered in independent reliable sources, etc., that address the character directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That standard seems amply met by the sources here, many of which have extensive discussion of this character's story. And while it does seem like perhaps some sort of in-depth article on characters in Life is Strange might be a more optimal way of arranging this content, until someone gets around to doing that labor-intensive reorg, this article seems fine. -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Visviva . Okoslavia ( talk ) 10:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like the point that you made about the goalpost-shifting. Haleth ( talk ) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, echoing @ Visviva on goalpost-shifting for this type of fictional biography page, and on there being an ample number of independent reliable sources. LingLass ( talk ) 15:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I feel like this has gone on excessively long, but I do agree with the above suggestion that a character article/"list" may be the better route to explore later. But there has been enough work on the article that it is in better shape now than it was which is at least an improvement, even with my notability concerns. Still I don't see a point in dragging this out further. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pretty sure you can't withdraw it with this many Opposes present. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They can still announce their own withdrawal of their Delete ! vote, but it won't warrant a speedy keep. Merko ( talk ) 10:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Technically only delete or redirect opinions preclude a speedy keep, and closes after relists are possible without citing a speedy criterion. Of course, that does depend on someone actually wanting to kick it over to the relevant article talk page and not wanting to wait 7 days. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge I've been watching this one, and I feel it has hit the threshold for WP:SIGCOV . Even if it's borderline, there is room for a merge discussion to make this topic area more organized. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very strong keep – It meets the notability criteria and is important for LGBTQ+ representation, and all of this information cannot be merged into the article and will be lost. At the very least it should be redirected so someone can recreate it in the future. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:48, 18 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

Fluxion (electronic musician): No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO . Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece . Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep has an AllMusic staff written bio here and four staff written album reviews here , here , here and here . There is also coverage in XLR8R here . Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep moving to full keep after a full search which as well as the above mentioned sources found coverage in Exclaim here , Resident Advisor here , The Quitus here , and a Polish source here . I'm not familiar with the Polish source but the other coverage is in reliable sources so I believe WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Keep – it needs more refs but, given Atlantic306's success at finding some potential additions I'm pursuaded by the artist's discography. -- Northernhenge ( talk ) 19:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 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

2020–21 Wrexham A.F.C. season: Crowsus ( talk ) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The fully professional division rule no longer applies and there will be plenty of available sources that can be used to flesh out the article. The National league is well covered even when teams don't commission their own documentary. SportingFlyer T · C 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this existence of the documentary covering this season essentially ensures notability, despite the fact they did not play in a professional division. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - while the documentary only covers part of the season, there's enough coverage. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep We still have an SNG for NSEASONS, however with the events surrounding the season, there should be more than enough sources that can be added to bulk it up. The article needs a clean up for sure. Govvy ( talk ) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 01:37, 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

Haley Scarnato: Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 13 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 Texas . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which 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 . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Miller, Robin (2015-05-05). "BR Symphony getting idolized *** Outdoor show boasts 'American Idol' alums" . The Advocate . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Even though Haley Scarnato didn’t win “American Idol” in 2007, she’s still recognized everywhere she goes. ... Scarnato was speaking from Las Vegas, where she and her country band, Fairchild, were the opening act for Big & Rich’s recent concert. She also opens for Matt Goss’ Ceasar’s Palace show. ... And the experience continues. The show has provided Scarnato opportunities to perform and appear on talk shows, including “Live with Regis and Kelly,” “Access Hollywood,” Mike and Juliet,” “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” “Extra” and “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” Now, she’s working on a new EP to be released this summer on iTunes." Jakle, Jeanne (2010-05-05). "Hometown 'Idol' finalist weighs in on current competition" . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "What's Scarnato up to? She's in the midst of a move to Las Vegas because she's found so much performing success there. She's been singing at venues along the strip with S.A. band Third Town, seen two years ago on NBC's Nashville Star. She's also hosting an upcoming S.A. TV show -- The After Party -- which is produced by David Zanardi, formerly of Essay Magazine. It will spotlight food, fun, entertainment and nightlife in San Antonio, Austin and the Hill Country." Jakle, Jeanne (2015-01-09). "Scarnato says 'Idol' has kept her career buzzing" . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2020-10-26 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "When Scarnato isn’t touring with “Ballroom,” she’s traveling with Symphony Idol, which has her and two other “Idol” alums, Lakisha Jones (season six) and Matt Giraud (season eight) singing favorites from artists such as Celine Dion and Journey with a symphony orchestra. ... When she’s back in Vegas, she performs with her country band Fairchild, opening for big names such as John Rich. She’s also the lead singer and dancer for a sexy, high-energy show on an outdoor stage, Fremont Street Hotties." Franklin, Mark (2009-11-24). "Haley Scarnato talks about Idol, her nickname and her future" . The York Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Growing up, Haley Scarnato was an avid gymnast with what she admits was a strange habit. ... By age 15, Haley was singing in a wedding band. By age 24, she was standing on the American Idol stage, a finalist in season six." Saldaña, Hector (2008-01-13). "Scarnato's tips for 'Idol' wannabes" . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "San Antonio's "American Idol" sweetheart Haley Scarnato is living in Nashville, listening to demos for the debut album she'll record this year and mapping out a country pop career. At age 25, it's like living a dream, she says. But if anyone knows about the agony and the ecstasy of the "American Idol" experience, it's Scarnato, who drew wrath and high praise from Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul last year -- often depending on what the leggy singer was wearing." Jakkle, Jeanne (2007-04-13). "No more tears: Haley hits the talk show circuit" . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "After taking hits for showing off her long legs in short shorts, Haley Scarnato had planned to dramatically change her look on "American Idol" next week. ... A recap: On Thursday night's show, Scarnato talked about her "Idol" experience with Leno in a scripted bit that spoofed the Geico car insurance ad featuring voice-over actor Don LaFontaine." Guzman, René A. (2007-03-20). "Scarnato has online following" . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Looks like the Web's getting wild about Haley. Haley Source, Haley.Idols 2007.com and Haley's Comets at MySpace are just some of the Web pages devoted to Haley Scarnato, the San Antonian singing her way up the steps of "American Idol. " The hopefuls take to the microphone again tonight on the hit Fox show." Jakle, Jeanne (2009-04-08). "Scarnato favors Lambert on 'Idol' " . San Antonio Express-News . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "San Antonio's former "American Idol" finalist Haley Scarnato didn't hesitate to name her favorite season eight contestant the other day when I ran into her at Paloma Blanca Mexican restaurant. ... As for Scarnato's own career, the Taft High grad - who made it to No. 8 in season six of "Idol" - said she was rethinking her first CD. She recently signed with an agent in Los Angeles." Weinbender, Nathan (2013-10-18). "Ex-'Idol' hopefuls join symphony" . The Spokesman-Review . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Any regular "Idol" viewer will recognize the participating vocalists: Haley Scarnato and LaKisha Jones, who were top 10 finishers on the show's sixth season, ... Scarnato, a Texas native who cut her teeth on country songs ..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Haley Scarnato to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the multiple reliable sources newspaper coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER . Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to appropriate season of American Idol , which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Redirecting the article would not be appropriate in this case, as Scarnato continued to recieve meaningful news coverage after her time on Idol , as illustrated above. Jpcase ( talk ) 20:58, 21 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

Knives Out (film series): Indagate ( talk ) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Indagate ( talk ) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since the third film is in production, so it is across the threshold of being nearly-guaranteed to come out. (In the film industry, until filming starts, the creation of a film is much less certain.) This is why the third film has its own standalone article when it started filming. We'd just be deleting this film series article to bring it back later. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are two movies released, with the third now in production. This is not at all uncommon to have an article, similar to how the third film has a page (see @ Erik : 's comments). DisneyMetalhead ( talk ) 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If the third movie has a page, then the series can have a page. If you'd like to delete the third movie's page because of WP:CRYSTAL , then go and do that. Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While I agree with Indagate's rationale that this is still too soon and technically against the film series MOS, I see no harm in keeping it up now that it is here. That in mind, @ DisneyMetalhead , it is typically best practice to have a talk page discussion at one of the main related articles (ie at Talk:Knives Out ) BEFORE submitting these types of drafts for an AfC, as AfC is not always aware of the film MOS guidelines, case in point, what we have here. This article is definitely in need of major ref additions and cleanup throughout, which probably should have been squared away before a move, though those can always be rectified. Trailblazer101 ( talk ) 04:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expansion and/or additional refs/details can be added at any point in time. I did not think it would be controversial at all to create a film article about the collective details of the film series as a whole. DisneyMetalhead ( talk ) 04:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Third film is already in production and has it's own article. Upcoming films incredibly rarely get canned once they've began shooting. If the third film itself can already have an article I see no guideline reason why the film series can not. ★Trekker ( talk ) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Deleting the article for a film series with two movies out and a third actively filming seems a bit hasty. Many series follow this pattern. The third movie even has its own page! Filming has already begun, which makes cancellation very unlikely in the industry. Waqar 💬 17:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep