Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Sheena M. Joyce: Successful career, but not notable enough. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely an Emmy nomination, the best documentary prize at the Hollywood Film Awards and GLAAD Media Awards, IDFA PLAY Award for Best Music Documentary at the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam, and Roger Ebert's assessment of her film as among the annual best constitute "significant critical attention" per WP:FILMMAKER . See here and here . CCS81 ( talk ) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep That first reference above has no byline. It reads like a block of AI generated PR and nothing else. Next time, don't post these on Afd. There is lots of other coverage and recently. Her Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes is very high, indicating a quality film maker. scope_creep Talk 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article in The Philadelphia Citizen is a lengthy profile of Joyce. The Variety article posted above is also very helpful. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've been adding much-needed sourcing to the filmography. Very definitely notable in her field. — Maile ( talk ) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Variety article and the Philadelphia Citizen piece, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Memoona Qudoos: However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this , this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She is notable. In this source her education and how she started is all mentioned [36] and her married life source in this [37] . ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] BeauSuzanne , Your comments sound WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not talking about WP:V. I am saying that it meets WP:NACTOR. It has mentioned her drama roles and her recent role of Shehna. ( BeauSuzanne ( talk ) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] BeauSuzanne , Could you provide evidence that the subject had major roles? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep because the interviews in rather reliable sources have a presentation that might show her roles are signficant. If not why not DRAFTITY until better sources are found, so as to avoid the risk of constant recreations/deletion and mutual frustration? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , Roznama92News isn't even a RS. It's just one of the countless Urdu language newspapers circulated in Pakistan. And I wouldn't outright label the interview in The News as a paid placement since I lack evidence, but considering the nature of the questions posed by the interviewer, it's a plausible possibility. Anyhow, I'm fine with DRAFITIFICATION, though. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clean up shouldn't be deletion. Appearing in multiple notable films meets WP:NACTOR though requires whether it is significant or not (though should be); it is a known role in the films. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , Fwiw - In Pakistani TV dramas, supporting roles do not have the same level of significance as in Western or even Indian TV series. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then a policy should be initiated in Wikipedia:Village pump . Fwiw also, supporting roles can be notable when it has been done for multiple times. Why then do you see a supporting actor or actress awards? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , But the fact is she hasn't even really had any supporting roles in the series she's been in so far. No one's provided any evidence for it, not even for dramas like GT Road, Guddu, Farq, Nikah, Kalank, Umm-e-Haniya, and Jaisay Aapki Marzi , which she's known for. So, it seems she's just part of the ensemble cast . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I am not convinced that the GNG or NACTOR have been met. Keep counterarguments have been unconvincing, so I am inclined to side with the nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 7 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

Ramswarup Ramsagar Multiple Campus: Onel 5969 TT me 10:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nepal . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Contest deletion nomination : @ Shellwood : , Why does this campus fail notability? It is one of the oldest constituent campuses under Tribhuvan University . Being unbiased, I request the nominator to see other articles on campuses in Nepal. Even Model Multiple College , which lies in same city which feels promotion and has not even refrenced. It is the college attained by first President of Nepal, Former Peputy Prime minister of Nepal, numerous Ministers of Nepal and renouned peoples in Nepal. Category:Tribhuvan University has 50+ articles which are less notable than this one. I feel a detail discussion is required to make a conclusion on all articles of this type in Nepal. Else I feel I have given much reference to this article. Franked2004 ( talk ) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument at AfD. If you think those articles should be deleted, feel free to go through proper deletion processes with them, but that doesn't mean we should keep this one. See also User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC * Pppery * it has begun... 14:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've answered your implied challenge and started to clean up Category:Tribhuvan University - you're right, a lot of those cite no secondary sources at all, and I've either redirected or PRODDed them. But that's not an excuse to keep this article. Wikipedia (unfortunately) works by having a lot of unwated stuff lying around and editors semi-randomly bringing them to the spotlight to be cleaned out. To be clear, this article at the time I redirected it cited no secondary sources at all, and I haven't evaluated the suitability of the sources you added (and thus am not formally advocating deletion or re-redirecting). But you need to focus on the merits of those sources and whether they provide in-depth, independent coverage , not on calls for consistency. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well the sources mentioned on the articles are totally independent and based on national level reputed medias including Kantipur which is most popular news agency in Nepal. I can accept this article would have been un-notable before my edit. But the campus has more than seven thousand student which is greater number than what many universities have. I see the college is where first president of Nepal, Ram Baran Yadav and former deputy prime minister Bimalendra Nidhi have studied as well. Being even older than than the oldest university of Nepal, Tribhuvan University I see the article to be totally notable specially after the addition and uplifting of artcle that I have made. Franked2004 ( talk ) 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has been widely cited in reliable and mainstream Nepalese medias. DI V I N E 07:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk ) 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DIVINE : It would be helpful to actually provide those sources so others could evaluate them. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe ( talk ) 10:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and tag for notability/viewpoints: the currently-cited articles from Annapurna [10] , Ekagaj [11] , Bahrakhari [12] and Kantipur TV [13] appear to have significant coverage of the subject, which is apparently also known by the acronym RARAB. It's not a clean case for GNG, but the nature of the reportage is suggestive of there being much more coverage out there as well. These references all report an apparently abysmal state of conditions at the campus itself which is reflected nowhere in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 02:36, 2 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

Aida Rybalko: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Lithuania . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject person fulfills WP:GNG with several Lithuanian sources that have provided SIGCOV (See Kauno diena [36] and 15min [37] ). Her personal life has also received a certain extent of media coverage (See Lrytas.lt [38] , 15min [39] , and Delfi [40] ). — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources provided in this discussion each provide the necessary WP:SIGCOV from RS to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - Article is in very poor condition (hence the weak—even though that's really a reason to improve vice delete), but the sources found are enough that WP:NEXIST to show she meets GNG vice NSKATE. - 2pou ( talk ) 21:32, 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

Calls for the destruction of Israel: This article is a summary WP:POVFORK of various tangentially-related pages and is full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR . For example, "so-and-so body says X." Then, "Palestinians do XX", which is implied as a violation of the previous sentence. The entire article is like this. WP:TNT . We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Anti-Zionism , Antisemitism in the Arab world , Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud , Incitement to genocide , Palestinian political violence , Palestinian genocide accusation , Zionist entity , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel , Second Holocaust ... I simply do not see what was the need of another article saying what so many others do. Wikipedia does not fragmentise other conflicts to this excessive degree. It makes navigating articles about this topic needlessly confusing. Crampcomes ( talk ) 18:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East , Israel , and Palestine . Owen× ☎ 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - appears to pass WP:GNG . starship . paint ( RUN ) 02:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Starship.paint the problem here is that this article covers the same topic as Anti-Zionism , making it a WP:CFORK . VR (Please ping on reply) 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the topic area grants some leniency in matters of CFORK. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel . starship . paint ( RUN ) 23:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What's that Afd got to do with anything? Where does policy say "leniency" is granted? Can you explain what is the difference in the topic between "calls for the destruction of Israel" and "anti-zionism" ( defined as opposition to the existence of Israel in its current form). VR (Please ping on reply) 02:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is adequately sourced. TH1980 ( talk ) 03:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - What pages do you contend this is a fork of? PrimaPrime ( talk ) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Antisemitism in the Arab world , Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud , Incitement to genocide , Palestinian political violence , Palestinian genocide accusation , Zionist entity , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel , Second Holocaust ... Crampcomes ( talk ) 07:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Topics being related or overlapping somewhat doesn't make this article a fork; that would be if we already had a page like Opposition to Israel's existence . I agree that this conflict area has spawned a lot of articles focusing on rather trivial individual aspects thereof, and it might be better to merge some of them into longer and more general pages, but that's not an AFD question so long as each article in question does cover a distinctly notable topic. Maybe start a discussion over at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration ? PrimaPrime ( talk ) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PrimaPrime this page is a fork of anti-zionism . VR (Please ping on reply) 02:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That you just redirected that former redlink to your preferred topic does nothing to bolster your case. PrimaPrime ( talk ) 02:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Nomination and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan ( talk • contribs ) 17:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The sensitivity of the subject is understandable, but the article discusses a recurring social phenomenon. The charge must be for scope neutrality, not for deletion. Svartner ( talk ) 20:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per Svartner. \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 20:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and wasn't there a RFC on this question less than six months ago? פעמי-עליון ( talk ) 22:05, 14 January 2024‎ (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and close. The AfD justification is word-for-word the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel , an article created by the nominator. In this case, the justification has nothing to do with the article nominated. For example, there's nothing in this article about the "Palestinians do X," or is this article a WP:POVFORK of any article. What are the article-specific examples of a policy-based justification for AfD? This reads as WP:Tendentious Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, I noticed that the opening phrase of both was first (I assume) recently used by myself in an impulsive random patrol AfD in this topic area that was closed as speedy keep without votes… RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 15:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article looks to be a WP:FORK of anti-zionism . Can someone explain to me what is the difference between calling for Israel's destruction (article currently at AfD) and for opposing Israel's existence ( anti-zionism )? VR (Please ping on reply) 08:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear, I support delete or redirect to Anti-Zionism . VR (Please ping on reply) 02:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are two separate concepts, unfortunately muddied in today's politicized discourse where the meaning of ideas doesn't matter anymore. Longhornsg ( talk ) 02:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Explain the difference. VR (Please ping on reply) 02:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic in its own right. Per Svartner, I agree more or less completely with them. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PrimaPrime . -- Avi ( talk ) 04:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as there is a clear GNG ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and many more). With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: There's a lot more discussion about this at Talk:Anti-Zionism#Possible content fork . It looks unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. VR does ask a valid question about the difference between Anti-Zionism and Calls for the destruction of Israel that I don't think either article makes clearly enough, so hopefully this discussion will prompt someone to make that difference clearer. (I can't edit either article, so I can't do it myself yet!) Ironic ( talk ) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : also note Legitimacy of the State of Israel , which is the only article of its kind in the entire encyclopedia. François Robere ( talk ) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not the most neutral, but not bad enough to need deleting. Definitely a notable topic. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 20:13, 19 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

Matheus Machado (footballer, born 2003): signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Belgium , and Brazil . signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , found this [15] and was able to ascertain that it's in-depth direct coverage. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There sufficient coverage to establish WP:GNG [16] [17] [18] . Svartner ( talk ) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above, some good commentary on the footballer's football work Password (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 20 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

Soverel 33: Single reference is a 404 error to a database. Fails the general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Gbooks has enough coverage to verify the specs, from a period magazine [7] , this is a discussion of the boat [8] under the rather hopeful title of "Stocking Stuffers". Should be ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised at your ! vote, Oaktree. Specs are just a listing, so not WP:SIGCOV , and the discussion is also failing that quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does have two full pages of specs, they seem rather detailed, I'd consider them significant coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 4 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 ) 15:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above sources and these additional newspaper sources: "5-race weekend series is a Soverel showcase" . South Florida Sun Sentinel . 1985-12-12. p. 52 . Retrieved 2023-10-10 . "Soverel's success comes by design" . The Miami Herald . 1984-02-26. p. 315 . Retrieved 2023-10-10 . "Sea beckened Stuart sailor, designer at an early age" . The Stuart News . 1985-12-13. p. 21 . Retrieved 2023-10-10 . I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire ( talk ) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sailboatdata (the only refrence in the article) is not reliable. However, the sources found by Jfire leads me to vote keep. -- Mike 🗩 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sources found by Jfire. The stub can be improved and I hope that someone adds the sources. Lightburst ( talk ) 21:03, 11 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

Brandon Stickney: The reason for nomination was: 'Fails the general and author-specific notability policies.' I couldn't come up with evidence to disagree. The last AfD had only one person commenting and no votes, so hopefully a better discussion can result in a decision this time. Boleyn ( talk ) 16:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Journalism , and United States of America . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found a review of Stickney's McVeigh book in Publishers Weekly ( link ) and a review of his prison memoir in Kirkus ( link ). In addition, I found additional coverage of his work in the Buffalo News ( link ), WBFO ( link ), and the Union Sun and Journal ( link ) along with additional reviews in Booklist and the journal Social Thought & Research (these last two can be found through the Wikipedia Library). When all of this is added with the coverage detailed by Espresso Addict in the previous AfD , I believe this subject meets the criteria at WP:Author . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 14:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per SouthernNights' findings and my own from the previous AfD, in which I was also inclined to keep. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:56, 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

Winston Churchill's pets: Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Animal , and United Kingdom . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I was able to find an academic book covering Churchill's animals ( Churchill's Menagerie: Winston Churchill and the Animal Kingdom ), as well as a couple of popular history books which may or may not be reliable ( [33] [34] , as well as the Selbert one cited in the article). I did not thoroughly search news articles, but a perfunctory look seems like there might be some more coverage there. Churchill's animals are covered at Winston Churchill#Artist, historian, and writer , so a merge or redirect there should also be considered. Curbon7 ( talk ) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG ; sources in the article plus those listed above. This is so much better than giving each notable/marginally notable pet its own individual Wikipedia article (as many heads-of-state pets have). As a group they are definitely notable and it's great to read about them all in one place. As a history article, your best bet for WP:BEFORE is library books. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete His pets don't have stand-alone notability. There's of course going to be at least some coverage of things like this for such a significant historical figure, but almost always this should be contained within the main article. Pointing towards pages like Pets of Vladimir Putin isn't a legitimate argument in favour of keeping this article. Willbb234 11:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge per Willbb234. This is essentially a case of Churchill's notability spilling onto his pets, who have no notability of their own and therefore should not be covered apart from him. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk ) 15:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It does oddly appear there's enough coverage of Churchill's pets to warrant a stand-alone or SPLIT article about them. Article could use some cleanup, and exasperation is not a deletion rationale. If there's nothing there after cleanup, and it can be fit into the regular article, then an upmerge is fine. SportingFlyer T · C 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I DO hope you're not referring to your Honourable Nominator as exasperated . For the record, I was more curious than anything. And I note that Andrew Davidson is a force of nature. I remain intrigued, however, more than convinced... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just noting it's a strange AfD rationale that doesn't demonstrate any sort of care or BEFORE search. I can see the article has been greatly improved since you've nominated too, though! SportingFlyer T · C 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was more the concept (although the parlous state of the content led to the question) - is Stalin's Moustache notable? Rommel's collection of herbaceous borders? Saddam's stamp album? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're forgetting about Wikipedia's rules though: are there reliable secondary sources covering them? SportingFlyer T · C 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One never forgets Wikipedia's rules, dear @ SportingFlyer . The tatty little scrap of a stub that existed has been wrangled into a rather gorgeous, illustrated wonder of an article. I don't think WP:BEFORE could honestly be expected to serve here - there has been some thoughtful, even brilliant research brought to bear on the transformation we have witnessed. Le sigh, in fact. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article in its current form is not great. However, there are sufficient sources extant to write a decent article: for example, Nelson , one of Churchill's pets, is notable enough to merit his own article. If kept, when I get back to the UK, I'll rewrite the page from top to bottom. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk ) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is easily enough to meet WP:GNG , thanks to the expansion efforts of Cielquiparle and Andrew Davidson . Winston Churchill's article is already long, and splitting this out makes more sense than merging. Edwardx ( talk ) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Edwardx . OMG check it now. #ChurchillsBlackSwans Cielquiparle ( talk ) 06:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination. Point made and well taken - although I think you are all quite, quite mad. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG. It’s an interesting topic that might be interesting for many, deleting it would be pretty bad since it has substantial notability and the user put a lot of work into this article V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Yes, Wikipedia has coverage on odd subjects (I still don't understand why we have an article on the George H. W. Bush broccoli comments ), but that is generally as a result of there being sustained and continuous coverage which is one of the cornerstones of WP:GNG . Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Although the nominator is withdrawn, we probably still ought to let this run the full seven days since at least two other users ! voted to delete. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - ( talk ) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The short answer to the nom's question is clearly "Yes, they are." In regards to SilverTiger12 's point, yes their notability us purely derivative, but for highly notable, well-covered individuals like Churchill the various aspects of their life and work can be split into separate articles for the convenience of editors and readers, even when the separate parts aren't truly independently notable, as long as they can be properly sourced, as this article can. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Kobeigane Divisional Secretariat: Shellwood ( talk ) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not a tautology. Satisfies WP:NORG , as the third tier of public administration in Sri Lanka, Divisional Secreteriats are notable. Independent reliable secondary sources provided. Dan arndt ( talk ) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . Nomination lacks any trace of effort, not even containing a capital letter or a full stop, and does not invoke any Wikipedia policy. Geschichte ( talk ) 14:38, 23 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

Václav Sršeň: Joeykai ( talk ) 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The page needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Cswiki lists literature from which to draw so reliable sources exist. FromCzech ( talk ) 20:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . His career was a lot longer than the article lets on, 16 years . Geschichte ( talk ) 20:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I have added a second source which confirms he played over 200 top-level matches in Czechoslovakia in a career spanning from 1942 to 1958. C 679 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems obvious given the source provided above and the numerous substantial sources in the article. Not sure why this one was tagged. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He has an international cap therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA ( talk ) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That statement is not supported by our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Seems to have something there, but without knowing whats in the books etc, it's hard to determine. But based on the amount of football he played, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other sources out there. Govvy ( talk ) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . The book sources, which we cannot access, appear to have a good chance of being significant coverage. Considering the subject (200+ top-level matches, national team member), I'd lean towards keeping. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

MaXXXine: Either way, though, I have a do not delete stance since it can be sent back to draft for now, should consensus lean against keeping. - 2pou ( talk ) 20:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there are now multiple reliable sources that have stated that principal photography has commenced. I have added a number of them to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyMetalhead ( talk • contribs ) 02:19, April 13, 2023 (UTC) The criteria for unreleased films that have already started principal photography is stated at WP:NFF , which says: films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines . — Archer1234 ( t · c ) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . May return to mainspace after it receives enough coverage and is released. Aintabli ( talk ) 06:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UTC) Keep - well sourced, notable. TheMovieGuy Keep Filming has started, no point in transfering it to draft now since the sources pass GNG. ★Trekker ( talk ) 12:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. 24.52.114.138 ( talk ) 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does it satisfy WP:NFF ?   — Archer1234 ( t · c ) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft per the rules stated above. Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Filming has started and there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG . Little point in draftifying now. -- wooden superman 10:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with several new sources added, including sources on the production. - WikiPete18 ( talk ) 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Please, the filming is still ongoing. CastJared ( talk ) 10:48, 21 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

Glen Horton: LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league , Rugby union , and New Zealand . LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:SPORTCRIT : see here , here , and here . He played in the New Zealand Māori team that won the 2008 IRB Pacific Nations Cup . He made 79 appearances for Hawke's Bay, Otago, and Southland in provincial rugby, 21 appearances for the Highlanders in Super Rugby, played 5 matches for NZ under-21, and 4 for New Zealand Māori. 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Paora ( talk ) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Think there's just about enough here for a WP:GNG pass, given that there is more than likely similar offline coverage in local NZ media from when he played. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:34, 24 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

Mary Ann MacLean: - dashiellx ( talk ) 21:44, 17 February 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 February 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, subject has clearly received sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources, and was a major player and founder of two organizations which are clearly notable. ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Religion , England , Scotland , Arizona , and Utah . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Politicdude. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Subject is discussed in depth in multiple reliable sources including this full-length book, not cited in the article: [8] . Note that an LA Weekly article of the same name is cited, but this is a full-length book. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shreyas Puranik: Bakhtar40 ( talk ) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and India . Bakhtar40 ( talk ) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC . The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [21] , [22] , [23] . [24] . Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent. [25] [26] Hineyo ( talk ) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 ( talk ) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :Note - This account ( Hineyo ) is blocked. Bakhtar40 ( talk ) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They were blocked for 24 hours. That doesn't invalidate their opinion on that basis alone. L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC , Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup ( talk ) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He has won awards which indicate notability and the articles references indicate sufficient coverage InDimensional ( talk ) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please share best three references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhtar40 ( talk • contribs ) 17:06, 3 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

Tom George Kolath: Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 11:55, 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 ) 11:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as significant coverage in The Hindu here , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] very weak Keep Might meet criterion#3 for Creative professionals. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 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! * 12:48, 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! 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Among all the producers listed for deletion by the nominator, he has the most notability . Besides significant coverage in The Hindu article as above, he produced two major movies, one of which won the national award. He was also one of the leads in Akale , and had small but notable roles in Finger Print and Black (2004 film) Jupitus Smart 23:47, 19 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

Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Organizations , Business , and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I've added a bit to the article, not enough to make it across the line. May have another go later but if other editors want to build on this it's a start. Note that Chinese wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your excellent work improving the article, Oblivy ( talk · contribs )! Cunard ( talk ) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not finding anything in English that would come close to WPORG needs and it may just be that there isn't enough about them, however flagging for @ Cunard : as if anyone can find Chinese-language sourcing, they can. Star Mississippi 13:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Great to see you, Star Mississippi ( talk · contribs ), and thank you for the ping! Cunard ( talk ) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Selection of sources: "Arts of Asia article" . Arts of Asia . Vol.  37. 2007. p. 8 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 – via Google Books . The article notes: "香港藝術品商會慶祝中華人民共和國成立 57 周年聯警宴會 The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association Limited annual dinner to celebrate China's National day (1st October ). ... When the Association was founded on November 26th, 1968, it had 182 members and its membership has now expanded to over 300. For many years it has made great efforts to strengthen the ties amongst its members, and raising the standards of local dealers in Chinese arts and antiquities. Through the issuance of Certificates of Antiquity, the Association has increased the confidence of local collectors and heightened the interest of overseas buyers of antiques and works of art, thereby helping to establish Hong Kong as the ... Association members and guests stand while China's anthem is played during the National Day banquet dinner at the Metropolitan Restaurant centre of Oriental art and culture. Long, Pat (2022-01-07). "趣淘宝(156)：从同治粉彩"五子夺魁"双囍连盖粉盒看古董收藏" [Taobao (156): Look at the antique collection from the Tongzhi pastel "Five Sons Win the First Prize" double-necked powder box with lid]. Chinese Canadian Voice (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "When the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association was established in 1968, it decided to set up an Antiques Appraisal Committee (Authentication Committee). The Appraisal Committee is composed of industry elites and recruits experts and scholars as consultants. In the 1970s, then-US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China opened a new chapter in the friendly exchanges between China and the United States. ... To this day, the appraisal certificate from the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association is still an important document that can be used as evidence in court. The scope of appraisal includes ceramics, jade, bronze, bamboo, calligraphy and painting, lacquerware, materials, embroidery, stone carvings, snuff bottles, miscellaneous items, etc. . Over the past half century, the Hong Kong Art Merchants Association has appraised more than one million pieces of art. The credibility of the antique appraisal certificates issued by the Appraisal Committee is well-known at home and abroad. It is an antique certification certificate recognized by many countries’ customs, ministries of commerce, and judicial agencies. Extremely professional and authoritative. " "【業界精英】翟健民膺香港藝術品商會理事長" [[Industry Elite] William Chak was elected chairman of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-02-07. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Art Merchants Association was established in 1968 and has become a non-profit organisation with hundreds of members. It has always been aimed at serving the society, promoting the development of the handicraft industry, and promoting Chinese culture, and serves its members and all walks of life. Members include businesses, factories, associations, auction companies and cultural relic enthusiasts operating or related to the antiques and crafts industry, including many industry elites and famous stores. The AB Certificate (Antique Appraisal Certificate) issued by the Merchants Association enables fellow goods exported to Europe, America, Japan and other places to enjoy tax-free discounts. Traders in the industry have also been able to contact their counterparts in the Mainland through merchants associations to facilitate the purchase of goods. " Mak, Mak 麥默 (2018-09-26). Lo, Jing-wan 羅縈韻 (ed.). "【商會大慶】藝術品商會五十周年 服務香港業界半世紀" [[Merchants Association Big Celebration] The 50th Anniversary of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association. It has served the Hong Kong industry for half a century]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association was established in 1968. Over the past 50 years, under the leadership of successive heads of the Merchants Association and a group of directors and supervisors, the Merchants Association has always adhered to patriotism and Hong Kong, and has made positive contributions to the country's opening up to the outside world and the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong ... The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association is a non-profit social organisation whose members come from businesses, factories, societies, auction companies and antique enthusiasts that operate or are related to the antiques and crafts industry. The Merchants Association is a non-profit association with members from relevant industries. Fifty years ago, the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association was founded by Tan Pin, Cai Yubai, and Luo Shaoping; the founding members were ... The successive presidents ..." Fok, Yeung-yeung 霍揚揚 (2020). 獅子山上的新月: 香港華人穆斯林社群的源流與傳承 [ The Lion Rock's Crescent: The Emergency of the Chinese Muslim community in Hong Kong ] (in Chinese). Taipei: Showwe Information 秀威資訊科技. p. 143. ISBN 978-986-326-843-7 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The book notes: "對於聚居在尖沙嘴的北方穆斯林而言,九龍清真寺是一個聯繫社群生活的空間。 由於大部分聚居當地的穆斯林都是從事古玩 玉石生意的商人,他們為了進一步凝聚行業的力量,故在1968年 時成立了「香港藝術品商會」。 該會由穆斯林商人譚品三、蔡毓 伯及羅少平三人發起,並由金寶銳任第一屆理事長。 他自1968 年起擔任該會的理事長直至1983年。 該會以「服務社會,推動古 玩工藝品行業發展,弘揚中華文化。 」為宗旨”。 該會與內地維 持緊密和良好的關係,在創會後便經常籌組赴內地的貿易交流團及到廣州參與中國進出口商品交易會。 " From Google Translate: "For northern Muslims living in Tsim Sha Tsui, the Kowloon Mosque is a space that connects community life. Since most of the Muslims living in the local area are merchants engaged in the antiques and jade business, in order to further unite the strength of the industry, they established the "Hong Kong Art Merchants Association" in 1968. The association was initiated by Muslim businessmen Tan Pinsan, Cai Yubo and Luo Shaoping, with Jin Baorui as the first chairman. He served as the association's president from 1968 until 1983. The association's purpose is to "serve the society, promote the development of the antiques and handicrafts industry, and promote Chinese culture." The association maintains a close and good relationship with the mainland. After its establishment, it often organizes trade exchange groups to the mainland and to Guangzhou. Participate in the China Import and Export Fair. " Additional sources, including passing mentions and coverage of the association's events: Bielfeldt, Kathrin; Wong, Raymond (2016). 111 Places in Hong Kong that you shouldn't miss: Reiseführer . Cologne: Emons Verlag [ de ] . ISBN 978-3-96041-172-7 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 – via Google Books . The book provides a passing mention. The book notes: "Arch Angel's manager director is a member of the Antique Board of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association, which assesses antiques and issues a certificate of authenticity. " "香港藝術品商會舉辦癸卯年春節聯歡宴會暨第25屆理監事就職典禮" [The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association held the Guimao Spring Festival Gala Banquet and the 25th Inauguration Ceremony of Directors and Supervisors]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2023-03-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article discusses the attendees and events of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's Spring Festival Gala Banquet. "香港藝術品商會國慶聯歡喜氣洋溢" [Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's National Day celebration is filled with joy]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2023-10-11. Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article discusses the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association's banquet to celebrate the 74th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Tang, Tsun-cheung 鄧傳鏘; Yuen, Lok-man 袁樂雯 (2018-04-05). "【信報月刊】吳繼遠：名家多膺品 便宜莫貪" [[Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly] Kai-yuen Ng: Famous artists have many pieces that have been faked. Don't cut corners.]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article provides a passing mention. The article notes: "In addition to being an old expert in antiques and art trading, Kai-yuen Ng is also a well-known appraisal expert in the industry. He is currently the vice president of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association and the deputy director of the Antiques Appraisal Committee, helping the merchants association in appraising artworks. " Nguyet, Tuyet (January–February 2007). "Editorial" (PDF) . Arts of Asia . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-01-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article mentions the association in a caption. The caption notes: "The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association Limited annual dinner to celebrate China’s National day (1st October). Chairman Chong Chin Sheng Henry in the centre leads the official toast. The Association’s senior members are Vice Chairmen Wang Chung Chiu James, Chak Kin Man, K.Y. Ng, Lau Wai Nin; Chairmen of the Supervisory Committee Liang Chung Kong, Lo Kwok Kwan, Lan Sin Yan; Vice Chairmen of Boards of Life Directors Chan Hok Chung, Chen Peng Hsiang; and Executive Committee members Lam Shing Chau, Sien Shu Hung, Lam Chun Wing, Fung Ying Chu, Chan Kin Chung and Yung Wai Kwan" Wong, Yuet-san 王玥晨 (2023-05-23). "第13屆香港國際古玩展 細賞中外藝術瑰寶 現場古玩鑑定 茶器講座" [The 13th Hong Kong International Antiques Fair Appreciating Chinese and Foreign Art Treasures On-site Antique Appraisal Tea Ware Lecture] (in Chinese). HK01 . Archived from the original on 2023-11-17 . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Do you have a family heirloom or personal collection at home and want to identify its authenticity? You may wish to bring your antiques to the venue on May 27. At that time, a domestic expert team and the appraisal committee of the Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association will provide you with professional appraisal services. This is a rare opportunity. The Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association will provide professional appraisal services on the 27th. Interested friends can bring antiques for appraisal. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Art Craft Merchants Association ( traditional Chinese : 香港藝術品商會有限公司 ; simplified Chinese : 香港艺术品商会有限公司 ) 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 ) 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we see a further assessment on recently found sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added two of the sources above to the article. These are the Lion Rock's Crescent article which explains the founding, and the Chinese Canadian Voice article. Both have significant coverage of the organization. The Wen Wei Po article are lengthy but it seems like they were written based on information from the company. Arts of Asia is also substantial but very press-release like. The others are, as @ Cunard says, passing mentions. Oblivy ( talk ) 14:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sourcing Cunard identified. As they noted, not all is in depth, but of what is, it's sufficient for WP:ORG. (And Cunard, thank you as always!) Star Mississippi 13:49, 26 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

Nile Eagle FC: // Timothy :: talk 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Keep Not unsourced, the source is the RSSSF reference in external links. I was expecting to find nothing at all on this club considering South Sudan is one of the most poorly covered football countries in the world and doesn't even really have a national league - just a cup for regional winners. There's also lots of coverage on Facebook, which seems odd, but it appears the local South Sudanese media groups actually just use Facebook as a website. If not kept, should definitely be merged somewhere so we don't lose the information, even though it's not much at the moment. Non-Facebook sources include: [20] [21] and not GNG: [22] SportingFlyer T · C 20:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per SportingFlyer. Competed in SOuth Sudanese top flight ( [23] ) and has sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve as above. Giant Snowman 12:04, 13 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

Mihkel Poll: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Estonia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per e.g. [3] (postimees.ee) and https://www.emic.ee/mihkel-poll -- Estopedist1 ( talk ) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG . Cursory search turns up Postimees articles here , here , here , here , here , here and here . Õhtuleht articles, here and here . Eesti Rahvusringhääling article here . Eesti Ekspress article here , Kroonika article here . Eesti Päevaleht article here . A press release/article from the Office of the President of Estonia here . A detailed entry at the IX International Stasys Vainiūnas Competition for Pianists and Chamber Ensembles here , etc. I don't think the nominator did a very thorough WP:BEFORE . ExRat ( talk ) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent responses above. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:58, 16 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

David Taylor Kellock: The only citation here is an article by him in a student publication. Whatever the motivation was to write this article, I think it's had its day and time for it to be deleted. Sionk ( talk ) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . Sionk ( talk ) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete My search for sources turned up nothing for "David Taylor Kellock", and only false positives for "David Kellock," so this does not meet the general notability guideline. Elspea756 ( talk ) 14:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Australia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete searches in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove yielded nothing for "David Kellock". Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Goes by D Taylor Kellock. Searching for that finds coverage such as [75] . duffbeerforme ( talk ) 04:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this. I've added a few sources to the article and am leaning towards "Keep" at this point. Elspea756 ( talk ) 13:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep A local artisan and educator, we will need local sources to complete this. I did find him on two wikis (one Ballarat, one on Australian [ monuments ]) but those should not be considered reliable sources. I added one reference from a local newspaper on his retirement from teaching. I find no sources for the many works listed in the article. The only thing in the National Library of Australia is a photo of one of his designs in an archive. There is possible something about him in "Down, G. (1996). Almost in the dark: The reinstatement of a lost 19th century window. Historic Environment, 12(2b), 35–38." but I don't have access to it. Lamona ( talk ) 18:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This book, "Zimmer, Jenny. Stained Glass in Australia. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1984." turns up for him on G-Books but the snippet ends just before listing his works. He's also listed in "Who's who in Art. United Kingdom, Art Trade Press, Limited, 1972." but again the snippet cuts off before any info is given. Lamona ( talk ) 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST and I am not finding any reliable sourcing for the biographical information presented. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to the addition of sources. I see that the Keeps are fairly Weak but I think the discussion would benefit from a few more recently offered opinions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep seems to be a fair bit of coverage turning up, seems to pass GNG. Beyond the above, Here's a description of one of subjects works: [76] Note about designing a stained glass window and some background info. Includes a quote from Kellock. Should still qualify as independent as it's not a full interview. [77] Dedication of stained glass windows at Memorial Chapel, also noting Kellock as "the chapel artist" [78] — siro χ o 07:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above user's impressive sourcing work. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 03:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Reading the above discussion without reviewing sources cited in the article could give a false impression, as one of the strongest sources, Hughes 1997, hasn't been mentioned yet. The reliability of Master's theses can be controversial, but frankly it's better coverage and analysis than the newspaper citations. I wouldn't use it to fight a claim in a peer-reviewed paper or PhD thesis, but it should establish notability here together with the Northern Star article and the identification of additional, inaccessible academic coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 04:01, 8 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

Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens: The only results I could find in a search is for booksellers and reader/blogger reviews, but no professional reviews, or appearances on best-seller lists. ... disco spinster talk 21:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no book reviews, nothing for mentions in RS.Not meeting notability standards. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Oaktree b. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV -compliant sources either. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to an Alcatraz series article, or if no one feels like writing one, to Brandon Sanderson bibliography#Alcatraz . I agree that I'm not finding RS reviews, but good grief there are a ton of non-RS ones, audiobook discussions, and a collection that includes these and the other novels. Under no circumstances should it be deleted--there are just too many ATDs out there. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching to Keep per Cunard's sourcing, which I looked for but did not find. I guess I don't have the Google Fu with literature I do with television. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Burkham, Anita L. (January–February 2011). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens" . The Horn Book Magazine . Vol.  87, no. 1. p. 100. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Gale . The review notes: "Alcatraz's seat-of-the-pants narration--with references to "wombats, outer space, and stamp collections" in chapters that don't exist, direct requests to readers (to change their underwear daily, for instance), and self-referential comments on the literary nature of the book--might make the series appear at first to be a zany, kid-pandering mess, but the charismatic characters hold the whole enterprise together while the stealth plot unfolds. ... As goofy randomness streamlines into compelling narration, even readers who don't find giant robots reason alone to pick up a book will be drawn into Alcatraz's cohesive world, with its unique form of magic and that magic's natural enemy, the Librarians." Reid, Connie (2022-10-19). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens (Alcatraz #4)" . YA Books Central . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The page notes: "Star ratings in yellow are from our Staff Reviewers. Star ratings in green are reader reviews. Anyone can post a reader review, so post yours today!" The review from Connie Reid is a staff review. The review notes: "What I Liked: Brandon Sanderson’s ability to integrate the silly into a story enhances this series and makes it all the more appealing for Middle-Grade readers each time. My family enjoyed the chapter names this go around. It went from chapter 2 to chapter 6 with a quick explanation of what boring things happened in the missing chapters and why he threw them out. I especially loved the nod to Star Trek with the chapter titled NCC-1701." Raklovits, Amanda (November 2012). "Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens" . School Library Journal . Vol.  58, no. 11. p. 54. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Gale . The review notes: "He strikes the right balance between Alcatraz's naturally snarky tone and the surprisingly serious moments as the boy comes to terms with his mounting responsibility and shifting perspective. As listeners familiar with the series know, Alcatraz frequently breaks from the narrative to address them directly on any number of ostensibly unrelated subjects, and de Ocampo shifts neatly between the action and these asides, maintaining the listeners' interest throughout. For those who prefer their fantasy with a dash of slapstick, plenty of metafictional humor, and a heap of irreverence." "The Chapter Book/Easy Reader Shelf" . Children's Bookwatch . Vol.  21, no. 1. Midwest Book Review . January 2011. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . This is a two-sentence review. The review notes: "Brandon Sanderson's Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens (9780439925570, $17.99) tells of Alcatraz Smedry, who has been the subject of prior adventures and who here appears in a final adventure where he faces down an army of librarians and their giant librarian robots in a war. If they win, everything Alcatraz has fought for will be threatened in this absorbing story of gigantic robots, evil librarians, and danger." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alcatraz Versus the Shattered Lens to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Cunard's sources above seem sufficient to show NBOOK can be met. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's excellent sourcing. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 01:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, OceanCoombs and discospinster really shouldn't have been edit warring prior to this article being nominated for deletion: discospinster reverting OceanCoombs , OceanCoombs reverting discospinster , discospinster reverting OceanCoombs , OceanCoombs reverting discospinster , discospinster tagging for notability and nominating it for deletion . Discospinster (as an admin) should know better than to engage in edit warring, even if it didn't reach 3RR (barely). ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 01:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the Irony of Proposing to Delete a Book about Burning Books [ edit ] The author of this book series depicts, in this very series, the moral hazard of burning heaps of disorganized books in order to more easily organize the few that remain. As a user of Wikipedia, I expect every single book I read to have a dedicated Wikipedia article about that book. As an editor of Wikipedia (for more than ten years through my homeschooling group editor account) I feel a responsibility to the users to provide them with the experience that I wish I had. From over a decade of experience editing Wikipedia, I know that all editors have a responsibility to all users to give them the best possible experience by preserving and building upon the collective knowledge of all human history, instead of shrinking and condensing it with waves of deletions. Like the keepers of the Library of Alexandria, we are meant to protect knowledge and should refuse to allow any article-burning bonfires that put at risk the collection we have built. Each time a group of experienced Wikipedia editors vote to delete an article about a topic which is likely to become more important, more noteworthy, and meaningful to more people in the future, the editors deprive untold numbers of future learners access to the inspiration to contribute to the quality of the articles that already exist. In all the years that I have edited Wikipedia, this tendency by certain other editors to see book burning as a useful housecleaning tool has repeatedly perplexed and stifled me. I would have contributed more to Wikipedia than I already have, in fact, if not for encountering this exact phenomenon which tells would-be editors that we have nothing of value to contribute, and the proof of our worthlessness is right in front of us on our screens where the value we would contribute has not yet been contributed so the missing contributions by virtue of being missing prove to us that nobody else considers our contributions to have value or somebody else would already have contributed what we are capable of contributing. Burning articles that do not yet have our contributions added to them because we have not yet contributed contributes to the high rate of article bonfire cleansing and the relatively low rate of editor contributions to improve the articles that need to be improved in order to be worthy of preservation. On a less poetic note I would like to point out that before I came along 4 out of 6 of the books in the Alcatraz series had dedicated articles. the first one did. the second one did. the third one did. the FIFTH one did. As a user the appearance of missing information is aggravating and distressing. As an editor I would like to draw your attention to Template:Infobox book . What exactly is the point of this: | preceded_by = <\! -- for books in a series --> | followed_by = <\! -- for books in a series --> If we cannot provide to the user a complete and consistent path through every book in a series they are trying to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanCoombs ( talk • contribs ) 00:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every book? So you propose to get rid of the notability standard for Wikipedia? Only for books, or for every individual, every company? By your argument, deleting an article about an individual is akin to killing that person. There are places where you can read about all the books, for example GoodReads . Wikipedia is not GoodReads, nor is it a directory of everything ever published or everything that has ever existed, and it was never meant to be that. ... disco spinster talk 15:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If OceanCoombs is really as new as the account's contributions suggest, this is borderline WP:BITEy behavior, discospinster . Surely we can all work to support people who are trying to enhance things without having 10+ years of Wikipedia history and policy knowledge to fall back on. Fact is, OC's point is relatively valid: Why have a break in an otherwise notable series? Notability is a norm, not a requirement, and while it may never be a Wikipedia-approved reason, having a series entry for a non-notable book in an otherwise notable book series is actually a reasonable exception to notability. We've been saying "there are no precedents!" for so long, we risk beginning to look unreasonable and unencyclopedic in such cases. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OceanCoombs, per their comment, is an editor with over 10 years experience, not a newcomer. Now if you want to talk about reasonable exceptions, that's one thing. But if you want to compare deleting an article to book burning, I will have to go ahead and disagree. It reminds me of the old "Wikipedia is stifling free speech" argument. Article deletion is a valid act and part of the maintenance of the encyclopedia, even if it hurts people's feelings. ... disco spinster talk 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I had overlooked that, my apologies. And no, I did not, nor do I now, endorse a comparison between book burning and Wikipedia editorial processes. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A look at the previous speedy deletion and Objection to New Speedy Deletion [ edit ] In my opinion, the final vote for or against deletion in this case should be deferred for 30 days or more because the pending proposal for deletion is out of order. Consider how we got here: On the 21 August 2021 at 01:58 this page was nominated for deletion. and at 9:30 on the same day all the content of the page was replaced with a redirect. Effectively this was a speedy deletion that violated the Criteria for speedy deletion . See also this Field Guide to proper speedy deletion which emphasizes the mistake that was made previously when this book was deleted by replacement with redirect instead of being improved upon or even discussed in a proposal for deletion. My decision to restore the previous article and improve upon it is being interfered with by the new deletion proposal, which I understand to mean a vote to keep or delete may occur any time after seven days, and instead of spending time improving the article as I intended most of my Wikipedia editing time in the last 7 days has been spent here discussing whether to delete that which I intend to improve. The fact that the current deletion discussion is a result of my attempt to restore and improve the article strongly suggests to me that any decision to delete should first give enough time for improvements to be made AND that a deletion decision resulting from this discussion should be required to provide some proof that this book or this article (after it has been improved) somehow violates a Rule or Policy that MUST be enforced aggressively for some good editorial reason, because a decision to delete in this situation itself violates a fundamental premise of what Wikipedia is and why we are able to make it work: "Wikipedia is both a product and a process." The premise that it is perfectly acceptable for every article to always be under construction . Absent any affirmative proof that this book or article violate a Rule or Policy requiring deletion, a Rule or Policy that MUST be enforced in order to prevent harm or solve a problem caused by the existence of legitimate, useful, accurate, factual and reliably-sourced Wikipedia content (particularly when that content pertains to a book or a work of art which is part of culture and inherently interesting to more people as time goes by) such as harm caused by paid editing conflict-of-interest content in Wikipedia, or the harm caused by violations of editors' privacy rights or other privacy violation such as doxxing and articles about non-public people or children, an article such as one about a book or work of art ALWAYS deserves a presumption of innocence and an "under-construction" sign with a place for editors to do the work and for users to read and consider contributing to this work themselves. The current proposal for deletion contains no affirmative proof that this article violates any such Rule or Policy requiring speedy deletion or any deletion or revision such as the previous decision to replace the article content with a redirect to the author's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanCoombs ( talk • contribs ) 23:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Stare Decisis [ edit ] Stare Decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided") is the principle of deferring to previous decisions in deciding future verdicts. For 10 years since the creation of this page editors decided this book was worthy of the time and effort to dedicate a Wikipedia article about it. Stare Decisis should be the binding Precedent followed by all editors when we propose to overturn all previous editors' judgments allowing an article to have time to be improved upon and to render a different verdict. Under the principle of Stare Decisis we MUST find affirmative and clear evidence that the previous verdict rendered by every other editor for a decade was incorrect and MUST be reversed for a reason that improves Wikipedia going forward and makes the new decision that overturns the previous verdict more constructive as precedent. Here we do not have any evidence to suggest to us that the previous verdict was wrong, therefore, to stand in the things that have been decided, we MUST keep and improve this article about a book that might be notable already, might become more notable in the future, and is part of a notable book series authored by an historically-significant and notable author. OceanCoombs ( talk ) 23:31, 3 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

Cariuma: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I created the page because the brand is very popular among skaters and it's also a major vegan shoe brand just like Allbirds and Veja . I have already created pages for shoes and saw that this was deleted because the company had tried to create their own page but I didn't remake it because they told me to. I'll work to improve it and add more sources but none of the sources I used come from the company at all. LeDroider ( talk ) 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , covered in Barron's , [10] USA Today , [11] and Insider , [12] [13] although I'm not sure how much "affiliate commission" comes into play. 70.163.208.142 ( talk ) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To assess sources presented against our RS guidelines. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I found dozens of news articles using Google News. I have not had time to evaluate them. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - agree with A.B. about the plethora of news articles from Google News. The line between promotion, review, and "objective" information is fuzzy but the notability is not in question. Kazamzam ( talk ) 17:26, 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

Pal-Kal: The sourcing is from a patent and an article about the inventor going to jail. I can only find confirmation of the inventor's legal issues. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Israel . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say trim down greatly and Merge with Versailles wedding hall disaster , since that seems to be the one point of notability for this construction method. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Striking my previous Merge and changing to Keep per sources listed below. Not all of those are necessarily significant coverage, but at least one of the English-language sources was, and I'm guessing many of the Hebrew sources are as well (I don't read Hebrew, so I missed those). WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 21:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You may want to check out the abundance of sources that support keep by WP:GNG . Both in Hebrew and English! gidonb ( talk ) 00:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easy pass of the WP:GNG per [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] ] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] This is just some of the coverage. The WP:SIGCOV is WP:LASTING . Structures had to be strengthened through all of Israel drawing tons of attention and a national effort exists to replace all PalKal structures. The inventor was sent to prison for 4 years. gidonb ( talk ) 19:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 07:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gidonb. I went through his references, some of which were published decades after Versailles, and discuss the ramification's of Pal-Kal's continued use in buildings. Particularly strong are #3, 13, 19 ( Ynet ) 5 ( Calcalist ) 6, 7, 10 ( Globes ) 8, 17, 18 (Haaretz) 9 ( Israel Hayom ) 12, 21 ( Arutz Sheva ) 14 ( Walla! News ) 16 (The Jerusalem Post) and 20 ( Hamodia ). The many details in these sources about the hows, whys and legacy issues with the Pal-Kal method, which is still an issue in hundreds of buildings across Israel, are simply [[WP:OFFTOPIC-- Geewhiz ( talk ) 07:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)]] in the Versailles article. Havradim leaf a message 23:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the refs provided above. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I did a different source search, looking for academic articles on the construction type, and found it to be easily notable just on academic articles alone. SportingFlyer T · C 14:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Awesome! Good to know! gidonb ( talk ) 22:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A notable construction method that had poor outcomes, no reason to delete. -- Geewhiz ( talk ) 07:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gidonb. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:06, 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

Li Xianzhou: Since-source biography of a NN general. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , and China . UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I'm seeing lots of coverage in Chinese-language sources: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] . More sources are easy to find on Google Books and with a simple Google search. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To Mx. Granger's sources I'd add Sun Zhangyuan (孙占元); Yang Mingqing (杨明清), eds. (2004). Shandong Zhongyao Lishi Shijian vol 7: Kang Ri Zhanzheng Shiqi 山东重要历史事件 . Vol.  7: 抗日战争时期. pp. 247–256. ISBN 9787209035316 . Yu Keli (余克礼); Zhu Xianlong (朱显龙), eds. (2001). Zhongguo Kuomintang Quanshu vol 2 中国国民党全书 . Vol.  下. p. 834. ISBN 9787224055511 . Liu Jingquan (刘景泉), ed. (1999). Zhongguo Kang Ri Zhanzheng Da Cidian 中国抗日战争人物大词典 . p. 224. ISBN 9787561811023 . all of which are cited in the subject's Baidu article, which is seven or eight scrolls long. Clearly passes GNG, although his role in World War II seems to have been much more significant than his later work, which is not currently reflected in his biography. Folly Mox ( talk ) 17:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . FYI, the Chinese Wikipedia article is much longer and may be useful to expand this one: zh:Li Xianzhou . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sourcing noted above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Outline of consulting: Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hard to discuss a statement. It is more a discussion of what forms a scope for Wikipedia's in-out mechanisms, rather than whether it is an outline of consulting or not (I don't see how else one would construct an outline of consulting, namely). I thought it'd be a good idea to have an outline of a service industry that has a growing employment number as a result of the industrialization of the growing economy. Whether that is of encyclopedic or dictionary value, well it's maybe in the eyes of the beholder . . Danielsltt ( talk ) 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But I want to be clear in that I'm not saying that you're wrong. Rather I'm recognizing the arbitrariness of the discussion based on Wikipedia's rather loose, swaying guidelines . . Danielsltt ( talk ) 07:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also WP:AFG Danielsltt ( talk ) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Economics and Business . 03:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonberryPie ( talk • contribs ) Comment I don't understand the nomination at all (nor, frankly, the page creator's response) so I wonder whether it was a different article that was intended for AFD. This list is nothing like a WP:DICDEF (dictionary definition) nor was it intended to be. It is a WP:OUTLINE , a type of navigational list. In a very rough and ready sort of way it is a list of "consulting careers/things" but is that any sort of problem, let alone a reason for deletion? Surely they are not "unrelated": if any items are unrelated they should be removed. I will not ! vote at present because I may be missing any important aspect and I hope all this can be clarified. Thincat ( talk ) 10:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, I wasn't sure how to explain it. It starts out with prose stating it's attempting to explain consulting, then goes into a list. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A WP:OUTLINE is supposed to have a lead followed by a hierarchical list: "The purpose of the lead section in outlines is to present just enough description to uniquely identify and recognize the subject". What is the reason for deletion? Thincat ( talk ) 13:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't think it met LIST. It appears as a badly titled "article" trying to explain the concept, doesn't that, then has a long list of things. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - whatever we may think of Wikipedia's approach to outlines, this one conforms to that, providing an overview of the encyclopedia's detailed coverage of the topic. No doubt it is useful to readers interested in such things. It would be nice if it were better-cited, but outlines are not even required to have refs, as it happens. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 14:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is what I was trying to do. It is a useful tool for overviews to rather large subjects in terms of scope. Thanks for the input Danielsltt ( talk ) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (I commented above). I get the feeling the nominator is rather withdrawing his nomination. This is a navigational list including only other Wikipedia articles, hence only including notable topics, so meeting WP:NLIST and, since there are no red links, no citations are required. See WP:CSC . The overall topic is notable: here is a book suitable for people like me. [26] Thincat ( talk ) 09:01, 25 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

Kathar Basha Endra Muthuramalingam: Unreleased films are only notable if the article content establishes that production itself has been notable. Neither the text of this article nor the sources say anything about production except that it happened. The references are all typical advance publicity. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 news18.com Announcement of release date of film Yes No Yes No 2 ottplay.com Announcement of release of film Yes No Yes No 3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Another announcement of film, and short interview with actor No No Yes No 4 cinemaexpress.com Another announcement of release date Yes No Yes No 5 ottplay.com More advance publicity Yes No Yes No This article could be unilaterally draftified, except that there is already a draft, so that the proper disposition is either to delete the article or to merge the article into the draft in draft space. The Heymann criterion is if descriptions of two reviews in reliable sources can be added before the deletion discussion is completed. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Draft and keep. If 2 notable reviews come will move to main page. Monhiroe ( talk ) 10:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . @ Robert McClenon : The film has released and received 4+ reliable reviews. Please close as speedy keep per WP:Heymann. Reviews: [7] , [8] , [9] and [10] . DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Heymann isn't one of the Speedy Keep options. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as nominator. It appears that the Heymann criterion has been satisfied. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 06:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it has enough reviews now to pass. KylieTastic ( talk ) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:28, 4 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

El Chavo del Ocho (character): Spanish wiki article is even worse than ours, so no help there. Pure plot summary, poorly referenced too, no reception/analysis anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Mexico . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If you Google Chavo, there is no lack of results. He's one of the most famous Latino characters. Please be more diligent with WP:BEFORE work. See 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and a million others . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 21:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is not reliable per WP:FORBESC . Second source seems ok, good find, but the third and fourth don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV . A million others is WP:GOOGLETEST and not a valid argument, also per WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is like deleting Mickey Mouse in the English world; I see absolutely no BEFORE done and there's no excuse with easy translation these days to just dismiss sources 'because they're in another language'. It also already has two sources to meet the GNG even before being taken here. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Chavo is one of the most iconic television characters in all of Latin/South American culture. Both he and Chapulin had programs that were different from Chespirito's other works, even if the article itself needs improvements, the notability is undeniable. Svartner ( talk ) 12:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The character appears in multiple shows ( El Chavo del Ocho , El Chavo Animado ), so a standalone article is justifiable if there is enough sourcing. I think these add up to GNG: [4] , [5] , [6] . Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 16:26, 4 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

Kang Ju-hyok: Simione001 ( talk ) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've found a coverage about this player on Choson Sinbo which is a complete introduction the player, and there's another article in Tokyo Sports praising his performance against Japan national team last March. I think it should pass the WP:SPORTCRIT with those references since it's very difficult to find numerous coverages for North Korean players. Lâm ( talk ) 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . per coverage found by Thplam2004. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per Thplam2004 . Normally there are no sources for WP:V regarding North Korean players, this time it appears there is minimal. Svartner ( talk ) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which appear to show notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see lack of extensive coverage, but the sources provided seem to establish notability. Waqar 💬 15:54, 2 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

Christian Lapointe: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Canada . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . There are multiple people by the same name, and they barely come up. I cannot find anything in-depth and independent from the subject. Aintabli ( talk ) 04:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe Nfitz ( talk ) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I originally accidently typed delete instead of keep - which I didn't actually think was possible! I've struck this vote and made it clear below. Sorry for the confusion everyone! Nfitz ( talk ) 01:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but restored per Nfitz 's request on my talk page as they meant to ! vote "keep" above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe . Nfitz ( talk ) 01:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are two Wikipedia article entries on him with the fr WP being the most developed. There is a mix of journal, newspapers and magazines sources with reviews which seem valid, which makes him notable. I don't mind adding the dude to my todo list, get it done sometime this year. Its only a couple days work. We can get rid of notability tag to get it off the CAT:NN list. scope_creep Talk 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Nfitz and scope_creep. The article appears to have previously not been linked with the French Wikipedia version. I have linked the articles. Aintabli ( talk ) 01:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability is demonstrated at the French Wikipedia article. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 01:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed, the French version of this article is extensively sourced. See fr:Christian Lapointe . I have quickly added three secondary sources, although they are all pointing to French language theatre news articles Avignonesi ( talk ) 20:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until the en:WP article meets en:WP standards of notability . If the fr:WP article cites ample sources, then someone (with better French than me) can use them in the en:WP article. Maproom ( talk ) 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't using deletion as cleanup violate policy? This isn't a newly created article, nor is there a question that it can be improved (as per the second language example). Nfitz ( talk ) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It does violate policy. The subject passes WP:N . SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 03:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Maeve Kennedy McKean: Townsend/McKean's death was in the news because she was a Kennedy who died young/tragically. While there is sourcing for items that pre-dated her death, none of those positions convey notability, nor did her CUNY role nor her son's role as the first great grandchild of RFK & Ethel. Most of the coverage of her work came to light not because of her work while alive but in light of her death. I don't believe her death was notable as it was ruled an accidental drowning. A merge to her mother is possible as this article could be trimmed without losing much. Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Politics , and Maryland . Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There is no need for hair-splitting about notability criteria here (which have historically been unevenly applied on WP anyway). This is a well-sourced biographical article that improves Wikipedia rather than detracts from it. rspεεr ( talk ) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article is well sourced and details her work, not just her death or status as a Kennedy. She was not just "A Kennedy who died young" (40 isn't necessarily young). She was a public health official and a member of the Obama Administration. Her death amplified more of this coverage, which in turn built more credible sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter when or how coverage of her work came to be. Many sources on historic figures were written well after a subject's death. Some people were lost to history, yet once written about, they become notable. You may not "believe her death was notable" but it was covered in international and national news sources for weeks. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:GNG , positions don't convey notability as OP seems to imply; reliable, independent coverage in secondary sources does. As reliable, secondary sources (CNN, CBS News, New York Times , etc.) cover McKean in sufficient detail and depth, I support keeping the article. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 07:24, 20 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

Dai Shiqi: No sources are provided online, fails GNG completely. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China . Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Africa , and Peru . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only primary sources. A search of their name in Chinese in gnews yielded nothing. LibStar ( talk ) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Search results turn up nothing but Wikipedias, Wikipedia mirrors, and social media. Because I did a bad job. There's no information present in the article that's not already present at List of ambassadors of China to Peru and List of ambassadors of China to Equatorial Guinea , so nothing to merge. Even his baidu is a two sentence stub. Delete . Folly Mox ( talk ) 13:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 18:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Switch to keep after seeing User:Cunard 's results below. I admit my BEFORE was pretty lazy. Apologies for that. Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:52, 27 November 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 中共人名錄 [ Who's Who in Communist China ] (in Chinese). Taipei: Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University [ zh ] . National Chengchi University . 1989. OCLC 25869396 . Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "... 戴詩琪,年籍及學歷待查。戴詩琪駐赤道幾內亞「大使」。文學藝術界聯合會」第二屆全國委員會委員。一九五四年八月,當選第一屆「全國人民代表大會」代表。一九五五年,任「中國人民對外文化協會」理事、「中國舞蹈工作者協會」副主席。一九五六年,任「中國亞非團結委員會」委員並當選「民盟」第二屆中央委員。一九五七年五月,任「中央實驗歌劇院」舞劇團長、「北京舞蹈學校」校長。一九五八年九月,當選第二屆全國人民代表大會北京市代表;十二月當選連任俄中國國民黨革命委員會第四屆中央常務委員。一九五九年四月十七日連任俄中國人民政治協商會議第三屆全國委員會委員(俄國民黨革命委員會) ;同月廿七日任僞第二屆全國人民代表大會常務委員;五月二日任..." From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi, age and academic qualifications are yet to be checked. Dai Shiqi is the "Ambassador" to Equatorial Guinea. Member of the Second National Committee of the Federation of Literary and Art Circles. In August 1954, he was elected as a representative of the first National People's Congress. In 1955, he served as a director of the "Chinese People's Association for Foreign Culture" and vice chairman of the "Chinese Dance Workers Association". In 1956, he served as a member of the "China Asian-African Solidarity Committee" and was elected as a member of the second Central Committee of the "Democratic League". In May 1957, he served as the director of the dance troupe of the "Central Experimental Opera House" and the principal of the "Beijing Dance School". In September 1958, he was elected as Beijing representative to the Second National People's Congress; in December, he was re-elected as a member of the Fourth Central Standing Committee of the Russian-Chinese Kuomintang Revolutionary Committee. On April 17, 1959, he was re-elected as a member of the Third National Committee of the Russian-Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (Revolutionary Committee of the Russian Kuomintang); on the 27th of the same month, he was appointed as a member of the Standing Committee of the Second National People's Congress; on May 2 appoint..." 現代中国人名辞典: 1991年版 [ A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons ] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kazankai. 霞山会. 1991. OCLC 37804357 . Retrieved 2023-11-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "戴詩琪 Dai Shiqi 経歴 1984 年 2 月在 2 亻>大使館参事宫 87 年 1 月駐赤道キ二大使。 90 年 10 月駐 ㄦ ㄧ 大使。たいしせい戴詩晴 Dai Shiqing 経歴 1950 年地質工作部技術者,工程師。文革時:批判る。経歴 1989 年 5 月当时中国汽車(自動車工業連合会代理理事長。 90 年 6 月当时中国汽車工業總公司總經理。 93 年 3 月第 8 期全人大福建省代表。" From Google Translate: "Dai Shiqi 経歴 February 1984 in February 亻> Embassy Counselor Palace Ambassador to Equator in January 1987. Ambassador to ㄦㄧ in October 1990. Dai Shiqing Dai Shiqing 経歴In 1950, he was a technician and engineer of the Ministry of Geological Work. During the Cultural Revolution, he was criticized. In May 1989, he was the acting chairman of the China Automobile Industry Association. In June 1990, he was the general manager of China Automobile Industry Corporation. In 1993 Representative of Fujian Province in the 8th session of the National People's Congress in March." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dai Shiqi ( simplified Chinese : 戴诗琪 ; traditional Chinese : 戴詩琪 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard They seem very biographical and non-secondary to me. They just list out the career of the subject; per WP:SECONDARY , no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" can be seen. Timothytyy ( talk ) 01:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography )." Biographical dictionary lists reference publications titled Who's Who as an example. I consider inclusion in Chinese Communist Who's Who (published by a Taiwanese publisher) and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons (published by a Japanese publisher) to be strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat. Each of these sources is a synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources that discuss the subject's biographical background. The authors of these books had to decide which facts were important enough to include in the subject's biography. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable , published secondary sources , and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources . Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Cunard ( talk ) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You added a large chunk of undigested information, but you still didn't provide anything that meets the secondary source requiement, i.e. the requiement of GNG. You said these sources are "strong indicators of notability for a Chinese diplomat as each of these sources are synthesis of facts from primary or secondary sources", so you consider them to be notable. Are you able to find these secondary sources? If not, I don't see why it passes GNG or ANYBIO. Timothytyy ( talk ) 03:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see no reason to dismiss either the Who's Who or A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons as being primary. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never said they were primary, I believe they are tertiary. However the tertiary sources didn't provide any sources to their claims, so we aren't reaching any secondary sources, which I believe is the only type of source that helps an article pass GNG. Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For both books, the Google Books snippet view does not show whether the entries cited any primary or secondary sources. The existence of any additional sources is immaterial since these two sources are sufficient. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says (bolding added for emphasis): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable , published secondary sources , and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources . Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography )." The "no original research" policy and the "notability for people" guideline demonstrate that these two national biographical dictionaries are perfectly acceptable in establishing notability. Cunard ( talk ) 05:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, it is incorrect to treat the two books as a country's standard national biographical dictionaries as they are not even published by (not even in ) the PRC or the CPC, the country which the subject comes from and serves. Therefore, it doesn't pass the ANYBIO criterion. Secondly, even when tertiary sources are needed, it doesn't make an article pass GNG. GNG criterion which you provided: "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." Therefore, the two tertiary sources you provided do not contribute to GNG since they are not secondary, so BASIC is failed. Thus, all BIO criteria are failed . Timothytyy ( talk ) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That Dai Shiqi was covered in "Chinese persons" dictionaries published by Japanese and Taiwanese publishers is very significant in establishing notability, even more so than if he was covered in a "Chinese persons" dictionary published by a Chinese publisher. It means he received international coverage. It is unclear whether Chinese Communist Who's Who and A Dictionary of Modern Chinese Persons are secondary sources or tertiary sources. But the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is very clear in saying that both secondary sources and tertiary sources can be used to establish notability. If the biographical dictionaries are tertiary sources, Cunard ( talk ) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, tertiary sources can help establish notability, but according to GNG and BASIC, articles must have secondary sources to guarantee basic (i.e. presumed) notability. If we don't have secondary sources but only have 2 books which we don't know if fact-checking work is done due to the lack of references in them, we cannot ensure reliablity . For example, encyclopedias which doesn't list out references supporting their claims cannot provide notability as its accuracy can be challenged. This is why notability guidelines, e.g. GNG and BASIC, emphasize on secondary sources. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. According to FAILN, anything that fails the notability criteria shall to be merged or deleted; as NOR is not an N guideline and it fails GNG due to the lack of secondary sources, I suggest a merge to the lists provided by Folly Mox, by gathering info provided by the sources, or a deletion. GNG requires reliable secondary sources. If you believe a discussion on whether the sources are secondary or tertiary is necessary and my elaborations above are too simple, controversial, or problematic, I would be pleased to present my views more detailly. Thank you very much. Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The national dictionaries are reliable sources from reputable publishers. There is no requirement for reliable sources to cite sources in order to be considered reliable. The sources you provided just seem to be a biographical introduction to the subject by gathering information about the subject from secondary sources, so I believe it is a tertiary source. – it is unclear whether the national dictionaries are secondary sources or tertiary sources. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage. If the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from primary sources, the national dictionaries are secondary sources. Cunard ( talk ) 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't get why you mention the sources as "national dictionaries". Also, "if the national dictionaries are synthesising information about the subject from secondary sources, the subject has received secondary source coverage" is just a very rough assumption, you don't even know whether the sources of these publications are 1. independent, 2. reliable, and 3. provide detailed coverage. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the sources are not independent, they are primary sources. If the sources are not reliable sources, the national dictionaries would not have relied on them. If the sources do not provide detailed coverage, then per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria multiple sources can be combined to establish notability. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources is that tertiary sources are perfectly fine in establishing notability. Editors cited the policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources , which reflects this already. Cunard ( talk ) 09:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, according to PRIMARY, primary sources may be independent, and according to SECONDARY, secondary sources are not necessarily independent. Secondly, I still don't understand why the sources about Chinese people written by non-governmental Taiwanese and Japanese people are considered as national biographies, and why reliability is assumed. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I stand corrected but maintain that these national biographies are reliable sources that can be used to establish notability regardless of whether they are secondary or tertiary sources based on Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 73#Tertiary sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources . I consider Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University [ zh ] and Kazankai [ ja ] to be reputable publishers. They are national biographies because of their scope. Cunard ( talk ) 09:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (If you believe that these 2 sources are rooted with reliability, please find further sources that is secondary, which I would say is most preferred, which can conduct fact-checking.) Assuming their reliability, they are still encyclopedic and doesn't develop anything except the rigid history of the person, so I believe they are tertiary. I still root on general notability guidelines, I.e. GNG and BASIC. If the discussion didn't change the wordings of GNG and BASIC, the most basic guidelines, at all, I wouldn't say it is accepted by the community. Consensus isn't that strong after all. Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dai Shiqi was a Chinese ambassador in the 1980s and 1990s to Equatorial Guinea and Peru . It is very difficult to find sources for a Chinese ambassador whose tenure was in the pre-Internet era in South America and West Africa. He could have been covered by pre-Internet, offline Chinese, Peru, or Equatorial Guinea sources, but those are very hard to find. What we have is significant coverage in two national biographies published by a reputable Taiwanese publisher and a reputable Japanese publisher. I consider that sufficient to establish notability. Cunard ( talk ) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you, but I cannot see any possible significant events which may bring the subject SIGCOV. Even if there is, they might not be reliable. Also, let us gather other users' opinions, because I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Espresso Addict ( talk · contribs ), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard ( talk ) 00:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no need to ping indviduals as it can be seen as WP:CANVASS . LibStar ( talk ) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. Cunard ( talk ) 01:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me guess what Espresso Addict will ! vote, since they removed the prod. "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" WP:APPNOTE . LibStar ( talk ) 01:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." The editor who proposed the article for deletion is the AfD nominator so is already aware of the discussion and does not need to be pinged. The only other involved editor is the one who removed the proposed deletion. I noticed that the article creator has not been notified so I will notify them on their talk page. The article creator archived the notifications. I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard ( talk ) 01:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is better to err on the side of caution and not notify other editors of AfDs. LibStar ( talk ) 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that concerned editors should be notified so long as the canvassing guideline is not violated. AfDs frequently have few participants, so informing concerned editors helps lessen that problem. Cunard ( talk ) 01:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . [I was already aware of this AfD before Cunard's ping] Cunard's sources do look sufficiently in-depth to meet GNG to me. Generally I'd prefer to keep articles on Chinese topics as we have a real problem with systematic bias but I won't issue a formal vote in the circumstances. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Espresso, this is why I think pinging is unnecessary. LibStar ( talk ) 06:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll let ReplyTool figure it out. Feel free to refactor. Cunard's sources both seem reliable and independent, and each contributes to notability. My initial BEFORE was not adequate, so I'll look again on my own later (hopefully today?). I would translate the title of the first source as Who's Who in Communist China , and note that google translate guesses the language of the second source incorrectly. It's Japanese, but with a very high proportion of kanji, indicating little verb conjugation and few other particles. It's probably written in a very brief style like a list rather than full regular prose sentences (I can't read Japanese). Google translate does a little better job with that one if you feed it the correct starting language. Hoping to get back to this soon; already switched to keep above. Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for reviewing the sources, for the better translation for the first source's title, and for the correction about the second source being in Japanese with a high proportion of kanji. I've fixed updated the citation templates in my comment . It was difficult to find significant coverage for Dai Shiqi ( simplified Chinese : 戴诗琪 ; traditional Chinese : 戴詩琪 ), so it is unsurprising your WP:BEFORE did not find them. To find these sources, I searched for "Dai Shiqi", "戴诗琪" (his simplified Chinese name), and "戴詩琪" (his traditional Chinese name) and went through several dozen Google Books results that were passing mentions before I found these two sources. Cunard ( talk ) 10:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think this barely scrapes by based on Cunard 's sources. It might be considered borderline, but I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping in this case because, as mentioned above, most sources will be offline or otherwise hard to find for a diplomat who was active before the 21st century. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mladen Bogdanović: BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Croatia , and Yugoslavia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The circumstances of Bogdanović's death were reported e.g. at Index.hr [98] . This is a pretty classic sign of general notability, it's simply outside the English-speaking realm. We'd probably have to reach for some Hajduk monography to get significant coverage. [99] there's fan coverage that indicates this should exist. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These nominations of clear topics of interests are getting ridiculous, especially from this user ( User:TimothyBlue ), - yet another deletion nomination from a user whose most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever ). What makes these nominations more ridiculous is that I easily found [100] , [101] , [102] , [103] , [104] , [105] , [106] , [107] and these are just the sources published recently about a 1980s player (which shows his significance in Yugoslavia) not to mention the many offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 11:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source eval for above: Failed V, 404, link apparently just copied from search results :: https://drava.info/2017/02/mladen-kemo-bogdanovic/ Obit, not IS RS :: https://www.dalmacijadanas.hr/slicice-pricaju-in-memoriam-mladen-bogdanovic-kemo-hajdukova-legenda-s-brda/ Hagiography  :: https://www.dnevno.hr/sport/navijaci-hajduka-su-ga-obozavali-a-on-je-tragicno-stradao-nepravedno-zanemaren-i-njegove-ideje-nisu-bas-svi-shvacali-1890486/ Obit about death from Infokiosk :: https://infokiosk.net/on-na-sanku-pije-i-pusi-to-je-bio-sok-za-sve-kako-je-popularni-hrvatski-nogometas-smrtno-stradao-zivot-ga-nije-mazio/ Name mentioned :: https://www.klikaj.hr/pogled-u-proslost-ovo-je-bila-sjajna-generacija-mladih-nogometasa-slavena-a-vodio-ih-je-legendarni-kemo-bogdanovic/ Failed V, 404, link apparently just copied from search results :: https://drava.info/2017/06/sjecanje-na-mladena-kemu-bogdanovica/ Failed V, 404, link apparently just copied from search results :: https://drava.info/2017/02/mladen-kemo-bogdanovic/ Failed V, 404, link apparently just copied from search results :: https://drava.info/2017/06/sjecanje-na-mladena-kemu-bogdanovica/ Memorial page :: https://epodravina.hr/mladen-bogdanovic-kemo-bio-je-istinski-spaner-i-nogometni-boem-napustio-nas-je-u-tragicnoj-nesreci-prije-19-godina/ Obit :: https://www.index.hr/sport/clanak/pogorsano-zdravstveno-stanje-nogometasa-mladena-bogdanovica/138924.aspx None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue Articles written about an individual decades after his death are hardly an obit. Even so, obits written by independent reliable sources are usually perfectly fine as sources. Regarding the drava.info sources, I was able to access them earlier today so there is probably a technical issue behind the current 404. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is accurate, but also largely inconsequential to your argument for deletion, because you're still not disputing the basic factoids such as this player spending four years with Hajduk in the Yugoslav First League with 87 appearances and 11 goals. If this is not inaccurate, the potential is still there and we should not delete the article but instead fix it by finding better sources. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Some of the coverage is independent of the subject and in-depth, but I'm not sure about reliability. ePodravina.hr is a news portal, but I can't determine if the author is actually a sports journalist. Dalmacijadanas.hr also appears to be a news portal, and again I'm not sure whether the author is a sports journalist. Is someone more familiar with these websites able to weigh in? Jogurney ( talk ) 00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , very clearly passes GNG and nominator is being pedantic. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 17:59, 11 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

Spaghetti Taco: I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead ( talk ) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance. I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead ( talk ) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead ( talk ) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability . Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE . What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios ( talk ) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge . I believe there's just enough material for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:Notability , even if a light one, and no ideal merge target suggests itself. If the sources are felt as being to brief, a merge to the suggested Yakisoba-pan might be ok, based on e.g. this article , which suggests a loose connection. Daranios ( talk ) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge This doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV . Even so, it's a WP:NOPAGE situation where there isn't much to say. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge per Shooterwalker. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and oppose merge or redirect to Yakisoba-pan . Meets WP:GNG , including the 2010 feature article in The New York Times which was widely syndicated and the 2022 Mashed article which also helps to demonstrate that there has been WP:SUSTAINED interest in spaghetti tacos as a dish over time. I have added a few other sources to the article, and there are oodles of recipes available on the Internet; I've cited the "Fiesta spaghetti taco" recipe on the Betty Crocker website . None of these articles mention "yakisoba-pan" which is why I'm opposed to that particular merge (and FWIW, I'm not convinced the quality of the sources in the other article are necessarily better than the sources cited here). Finally, if this article is kept, it should be moved to "Spaghetti taco" with a small "t" which currently is a redirect to iCarly. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor ( talk ) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile ( talk ) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [60] and the Pocono Reocrd [61] . Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:16, 29 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

Council of Khalistan: no secondery reliable sources Worldiswide ( talk ) 07:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C. . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:07, 8 May 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 May 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Organisation appears to be a notable Sikh nationalist political organisation based in the United States. I have added some secondary sources to the article since this AfD. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We need more Reliable, independent sources. that's not a inuff Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I Added some new reliable Secondary sources. This article should not be deleted, Council of Khalistan was very active during the Punjab insurgency , although it is still active but it doesn't get enough coverage, It played a significant role in Punjab insurgency and the existing Wikipedia articles " Jagjit Singh Chauhan " and " Gurmit Singh Aulakh " is also directly connected to it. Shubhdeep Sandhu ( talk ) 16:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the Council of Khalistan has played a significant role in this movement, as evident from its involvement during the Insurgency in Punjab. Furthermore, it has had a notable presence in international politics as well. For instance, it briefly became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), and the Khalistani movement's re-emergence in the political sphere has been reported in recent years. BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (barely): There is a lot of promo, mentions and spam refs in the article, but these two: IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Rajagopalan, Swarna (2014-03-21).  Security and South Asia: Ideas, Institutions and Initiatives. Routledge.  ISBN 978-1-317-80947-0. IS RS with SIGCOV [55] >> 4. ^ Thomas, Jo (1984-06-14).  "London Sikh Assumes Roe of Exile Chief".  The New York Times.  ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-05-09. Push the subject over the GNG line. // Timothy :: talk 19:20, 20 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

Graft (politics): GnocchiFan ( talk ) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - The concept of graft definitely passes GNG just from common use. There is also a significant semantic difference between graft and the general concept of political corruption, so I don't see merge as a great option. That said, this article does little to show that distinction. It also looks like every time a source is added, it gets deprecated for one reason or another. Draftify isn't an option, either, as there hasn't been anyone seriously interested in the article for years. There is still a raft of good source material on gScholar and gBooks if we could find editors interested in the subject. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as an unsourced definition, if the article is subsequently WP:HEYed I have no problem with keeping it. SportingFlyer T · C 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. Graft is discussed ad nauseum: Public Plunder - A History of Graft in America , Department of Justice Graft and Grafting: What are the Remedies? , American Journal of Sociology Corruption in Cities: Graft and Politics in American Cities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century , National Bureau of Economic Research Unsafe at the Top: China's anti-graft drive targets billionaires and bankers , The Guardian As Graft Cases in Chile Multiply, a 'Gag Law' Angers Journalists , The New York Times etc. etc. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:26, 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

Lists of Star Wars species: The sources are mostly primary sources, being the actual novels these creatures appear in and the Star Wars website. There is nothing to demonstrate that these species meet WP:GNG . The notable members of these species are all at List of Star Wars characters . I am also nominating the rest of these lists: List of Star Wars species (A–E) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Star Wars species (F–J) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Star Wars species (K–O) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Star Wars species (P–T) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of Star Wars species (U–Z) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Nathan121212 ( talk ) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Instead of having a discription for a species in every single article for the films, books, shows, video games, and whatnot, its just easier to have them in one place to link to. Valid spinoff articles and information list. List of Star Wars species (A–E) has 21,399 pageviews in the past 90 days. [6] List of Star Wars species (P–T) has 35,037. D r e a m Focus 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Dream Focus makes a good point. This is a reasonable alternative to having a huge number of individual articles. At one point, we had individual articles for practically every pokemon leading to the phrase [[WP:POKEMON]|Pokémon test]] being made. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to pass WP:NLIST . "Star Wars species" is a subject of both scholarly and popular discussion. See, e.g., [7] , [8] (examples of non-primary discussions of various species from a pop culture perspective), and [9] (a scholarly analysis of Star Wars including its various species). Note also that one of the common selection criteria for lists is that Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria . - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 19:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I do not see how these do not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE . It's possible that a single list of THE most notable species in Star Wars would be suitable for Wikipedia, but these numerous totally indiscriminate lists violate WP:NOT and would need to be redone from scratch. WP:TNT applies in this case, as it would be very difficult to clean this up. Wikipedia =/= Wookiepedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lists of Star Wars species , neutral as into how many sublists this gets divided. I have no doubt that "Star Wars species" passes WP:NLIST (Star Wars is one of the very few franchises where one could say that), lists are better than subnotable stand-alone articles and better than nothing, and the rest seems to be a matter of organizing knowledge. – sgeureka t • c 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This meets WP:NLIST . Here are a few books that discuss the grouping. [10] [11] [12] [13] . Here's a PhD dissertation [14] . This paper makes a short mention in a broader discussion [15] . There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek coverage in this Wiley book [16] (non-exhaustive search). — siro χ o 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Enumerable and useful in its specialized field. – SJ + 04:16, 21 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

Leysingi: See also Thrall § Society . Jay D. Easy ( t ) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Jay D. Easy ( t ) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Denmark , Norway , and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG. This topic has received signficant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, the Internet Archive and elsewhere. There are, in particular, entire periodical articles on this subject, such as: [27] . The article can be expanded beyond a definition. Since the topic is notable, the article is not redundant, quite apart from the fact that a freed former slave is not the same thing as a slave. James500 ( talk ) 23:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:GNG. Per significant coverage in litterature and mentions on internet. BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . At worst, merge, but certainly not outright delete. Srnec ( talk ) 01:06, 2 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

Emicho: The seeming lack of information about Count Emicho outside the wall of text about the First Crusade or Rhineland massacres seems to confirm the article lacks WP: NOTABILITY . The article even had a Holocaust reference in it for whatever reason, until I removed it. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Salutation yet again, I'm going to CV what I said on your talk page. "it is obvious to me that the article in question is mostly un-sourced, and what sources it does use are secondary or "primary anonymous accounts" which contradict whatever this person did or at least claimed to have done. I might add also that is a point of contention with the Jewish people since most see him as a barbaric Christian who mindlessly killed their peers, also those "primary anonymous accounts" are allegedly written by Jewish authors, which makes this situation even more concerning. History is not about personal vendettas nor is it about claiming that only one party is to blame while the other is innocent. If those alleged did happen then why does not one Christian author (in the article itself) has wrote about it? More likely Emicho has taken the role of a fall guy to blame everything on him as a reflection of Jewish (justified) hatred of Christians." Ukudoks ( talk ) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Fantastic Mr. Fox , this cannot possibly violate WP:BLP because the subject has been dead for 1,000 years. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "there were many accounts stating the legend that Emicho's soul is guarding the gate of Rhineland" Did he/she even exist to begin with? For such a notorious individual we know close to absolutely nothing about his/her personal life etc. I agree with : @ Fantastic Mr. Fox : that we should delete this article or at least modify it entirely and build from there Ukudoks ( talk ) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A basic Google search for Emicho of Flonheim (which is probably what this article should be titled) exclusively in English returned a plethora which provide WP:SIGCOV , including but not limited to: two journal articles ( [12] [13] ), at least two biographical dictionary entries ( [14] [15] ), and an entire book chapter ( [16] ). I have not conducted a search in German, but am reasonably confident SIGCOV-providing sources exist in that language too, as this encyclopedia entry lists two German sources including another journal article specifically about him. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those historians are using at least four primary sources which have been alleged to be created by Jewish "anonymous accounts", that is the root of our question. How can we know those anonymous sources were telling the truth? Simply put, we don't know As I've stated above it is a point of contention with Jewish individuals that use it as ammunition (for good reasons too) against the Crusades and/or Christianity. Thus while it might have a plethora of secondary sources, it doesn't have a plethora of primary sources that at least have a somewhat coherent timeline with what happened. Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect, this argument has absolutely no basis in any WP:P&G . An academic source can certainly be unreliable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of their sourcing, but simply being partially sourced to anonymous primary accounts is not itself damning and is in fact quite regular in historical writing. To quote from WP:SECONDARY : A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With all due respect if you look at the references on Emicho's article and Rhineland massacres article it heavily relies on secondary sources. And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information. Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are. I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on. Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm not sure what happening with this article right now, but it used to be perfectly fine. If I remember correctly it was once known as "Emich of Leiningen" but I think it was moved to avoid confusion with another person with the same/a similar name. Anyway he was a real and notable guy and there are plenty of sources about him. Adam Bishop ( talk ) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Those "plenty" sources ( I assume that you mean secondary and not primary ) are not stated on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only primary sources I can find on wikipedia (relating to Emicho's role in the massacres) are: Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana Mainz Anonymous Solomon bar Simson Chronicle Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle While others are secondary and therefore unreliable. Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ukudoks Secondary sources are not unreliable; in many ways, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, according to the academic or editorial rigor they have been subjected to. — C.Fred ( talk ) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Secondary sources are "preferable" because they suit modern interpretations of politics, public institutions and society. I absolutely agree. Ukudoks ( talk ) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was just thinking, why do I remember the title being Emich of Leiningen? Oh yeah, I'm the one who created this, way back in the olden days, haha. Adam Bishop ( talk ) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Adam Bishop : What is your perspective when it comes to primary sources on this peculiar topic? Ukudoks ( talk ) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Same as every other topic. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources. Judging from your comments here, I have very little confidence that you understand what the primary and secondary sources for this topic are, what primary and secondary sources are in general, or what the mission of Wikipedia is. Adam Bishop ( talk ) 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Unless he's some sort of super human that lives for 1000 yrs, I don't think we have to worry about BLP violations. Might not be neutrally written, but AfD isn't cleanup. We have this [17] , [18] and the book chapter shown above, it's fine. BDP perhaps, deceased people ? Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that some here do not realize the implications of not using primary sources to back up the crimes he allegedly committed, which is the main point for his existence on Wikipedia Ukudoks ( talk ) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't use primary sources, we can only use what others have written about this individual. We can't do original research nor draw our own conclusions. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have struck through the BLP statement, I have no clue what was running through my head at the time. The correct wording is that it fails WP:NPOV . Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have restored the article to its state before Ukodoks made a large number of non-NPOV unsourced changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your contribution, but the question still remains, the page is lacking in primary sources and has an inherent bias to portray Emicho as a evil barbarian who mindlesly killed Jews (which where his fellow Abrhamists btw), if we can at least get a primary source narrative from the Christian side it would "balance" the vendetta present Ukudoks ( talk ) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But he did kill people, didn't he? You don't need to WP:RGW here, and you certainly haven't help make the article any more neutral yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox ( talk ) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We do not know, the only party who says he did such a thing (one who is not coherent about where and how he did those horrible things) are the Jewish authors, it doesn't require someone to be a rocket scientist to put 1+1 in order to understand the ramifications at play. As Jews were the most intelligent class during that time period, no ordinary Gentile could challenge their perspective (may it be right or wrong). I'm just being sceptical that is all, if someone can provide us with primary sources (that are not anonymous, as it is a unreliable source) then we can understand what actually happened Ukudoks ( talk ) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . AFD isn't cleanup. Nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing. Srnec ( talk ) 01:02, 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

Azeem Sajjad: The subject also doesn't meet GNG. Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry. Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable. If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions. Muneebll ( talk ) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and Iowa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." ( Dawn ), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." ( Dawn ), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" ( Dawn ), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969). According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores. ", ( Dawn ), etc. -- Soman ( talk ) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:DIRECTOR seems met as he directed at least 2 notable productions. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 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

Bhavika Sharma: C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Television . C1K98V ( 💬 ✒️ 📂 ) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple television series and I don't see any issues with the sources. – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pass in WP:NACTOR .... but need some more RS Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific assessment of the available sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 18:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The subject is clearly meets WP:NACTOR guidelines but I think more reliable source will be needed for Verification . ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 12:58, 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

ATLAS of Finite Groups: Boleyn ( talk ) 12:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See also: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books) § Does_this_page_need_more_criteria_for_science_books? Comment : I'm the author of this article (under the handle Gro-Tsen , which I've lost access to for technical reason which are beside the matter here), so although I've stopped contributing to Wikipedia for anything other than trivial corrections, I feel I should say a word. First, this AfD nomination exactly exemplifies the reason why I've stopped contributing: namely, that all processes are buried in bureaucratic procedures of extraordinary complexity and rigidity (a system which effectively gives far too much power to those people who have the time for these procedures rather than actually writing articles). To merely contribute to the discussion one is supposed to read a 5000+ word long page which in the end still doesn't tell me how I'm supposed to write and format a comment like this and I'm probably doing it wrong. Anyway. The notability criteria for books are insane in my mind because they are clearly written by people who had absolutely not thought about the very existence of science books: the criterion “the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement” for example, clearly fails to take into account the possibility that the book made a significant contribution to a scientific field (the words “science” or “scientific” don't even appear in the criteria), which is the case here. So, no, the book is not notable, as far as I can tell, under the kafkaesque criteria as they stand. However, disregarding these criteria, if anyone cares about the reason why this book should be considered notable, in my mind (and why I thought it was necessary to start an article about it), they are as follows: (1) The ATLAS isn't just a book about finite groups, it's profoundly intertwined with the history of the Classification of finite simple groups . This is for example witnessed by the fact that Mark Ronan's 2006 book Symmetry and the Monster (a popular science book about said classification and its history) devotes an entire chapter (chapter 14) to the ATLAS , its history and its importance in the general story of the Classification. (2) Specifically, the ATLAS was the first to contain the character table of the Monster group (and possibly also the Baby Monster) before the group was even known to exist. (3) The ATLAS isn't just a book, it's also an indispensable scientific tool, which is the reason why it has now been extended to a web site and a package of the GAP software . (4) The ATLAS poses a particular epistemological problem to mathematicians as it contains the result of computations which have not been published, so relying on it in proofs is problematic. See this MathOverflow question for discussion about this. So entire scientific papers are devoted to trying to do without the ATLAS or to the question of how to reproduce its information. For example, this paper ( published in Contemporary Mathematics ) is specifically devoted to the question of checking the contents of the ATLAS . (5) The ATLAS is extraordinarily famous and influential in the field of finite groups. Asking a group theorist whether they know the ATLAS is similar to asking a biologist whether they know the Origin of Species . I don't have direct evidence for this, but the first paragraph of the paper mentioned in the previous point quotes Jean-Pierre Serre as saying that he “can’t think of any other book published in the last 50 years which had such an impact”. (6) Merely as a physical object, the ATLAS is remarkable for its size and format. Now I won't be contributing any further to this discussion because, again, the tediousness of having to do this kind of bureaucratic justification is exactly what drove me away from Wikipedia. But please feel free to either ignore or else reuse the above facts (and, if the consensus is to keep the article, incorporate them in its content). -- 2001:41D0:FE6F:4800:0:0:0:1 ( talk ) 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the existence of two book-length volumes dedicated to the book - one in 1995 and one in 2015, both of which are now cited in the article. Guidelines say to consider how influential a book has been in its area, and even as a person unfamiliar with the topic I can tell from the quality of google scholar results that this is a book for people have reverence. So I appreciate you putting this in context, and I think the two results will illustrate its impact but any additional cites talking about its influence could help sway fence-sitters. Oblivy ( talk ) 15:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 13:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Everything that Gro-Tsen writes here is one hundred procent true. "The Atlas" is well known among mathematicians and absolutely central in the finite groups community. It is also rather unique. One should understand that finite groups, and more particularly the classification of finite groups is one of the central problems in mathematics. The quote from Jean Pierre Serre is spot on, and Serre is an extremely highly regarded Abel prize winning mathematician. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article on this book, and in fact I whole heartedly agree with him that being a highly influential scientific work, is clearly an excellent criterion for being a notable book. Put it in other way: Conway's Game of Life has a Wikipedia Article. As fun and well known as it is, the Atlas towers well above the Game of Life in his achievements. RogierBrussee ( talk ) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , highly notable work in the field of group theory. Google Scholar is not great for turning up contemporary scholarly reviews from the 1980s, but here are three: [22] , [23] , [24] . It's discussed at length in Siobhan Roberts's biography of Conway , and it was the subject of conferences and their proceedings in 1998 and 2015 . Jfire ( talk ) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a fourth contemporary review: [25] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Meets WP:NBOOK criterion #5 due to being co-written by John Horton Conway , certainly one of the top mathematicians of the 20th/21st Centuries, and likely longer than that. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Obviously notable. -- Zundark ( talk ) 16:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep thanks to Oblivy's improvement, adding citations and fulfilling WP:HEY . Apologies to Gro-Tsen for being Kafkaesque. Toughpigs ( talk ) 19:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep One of the most noteworthy pure-mathematics books of the 20th century, cited in excess of 6,000 times [26] . Yes, it deserves a Wikipedia article. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More than enough coverage above to meet WP:NBOOK . Another review can be found here . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (obviously). Is it WP:SNOWing ? - CRGreathouse ( t | c ) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The classification of groups was one of the great math projects, if not the greatest, in the 20th century. (I'm almost surely mis-remembering, but perhaps a thousand mathematicians were involved, and it took 50-odd years of work. Of course, this is not all captured in these books, but its... really I don't know the history, but its some kind of wild mega-project like this.) 67.198.37.16 ( talk ) 04:43, 30 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

Samuel Nchinda-Kaya: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Cameroon . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , thank you for the nomination giving us a chance to improve the article. Samuel Nchinda was a regular on the international track and field circuit in 1991 and 1992, not just at major championships where he advanced past the first round at two different Olympics. Résisprint is a World Athletics Continental Tour Challenger level meeting -- though this distinction didn't exist in 1992 it was a premier international meeting. If you want to get technical about WP:NATH , he satisfies point 8) as Nchinda's 10.24 PB is listed on the IAAF "senior all-time list" for men's 100m on page 15 here: Senior all-time list . I also added a cite that Nchinda competed at the 1991 World Indoor Championships, setting a national record and qualifying for the semifinals. Thank you, -- Habst ( talk ) 01:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Every sporty sperm isn't with a couple of tin cups worth a Wikipedia entry. There are sporting websites for that. MisterWizzy ( talk ) 13:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No evidence of GNG coverage, which is necessary to establish for athletes regardless of their accomplishments. Being listed on the IAAF senior all-time list does not exempt the subject from the requirement that a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in their article. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Keep per new sources found. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for commenting because it has spurred me to look for more GNG coverage. I found dozens of contemporary newspaper sources featuring Sam under the name "Sam Nchinda" -- perhaps the article should be moved to that title. I added a few of them to the article (the article now has 19 references) but I am not done going through them yet, here are just a few from the Edgware Observer, Harrow Observer, and Pinner Observer: Sam takes on best in world Sparkling Sam lifts the gloom for Gayts Olympian Sam goes out in heats . May I ask that you please re-evaluate the article in light of this significant new information added? -- Habst ( talk ) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sadly, BEFORE didn't help. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 13:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Vanderwaalforces , thank you for commenting because your comment along with JoelleJay's above drove me to find more GNG sources for this article. The article now has 19 references including several significant newspaper sources that focus specifically on Nchinda, see above for some examples. Can you please re-evaluate based on the new changes? Separately, if you could help organize the newly added information in the article into sections, that would be greatly appreciated. -- Habst ( talk ) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Habst This is a good job you've done. Thank you so much! Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I now lean towards Keep ing this article based on this. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also have done the re-organisation as you requested. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the additional sources provided by User:Habst. Ingratis ( talk ) 15:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Fantastic work by Habst in finding sources to demonstrate notability and expanding the article. @ JoelleJay , Vanderwaalforces , and MisterWizzy : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:38, 12 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! 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , expansion and sources added satisfy notability guidelines, good work, Habst! ~ Tails Wx 03:31, 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

An Tae-song: Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 23:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Yonhap News reported that An Tae-song was reported as the fifth best soccer players in North Korea by the KCNA. [1] (Also reported here: [2] ; Original report here: [3] ) - He was called the second best soccer player in North Korea 2018: [4] . While I don't doubt that it will be difficult to find sources, someone being described as the second best soccer player in the country by the North Korean government suggests that there are likely more sources out there (potentially within North Korea). :3 F4U ( they /it ) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability (AGFing analysis). Giant Snowman 09:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Roman Erich Petsche: Ingratis ( talk ) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Austria , and Slovenia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this nomination is like nominating an Oscar-awarded actor for deletion on the grounds of "no apparent notability apart from an award". This award, Righteous Among the Nations, was awarded to a select group of people by a well-known organization, and is very notable. He also has some notablity as an artist, as exhibitions of his art are still shown. exhibition in 2021 , festival in 2016 Jaguarnik ( talk ) 18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've rewritten and sourced the article; not my best work, but better than before. Righteous Among the Nations is a slam-dunk award for WP:ANYBIO #1, as it is one of the most prestigious recognitions a person have. In addition to the sources present in the article, I also found a book source ( [13] ) which seems to cover his life in detail but is locked behind the GBooks preview; there also seems to be additional offline books that at least partly cover him. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to access the full entry for the source I mentioned above, which includes more details about his life and fills in some of the remaining CN tags. Curbon7 ( talk ) 08:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and Serbia . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "Righteous Among Nations" is a big deal. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Judaism . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The award is based on notable events so Righteous Among Nations never fail 1E. Could be an opportunity to educate onself on The Holocaust. gidonb ( talk ) 08:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "Righteous Among Nations" is indeed a big deal, and not just "an award". There is also adequately sourced biographical information. Thanks to Curbon7 for their work on improvement. Ingratis ( talk ) 08:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Snow . gidonb ( talk ) 08:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has coverage and award is significant. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Righteous Among the Nations very definitely meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. And meets WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As others mentioned, "Righteous Among Nations" is indeed a big deal, and not just "an award" Боки ✉ 13:15, 1 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

Baruch Chait: passing mention in the RS, the other is a blog. Gugrak ( talk ) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Bands and musicians , Judaism , and Israel . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the absence of good sourcing a redirect to Maarava Machon Rubin might be appropriate--thought that article also needs improvement. Drmies ( talk ) 12:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This source is SIGCOV. Maybe there is a second source? gidonb ( talk ) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source of this seems to be Haaretz , based on this translation. Regardless, it is now in the article. Havradim leaf a message 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! gidonb ( talk ) 14:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coment . If someone can find a second V, IS, RS, SIGCOV source that would be awesome. If not, I suggest merging, rather than deleting or redirecting. gidonb ( talk ) 22:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep this article about a groundbreaking Jewish musician (who co-created the first folk/Jewish fusion band in 1967) composer, school founding rosh yeshiva /educator and prolific children's book author. The sockpuppet nominator obviously didn't bother to do any checking WP:BEFORE they nominated this. But WP:HEY , I just spent some time adding a few 3rd party reliable sources, and I haven't even gotten to the Hebrew language sources yet, which there has to be regarding this influential Israeli rabbi. I don't agree with Drmies regarding redirecting to Maarava Machon Rubin , nor even with merging there per gidonb. None of the musical or author information would fit well in the school article, and the educational info would not fare well in The Rabbis' Sons . Havradim leaf a message 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The " merging there per gidonb " was explicitly if no one would come up with a second valid source, after I had come up with the first. Someone did find more sources, so obviously I support only keep. Per WP:GNG and WP:HEY ! gidonb ( talk ) 14:20, 15 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

2024 Campeonato Paulista: Not referenced -- the single reference is undefined. Problems with WP:FUTURE . Mikeblas ( talk ) 00:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very notable tournament. Furthermore, references were added in the article. BRDude 70 ( talk ) 13:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - needs improvement, not deletion. Giant Snowman 16:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Only a month away from the competition, and there is a whole serious of these, so I don't quite get this current nomination, feels as if you didn't do an ounce of research or WP:BEFORE, Govvy ( talk ) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Non-sense AfD Svartner ( talk ) 10:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep whilst people shouldn't be creating speculative articles months/years before sports events happen, that isn't the case here. It's an article with decent levels of information and sources about a league that starts next month. Perfectly acceptable article about a future event. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:57, 22 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

Glasgow Bellgrove rail accident: LibStar ( talk ) 03:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Scotland . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would probably keep this one. It did lead to some newspaper coverage not mentioned in our article, such as this [38] . It has also earned passing mentions since, as a fatal accident, these being fortunately rare in modern times. [39] . I'm happy at getting rid of articles on the multitude of "oops bumped into the buffers" accidents that caused no injuries, had no repercussions for rail safety, and were forgotten a week later - not every rail accident is significant - but ones that led to discussions about how rail systems should be run and laid-out, and which caused deaths, are probably notable. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Primary newspaper coverage, passing mentions, and causing deaths are all irrelevant to notability. We're only concerned about WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS . This likely wouldn't have met notability requirements if not for the sources found below. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This accident was described in detail in

keep

Mona Sax: This is an Old GA, the standards before were isn't big (GA has no bearing with notability). There are sources that amount to WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV , since the GameZone source is dead. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge the new rule for VG characters is “merging is cheap” since most of them are not notable and it’s easier to merge sourced info rather than try and salvage an entire article. Dronebogus ( talk ) 04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Admittedly that's coming across like "purge because lol VG character" which *shouldn't* be the mindset we go into over these. We should be genuinely trying to figure out which subjects can and can't work as an article, regardless of if its a character or not. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, everything needs evaluation on a case by case basis. Just because a lot of video game characters are being re-evaluated as non-notable doesn't mean all of them are. WP:BATHWATER applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I respect your opinions and input on these discussions, but I'd really rather this not be the default mindset people enter these discussions with. It already feels a bit like we're merging some that could have been salvaged, but aren't because people are burned out on the constant stream of these discussions. There's a lot of junk articles out there, but there's a lot of decent ones too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per analyses found at [30] pp. 24, 27, [31] p. 116, [32] p. 117, [33] p. 91, and according to the preview possibly [34] as well, that one's a bit harder to sift through. But if what's there is better fleshed out it should be able to make a decent reception section. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with Kung Fu Man's analysis of the available sourcing. While Dronebogus is entitled to their opinion, there certainly is no "new rule for VG characters" as such. Haleth ( talk ) 13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very weak keep The mention in the first source Kung Fu Man cited is really impressive. That, combined with the GameZone article asking for a Mona Sax-centric game, and "Noir Affect" saying she "subverts male predatory behavior", seems to satisfy GNG even if the other sources are less so. The problems in this article seem WP:SURMOUNTABLE . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Kung Fu Man's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per KFM's sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources found by KFM. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per KFM. WP:POTENTIAL has been shown and this just needs some work. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (weak) per new sources. Karnataka ( talk ) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Kung Fu Man's rationale. -- Mann Mann ( talk ) 03:12, 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

Peter Trowbridge: Promotionally written. Fails the general and professor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , United States of America , and New York . UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning towards Keep . It may be worth doing a bit more reading about the subject's professional practice, academic standing, and publications. Landscape architecture (in the US, at least) was somewhat the poor-cousin of the field during much of the period the subject was in his prime. There might be more there than is readily apparent. Can we slow-walk this AfD and give me some time to follow-up? Also, would it be possible to add the "Deletion sorting" discussion link to Wikiproject Architecture? (If I knew how this was done, I'd happily do it myself.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 05:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Cornell emeritus professor acknowledged by their departmental history as having been significant in the expansion and acclaim of the department. Details of invited speaker talks at other departments give additional notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Far from my area but the co-authored book has 209 citations in GS, and so is likely to have reviews which might help flesh this article out. My experience writing about architects is that it's next to impossible to get free online sources for living ones, and the topic is extremely poorly covered in the Wikipedia Library. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I note that the (much missed) DGG declined a prod with the summary "very highly notable--chair of department at Cornell!". Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 04:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - The article is not notable, or not "famous" either. Although sources have been provided. Geko72290 ( talk ) 21:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : being a head of department in Cornell is probably equivalent to a named professorship in many institutions, which would satisfy WP:NPROF , and if he was a proper editor rather than just on the editorial board of Journal of landscape and urban planning, that would also be sufficient (I couldn't find out; journals never seem to list former editors). Overall, he certainly fulfils the spirit of NPROF as being influential and highly-regarded by his peers (as evidenced by his professional committee activities). Elemimele ( talk ) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep the sourcing remains poor but I agree that head of department at Cornell is roughly equivalent to a name professorship so he meets WP:NPROF . Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Charlie Gray: The Heymann criterion is to provide two reliable sources . Since he is said to have died at the age of 36, there is likely to be an obituary, but it isn't one of the sources here. Draftify as nominator. Provide six months to find sources. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and Pennsylvania . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've expanded a bit. Found SIGCOV in two book sources, including the "Rank and File" book published by one of the leading baseball historians, David Nemec . Cbl62 ( talk ) 10:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Has enough sourcing to qualify for GNG. Spanneraol ( talk ) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the expansion by Cbl62 . This would make a great DYK hook in my opinion: ... that six-fingered Charlie Gray started at pitcher in Major League Baseball ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Gray . Cbl62 ( talk ) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog ( talk ) 21:49, 19 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

Blood purity: If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , Social science , and Disambiguations . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH , and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics ( WP:TWODABS ), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term ( WP:DABMENTION ). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target, [29] [30] [31] [32] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws [33] [34] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal ( talk ) 15:08, 28 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! 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand . The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) * [ reply ] Note : see, e.g., France 24 , " Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement ", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice , " Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods' "; The Edge , " Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement ", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite ( talk ) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the phrase seems to be too ambiguous to redirect to any of the (several dissimilar and notable) topics that the term could describe. The disambiguation page should remain. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." The term "blood purity" is found in different wordings ("pure blooded" i.e.), essentially meaning the same thing. Whether talking about a race of people, or a breed of animal. Go with whatever usage the source does. We don't need a DAB page to tell us that. — Maile ( talk ) 21:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – there are multiple valid targets here, and we only need two where one is non-primary to warrant a DAB page. Fictional universe of Harry Potter and Limpieza de sangre on their own are enough to support a DAB. Content on the DAB page past that is another question, but it's not one for AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a disambiguation page. It may need a bit of revision to adhere to modern standards of dab pages, but that does not change the fact that it is a dab page. And it's a valid dab, since it could very easily point to either of Limpieza de sangre or Fictional universe of Harry Potter without either being an obvious WP:PTOPIC . As such, we should keep this page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a valid disambiguation page and serves a good purpose. Malinaccier ( talk ) 14:00, 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

Evides pubiventris: Kindly redirect to that NBV2010 ( talk ) 19:31, 10 June 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 June 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , what is the similar article? Esolo5002 ( talk ) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Ref 1 states that a basionym is Chrysodema pubiventris , but there is no article with that name, at least. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Organisms , and South Africa . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a valid species name, as shown at Ref 1. The existence of an article on a genus is not a reason to delete an article on a species. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep See Reference 1 on the article. ADifferentMan ( talk ) 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it is a directly observed species on its own, so meets WP:NBIOL . Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:36, 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

Braithwaite, Oklahoma: id=8430f8fd39bfe9cf13a0ce8085a1ff90 , but no evidence of anything else than a WP:GNIS fail. I did not find a single source in newspapers.com or Google other than a couple lists of stations like http://streamlinermemories.info/SF/SF63TTocr.pdf and this oil well test. No indication this was a notable community, if ever a community at all. The youtube video is not at all reliable. Reywas92 Talk 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma . Reywas92 Talk 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you think WP:GEOLAND would count for this considering it was a town at one point. It has a Google maps spot and a feature ID and that makes me think this town was at least notable at one point. I’d say if it existed, it counts. Seeing you provided evidence for the towns existence, it should be considered at least once notable. Keep DannonCool ( talk ) 20:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, first read WP:GNIS . Google maps does not have people who independently decide what labels to put on it, no one made an editorial decision determining this was a town and should have a label there: they just import data from the GNIS. Now where does GNIS come from? In 1978 (in this case), someone read the map I linked and recorded every name on it and gave them feature IDs. They also did not perform analysis on these features, and in many cases classified them as "populated place" even when (a) they weren't populated places at all and (b) that "populated place" is not actually a town, is just a neighborhood of sorts, or does not meet standards for a standalone article. Many times railroads had a station in rural areas and gave it a name and put it on the timetables, but again, that does not mean it was a town – sometimes the name was just a local landowner. GEOLAND does not say "all towns are notable", it says legally recognized places are presumed notable. But there having been a label on a map once does not mean it's legally recognized, is notable, or is even an actual town. We don't know that this existed! If you can find significant coverage about a town beyond some guy going to the ruins of the station, then we can talk. The same goes for any of the articles you made. Reywas92 Talk 21:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe we can talk about how it was listed as a Townsite , not a post office, in George Shirks “Oklahoma Place Names” book. https://books.google.com/books? id=KpAmsIFdutAC&pg=PA3&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false It was definitely a town. Keep DannonCool ( talk ) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A townsite isn't quite the same as a town either. Reywas92 Talk 16:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Explain? It was a townsite with a post office. I still think we should keep it because it was a townsite. 72.222.91.196 ( talk ) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry. I was logged out. DannonCool ( talk ) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm seeing a ton of articles announcing the new town of Braithwaite, Oklahoma, in 1907 newspapers on Newspapers.com. This was a platted community of at least 28 blocks with its own school district, stores, post office, rail station, etc. While there is no community now, and the school district was dissolved thirty years later, notability is not temporary , and there is coverage of Braithwaite in local and statewide newspapers and books. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HEY. Djflem ( talk ) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Håvar Bauck: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck . I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive ( talk ) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So this user claims a COI, but doesn't say with who, has just started their account, and has simply copied the notability language. Drmies ( talk ) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Article is clearly written in WP:NPOV . He is also a recognized voice of the travel industry in Kenya. Does the nominator consider major sources like Nation Media, Capital Business or BusinessDay ( WP:NGRS ) not reliable because they are African? ANairobian ( talk ) 09:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Techcrunch is an obviously reputable and reliable source. Skift and Phocuswire (by Northstar Travel Group ) are reliable international travel publications. Daily Nation and Business Day are two of the most reputable newspapers in Kenya and Nigeria respectively. Capital Business is also widely recognized as a reliable Kenyan business news source. Ventureburn (by Memeburn ) is a major Pan-African entrepreneurship news source. 197.254.70.206 ( talk ) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns of canvassing. One account was registered after this AfD had begun, the other account is also only about two weeks old, and the third is an IP editor. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nobody asked me to write or vote here. I'm a new editor, but I've been observing and learning for a while. I came across the AfD in WP:KE and recognized the name because I've read about him, read several of his articles, and also seen him speaking at conferences. Definitely notable in my opinion. I personally don't think the article reads like an advertisement, but since at least two editors disagree, I took the liberty to make some small edits, toning down the language a bit and moving some supporting references immediately next to the parts about "first in Africa". Hope that does it! ANairobian ( talk ) 19:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED with churnalism, press releases, self-published works and interviews. Does not appear to have any reliable sourcing . Can those seeking to keep this provide two reliable sources? Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm expecting that this gets relisted again to be honest. I have similar concerns to you. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of these sources used are in reputable publications, which should be fairly easy to verify, e.g several news stories in Finansavisen , a leading Norwegian business daily ( Article 1 , Article 2 ); Techcrunch ( Article ); Ventureburn ( Article 1 , Article 2 ); Capital Business ( Article ); Business Day ( Article ); Phocuswire ( Article );   The Exchange ( Article 1 , Article 2 ) 185.128.9.106 ( talk ) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1 is fine and a RS, the rest are iffy. I'm not sure we're at notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Too many promo sources, hardly any in RS. A Gsearch brings up the usual social media, venture funding PR items, not much in Gnews. I can't find enough SIGCOV that isn't PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep few articles found notable but more to the company and as founder I find this one notable Norway article which is pretty much reliable, other 2 that discusses the founders can be generally accepted as secondary source, since company that he’s founded and of CEO has article over years. HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Make a policy based argument. It doesn't matter whether the company has an article or not, as notability is not inherited. WP:NINI Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 11:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for NINI I didn’t know about it yet. I’mm gonna make my comment in an hour based on NINI. HarshalDhotre06 ( talk ) 12:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While WP:NINI is an important policy, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT also state that artists and authors may derive notability from notable works. Wikipedia lacks elaborate notability policies for entrepreneurship, but it would make sense that people who have built notable companies (being a founder is much more than a mere association with a business) should derive some notability from their work. 196.207.188.98 ( talk ) 12:13, 27 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, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The editor did an amazing job writing the article with respect to neutrality, but one of the sources in particular concerns. This one [19] . Pretty strange! For a journalistic sit down interview, I would have expected a question and answer, with the questions on the article like this [20] . However, the article seems like it was written by the subject himself and handed to the publisher for printing. The article was evidently not written by the journalist profiled (hence the subject's use of single person throughout), and no sign of the journalist's input other than the brief intro. Tamsier ( talk ) 03:51, 27 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

Alex Muscat (politician): Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As a member of a national parliament, Muscat is automatically notable. I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain, I also made some changes to this article. DreamRimmer ( talk ) 10:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:NPOL . Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sorry to WP:PILEON but this was a miss, the person meets our guideline for WP:NPOL . Lightburst ( talk ) 19:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NPOL . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW . Subject passes criterion #! of WP:NPOL . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as member of a national parliament. Somebody can close this debate now. Carrite ( talk ) 10:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2017 Tanay bus accident: No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months . A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion . I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel ( talk ) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines . Lenticel ( talk ) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Per nominator TheNuggeteer ( talk ) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb ( talk ) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING , accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted. Hariboneagle927 ( talk ) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present) ; Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my ! vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other ! voters are well aware. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb ( talk ) 06:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:LASTING per Hariboneagle's and Gidonb's arguments. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:18, 15 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! 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfies WP:EVENT . Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 13:48, 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

Flags used in Russian-occupied Ukraine: No reliable source significantly covers this subject. The article is based on a collection of non-neutral, non-independent primary sources, aggregated by editorial WP:SYNTH , and some blogs or hobby websites, none covering the entire subject. No evidence that this can be improved.   — Michael Z . 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Russia , and Ukraine .   — Michael Z . 14:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Maybe a name change to "List of flags used in the Russia-Ukrainian war", however I see it as being merely a list that needs a citation overhaul. Here are a few sources I found: 1 , 2 . Cheers, Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition ( talk )! 03:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source is about historical flags, with the single exception of the DNR flag. The second is about the Flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army . They do not demonstrate that GNG support keeping this subject.   — Michael Z . 14:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . And I support the renaming proposal. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is the only page where we can keep these flags. Unless we make a "List of Flags of Kherson Oblast" etc etc solely for the purpose of transferring over the contents of this article. Scu ba ( talk ) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Such a list would still have to satisfy WP:LISTN . Keeping these flags is a task for a hobbyist blog, not for the encyclopedia, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY .   — Michael Z . 14:01, 19 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

Eleven Cities Cycling Tour: Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Netherlands . UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article could be expanded from the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A major event, over 100 years of history, 15,000 participants. Plenty of coverage to be found. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A central Dutch cycling event that meets the WP:GNG with the greatest of ease. Not sure how this could have been nominated. gidonb ( talk ) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

DarkwebSTREAMER: Two of the four sources are the same author, and the other two are heavily interview quotes. My preferred result here is draftify , which I'd do unilaterally except that the article is older than 90d per WP:DRAFTIFY . ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Australia . ~ A412 talk! 05:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Probably should have done it myself in January. Instead I paced a source analysis on the article talk (does not meet GNG) and replaced the notability banner that the creator removed. No new sources forthcoming and I think it is WP:TOOSOON . Per that essay, draftify would be a suitable WP:ATD . Failing agreement to draftify, this would be a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The page creator has now added these addtional sources to the page. [1] [2] [3] Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Despite adding 3 sources, there's still nothing in the article on the page, of course. Deletion is not for cleanup, but this is a page that really isn't ready to be out of draft. Looking at the three added sources, nothing in the PCGamer or RPG site articles really demonstrates notability. A mention in the New York Times is more significant. It is mentioned in the context of an article about a number of games that are mourning the Internet's olden times. As such, it is just an example, and again, I remain unconvinced of notability here. But I think it definitely suggest potential. I still think this is WP:TOOSOON but think it is good evidence that notability may be attained, and that working on the article in draft would not be time wasted. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think [13] [14] [15] are WP:THREE reliable, independent sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshifter talk 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first of those is from Kotaku. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources articles published in Kotaku from 2023 onward should generally be avoided. So that is not a WP:RS . The other two I discuss above, but PC Gamer is writing about what is in an in-development game. Nothing in that speaks of notability. The New York Times talks about a trend in games and thus mentions this one in that context, which shows notability for something but not really this game. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The VG projct isn't completely prohibiting new Kotaku articles. Articles post-2023 can be used depending on context. I don't see any suggestion of content farming or AI in that article, for example. Skyshifter talk 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, in context then: This page is about a game that has not even been released yet . We are very certainly in WP:TOOSOON territory to establish the reception of a game that no one can even play. And if no one can play this game yet, how did the Kotaku writer gain access? That doesn't look like an independent review either. This page is essentially promotional and is based on promotional content. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles about to-be-released games exist all the time. Of course we can't write a reception section yet, but this isn't a requirement. Skyshifter talk 12:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment : I think this now crosses the bar to keep; newly added sources are good, and I think in particular the New York Times source demonstrates impact beyond "here's a preview for a game". ~ A412 talk! 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ "Video Games Are Mourning the Old, Weird, Clunky Internet - The New York Times" . web.archive.org . 2024-02-06 . Retrieved 2024-03-17 . ^ Chamberlain, Paige. "Darkweb Streamer Preview - Can you earn new viewers and keep your sanity? | RPG Site" . www.rpgsite.net . Retrieved 2024-03-17 . ^ published, Jody Macgregor (2023-11-30). "Horror game darkwebSTREAMER contains an infinite procedurally generated internet and that sure sounds horrifying to me" . PC Gamer . Retrieved 2024-03-17 . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Maybe there is some argument for TOOSOON. However, once it's created (with sources meeting GNG), in the absence of a guideline that says a notable videogame in development but not released is unsuitable for inclusion, it's "TOOLATE" to delete, in my view — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 24 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

Ataska Mercado: In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources, apart from this review in the Manila Standard . Being a non-winning contestant on a reality TV series seems to be her main claim to fame, and her film and music careers haven't really taken off yet. WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Philippines . Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She rose to fame 2024 as VivaMax actress which is a famous app in the Philippines that shows adult content nationwide where she is recognized in her movies. See Vivamax app background and reach here: https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/08/25/entertainment-lifestyle/show-times/vivamax-hits-600000-subscribers-no-1-on-google-play-in-first-six-months/1812190/amp See below references of her notable vivamax app movies performances: https://www.pep.ph/pepalerts/cabinet-files/175244/vivamax-stars-joey-reyes-a734-20230816? s=d765687h8kgrf9g0km65269jeu https://journalnews.com.ph/ataska-leaves-wholesome-image-for-a-dream/ See references below that must be used as motable instead of the voice kids but it made her a household name ehich is often referenced as the start of her career (see here as one of the many: https://mb.com.ph/2022/10/17/audiojunkie-sarah-geronimo-as-disco-queen-ataska-kyle-raphael-adda-cstr-chrstn-chelsea-ronquillo-and-the-real-kushin-drop/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.97.141 ( talk ) 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with those sources you've cited, like the ones cited in the article, is that they're either unreliable news blogs or only passing mentions in WP:Reliable sources . What's needed is significant coverage in reliable WP:Secondary sources to show notability. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a reliable source as an active showbiz personality in the Philippines: http://www.vivaartistsagency.ph/project/ataska/ Pxsheng25 ( talk ) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for logging back in. It's a reliable source, but not a WP:Secondary source. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See this: https://www.viberate.com/artist/ataska/ Other article that make her recognizble is under her birth name ATASCHA CHLOE MERCADO: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/230110/whats-with-annie-being-staged-in-manila-in-18-year-intervals/amp/ 120.29.97.141 ( talk ) 09:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please log back in. viberate.com is unreliable, and the inquirer.net reference is a passing mention. I hope you now see the pattern. Rather than posting references here, you're welcome to improve the article. Wikishovel ( talk ) 09:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will help improve the article Kuyacontributor ( talk ) 10:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changes now applied to improve the page and claim notability Kuyacontributor ( talk ) 07:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:SIGCOV . References provided above are to Mercado's talent agency which manage and market her career. It therefore lacks indpendence and cannot be considered reliable. No significant coverage found in independent secondary sources. Fails notability criteria. 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:SIGCOV due to new Known For section on Infobox Kuyacontributor ( talk ) 00:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) — Kuyacontributor ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep . Link sources below claim notability for this individual which is outside Mercado's talent agency and from verified pages that are part of Wikipedia. Articles below are not a passing mention and from reliable sources news. Spotify [1] People's Journal [2] Abante [3] Manila Bulletin [4] DWNU [5] Showbiz Unlimited [6] Phoenix14344 ( talk ) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Phoenix14344 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] References ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/5WXOc5RknE9PY8ie8plLvx ^ https://journalnews.com.ph/ataska-from-sweetie-teenybop-singer-to-a-daring-star/#gsc.tab=0 ^ https://tonite.abante.com.ph/2024/02/21/ataska-perfect-kasalo/ ^ https://mb.com.ph/2022/10/17/audiojunkie-sarah-geronimo-as-disco-queen-ataska-kyle-raphael-adda-cstr-chrstn-chelsea-ronquillo-and-the-real-kushin-drop/ ^ https://www.wish1075.com/young-charmer-ataska-returns-brand-new-single-fall-love/ ^ https://www.showbizportal.net/2023/11/former-wholesome-singer-ataska-plays.html? m=1 Please note that Spotify is not a WP:Reliable source , nor showbizportal.net (unconnected to Showbiz Unlimited). The journalnews.com.ph and wish1075 sources are short interviews with her, and interviews are a WP:Primary source. The mb.com.ph article mentions her briefly in a weekly singles roundup. Abante is a lurid tabloid: please note that Wikipedia also has articles on sources like the WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:NYPOST , but references from those aren't acceptable sources, especially for WP:Biographies of living persons . Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per pxsheng25 she is an accredited adult film actress in the Philippines. SW DG 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SWDG : can you please explain what you mean by "accredited", and how that makes her notable enough by the Wikipedia guidelines listed in the nomination? Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] by accredited I simply mean that she is known and recognized for her work. I do understand you consider nearly all above sources to be primary or 'passing mentions' however a strong argument could be made that the manila times article referencing VivaMax's success at 600K downloads and being #1 on the play store could be attributed to Ataska's success in her career, thus establishing notability. SW DG 19:14, 10 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! 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's true that the editors need to be more selective about reliable sources, and the article could certainly be improved, but that's the point: the article could be improved . It can't be if it's deleted. The AfD lister asked for improvement and it appears to be happening. rspεεr ( talk ) 18:54, 18 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

United Airlines Flight 1175: I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to: The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine. Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike , it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL , or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden ( talk ) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Dfadden ( talk ) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , California , and Hawaii . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018. The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration ( WP:LASTING ) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event ( WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later. Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175: "NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii" . Honolulu Star-Advertiser . 2018-03-07. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . Morales, Manolo (2019-08-23). "United pilot recalls averting airline disaster" . KHON-TV . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . O'Connor, John (2020-06-06). "United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident" . Guam Daily Post . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . "NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii" . KHON-TV . 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . Vasile, Zachary F. (2020-07-03). "NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade" . Journal Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018" . CNN . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . Mayer, Erick Haw (2021-02-27). "En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor" [In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure]. Transponder 1200 (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/ : "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR." Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-03-19). "United's Recent Engine Failure Spooked Denver. It's Happened Before" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 2021-03-19 . Retrieved 2024-05-19 . Parvaneh, Fred (2022-04-15). "Captain Behnam, Pilot Who Prevented 2018 Plane Crash, Tells All" . Kayhan Life . Archived from the original on 2024-05-19 . Retrieved 2024-05-19 . Additional sources that provide fewer words of coverage: Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 2021-02-25 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights." Siemaszko, Corky (2021-02-22). "Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history" . NBC News . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections." Levin, Alan (2021-02-21). "Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan" . Bloomberg News . Archived from the original on 2021-02-28 . Retrieved 2021-02-28 . There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankyou Cunard for pinging participants from the previous nomination - I did leave messages for the previous nominator and article creator on their respective talk pages as well. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is only one factor in determining notability per WP:EVENT . The context of the lasting coverage needs to be taken into consideration against all applicable policies and guidelines. It's less about how long the media coverage lasts for and much more about whether that coverage actually establishes the lasting significance of a particular event. Just because reliable sources exist and continue to be published, doesn't mean the subject merits a stand-alone wikipedia article. There are clear guidelines on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in the policy on original research which explicitly states: " Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. " Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports . Considering this, the sources provided above are mostly primary, and while they may be reliable and independent, most provide little evidence of notability for this incident. They do not meet the threshold to pass WP:LASTING or WP:EVENT because: 1. Is reliable and factual, but is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that does not provide any analysis on the incident - it just reports what was in the NTSB's preliminary report, which is an example of WP:ROUTINE . 2. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS , this article consists of an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Primary sources rarely establish notability. 3. An individual passenger filing a lawsuit as a result of distress/minor injury an in-flight incident is not inherently notable and is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence. If this lawsuit were a successful class action that determined the airline/manufacturer was grossly negligent, an argument could be made that the lawsuit established notability. As it is, the article is an example of sensationalism , which WP:EVENT states is a poor basis for encyclopedic merit. 4. Is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS . There is also no new significant information included in this source. It that just states the final report is due to be released later that week and restates the summary of the preliminary report which is referenced elsewhere - again fails WP:ROUTINE 5. Another routine primary source that reports on the findings of the NTSB final report without conducting any analysis 6. Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents, just points out that there were similarities. To draw any conclusions that the modes of failure were actually related based on this article would not meet WP:NOR . Thus it does not demonstrate the significance of United 1175 that is required to meet WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING 7. This is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS . As I am relying on Google translate to read the text, it is difficult for me to critique. However based on the translation appears to be about the 2021 Denver incident with a mention of United Flight 1175 being only recounting the basic facts of the incident and that authorities will investigate determine if the incidents are linked which might indicate a broader issue with PW4000 engines. 8. I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series of uncontained fan blade failures of Pratt and Whitney and CFM International engines. It is likely this article would demonstrate each of the incidents discussed are notable enough to be mentioned in the articles for the respective engine models. However, notability is not inherited . Eg. The idea that that this particular incident qualifies for a stand-alone article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subject (ongoing issues with the engines themselves) is not actually proof of its notability! 9. Like 2, is an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Despite being published four years after the accident, it also provides no new facts or analysis that would demonstrate lasting significance. The three other sources that provide less depth also do provide some level of analysis (although 3. is relatively trivial). However once again, that analysis focusses on a series of separate incidents involving failures of PW4000 engines. As above, I would argue that the actually notable subject being analysed here is the mode of failure of the engine, thus it should be discussed in the article on the engine, rather than a standalone article on this incident. If we are able to cut the article back to just the information supported by sources 7, 8 and the 3 additional brief mentions, I'd support a merge of this content into the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 article, or a redirect to the same target. Dfadden ( talk ) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I consider all of these sources to contribute to the event meeting Wikipedia:Notability (events) . You wrote of source 6 "Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents" and of source 8 "I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series". Even if all the other sources are disregarded (something I would disagree with), these two sources by themselves are sufficient for United Airlines Flight 1175 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events) . Regarding the WP:NOTINHERITED assertion about source 8, the essay is about Wikipedia editors claiming a subject has inherited notability when that subject has not been covered by reliable sources. This is not the case here since the subject has been amply covered by reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard ( talk ) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) participants: SportingFlyer ( talk · contribs ), Pontificalibus ( talk · contribs ), Dhaluza ( talk · contribs ), StonyBrook ( talk · contribs ), SunDawn ( talk · contribs ), Sandstein ( talk · contribs ), Ambrosiawater ( talk · contribs ), Oakshade ( talk · contribs ), Scope creep ( talk · contribs ), SmokeyJoe ( talk · contribs ), Tigerdude9 ( talk · contribs ), and Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs ). Cunard ( talk ) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was pinged by Cunard. The article has reliable sources to meaningful content, dating three years after the event. WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING are passed by ongoing coverage of three years. Ongoing coverage cannot be expected to mean endlessly never ending coverage. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 10:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection to User:Dfadden ‘s merge ideas, if properly done, per WP:Editing policy , but mergers, especially complex mergers, should not be done through AfD. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this is a bit of an WP:IAR delete because of the sources, but this was basically a completely run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered. I expect this to be kept given our sourcing rules, but we generally do not keep articles on flight disasters where no one was hurt and nothing important happened as a result unless they were extremely unusual or well covered (the BA flight flying into ash near Indonesia, for instance). Just because we can source an article does not mean we have to have an article on the topic. I do expect this to be kept, and I almost sat this one out as a result, but common sense dictates this really wasn't that important of an aviation event. SportingFlyer T · C 17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “ run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered” is a self contradiction, if you accept that Wikipedia covers things that others cover, in reliable sources, where “covers” implies secondary source content, not mere repetition. Run-of-the-mill is like churnalism which is characterised by repetition. The three years ongoing sources are not churnalism. This is no standout article, but it is good enough, and could be a good example of the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 06:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The link you have provided to secondary source is a general article. Wikipedia has a policy on how WP:SECONDARY sources are interpreted and used to establish notability. The majority of news reports about contemporary events are actually considered primary sources unless they contain detailed analysis or are written retrospectively and look at the impacts of an event over time. This is covered in the policy WP:PRIMARYNEWS . By the standard of these policies (and arguments in AfDs should be supported by actual policy), it is nowhere near as clear cut simple as saying its covered in reliable news outlets, therefore it meets GNG. Things like interviews with the pilot are most definitely NOT secondary sources in this context. Also, you have misrepresented what churnalism means in regards to WP:MILL - the first line of that policy states " Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest. " Churnalism on the other hand is " a pejorative term for a form of journalism in which instead of original reported news, pre-packaged material such as press releases or stories provided by news agencies are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media. " Eg. repetition of press releases or mirrors of the same work under different mastheads. These are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Churnalism is not even mentioned in the policy WP:MILL (although it is mentioned in WP:RS ). Dfadden ( talk ) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. The article won’t be deleted because it meets the Wikipedia-notability threshold. You need to decide whether you want to argue for deletion, or for a merger, because they are not compatible. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 08:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because sources cover an event or a topic does not mean we need to have an article on the topic. The Aviation Herald lists this as an incident as opposed to an accident or crash, which are generally notable, and the lasting coverage is basically just a mention that it happened. There's also bias involved here - because two of these incidents occurred on American planes, there's more coverage available to Wikipedia than for the exact same Japanese incident, which does not have an article. As I said, I do expect this to be kept because people will see coverage and stop there, but this event really does not fit the mold of the types of aviation accidents which we are likely to have articles on, and as such I am making a common sense delete vote. SportingFlyer T · C 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It has enough sources, over enough time, to pass the GNG. Passing the GNG does not mean it needs its own article, agreed. It could be merged somewhere, as Dfadden suggests. Merging is not achieved by deleting at AfD. AfD is the wrong venue for merging, especially complicated merges. SmokeyJoe ( talk ) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no problem with a merge, and AfDs can result in the merge of a page as you well know. SportingFlyer T · C 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the argument and WP:LASTING coverage provided by Cunard. If it doesn't have lasting impact, why would CNN give the incident in-depth coverage over three years later? [145] and why would the FAA mandate new inspection processes based on the incident? Oakshade ( talk ) 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing particularly notable about the FAA issuing an airworthiness directive to require changes to inspection intervals as a result of a mechanical failure! That's just an example of an organisation that is responsible for risk mitigation doing its job to provide additional layers of safety. Cracks were missed at the previous routine inspection - so a simple way of addressing that is to require engineers to look more often. Revision of inspection intervals happens nearly every time there is an unexpected mechanical failure of an aircraft component that is otherwise maintained in line with the manufacturers guidance. If this had been an Emergency Airworthiness Directive , then yeah, it would be notable like Qantas Flight 72 , another non-fatal incident. Dfadden ( talk ) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unfortunately, the media loves to hype up and place undue weight on negative news, and aviation incidents are a common target. News spikes surrounding negative aviation stories have been increasing over the last few decades and are to be expected even for the most mundane of incidents. By triggering negative emotional responses, this can distort our perceptions of how significant an incident really is - as was demonstrated by van der Meer et al. (2019) [146] Dfadden ( talk ) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am pinged by Cunard as well. The action of FAA to release an airworthiness directive changing how the engine is inspected made the incident to be quite notable. The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. The article also mentioned that Boeing changed the design of the engine by strengthening its covers, another proof that this is not just "another accident". A routine accident won't spark an international grounding of aircraft and a redesign of the aircraft. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. I think you are confusing this incident with United Airlines Flight 328 . The Boeing 777-200 was only temporarily grounded following UA328. The airworthiness directive that the FAA issued was only mandating changes to inspection intervals to prevent mechanical failures. ADs are commonly issued by the FAA are not as urgent as EADs . In August 2020, Boeing provided an update to the FAA on its work to also strengthen 777 engine covers. The manufacturer told regulators it had decided to redesign and make replacement covers with which airlines could retrofit their fleets, according to the FAA document. The engine redesign was probably done to reduce damage an aircraft can possibly sustain following an uncontained engine failure, so not exactly an engine problem but was done as a safety feature. And according to the WSJ source, airlines could retrofit their fleet, so this redesign is an option, not a necessity. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 13:55, 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

Lone Star Lake (disambiguation): It's currently a WP:ONEOTHER page, so disambiguation can be better handled with a hatnote. - Eureka Lott 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations , Kansas , and Wisconsin . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ EurekaLott : I'm wondering what the hatnote will say: For the similarly named lake in Wisconsin, see List of lakes of Wisconsin#Burnett County ? There is nothing really at the list page except for an unsourced unlinked one-entry mention. We might as well omit the hatnote. Jay 💬 15:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a good point. The Wisconsin list doesn't have any meaningful information about that Lone Star Lake. It might be better to eliminate the hatnote entirely. - Eureka Lott 17:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added three more to the list and sourced them, as well as sourced the original two. I know you want article links, but this at least illustrates that perhaps a dab is worth looking into. Texas being the "Lone Star State" with 254 counties, the possibilities on multiple lakes of that name are pretty good. — Maile ( talk ) 21:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are clearly multiple places named Lone Star Lake—it's just that we only have information about one of them. Entries on a disambiguation page without links to further information aren't helpful to readers. We do have some set index articles about lakes , but this is (obviously) a disambiguation page, not a set index. - Eureka Lott 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) And I've removed them per WP:DABREF and WP:DABMENTION . If you can incorporate information on these lakes into an existing article, or create a new article, then an entry can be added. -- T avix ( talk ) 21:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reclassify (and rename) as a set index on lakes (like others in Category:Set index articles on lakes , e.g. Bachelor Lake , which also has only one standalone article listed). Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference there is that all entries pass DABMENTION even though the mentions at most respective articles are unsourced (different issue). Jay 💬 05:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:26, 24 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! 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, what about Bass Lake (Ontario) , Bear Lake (Ontario) , Bear Lake (Oregon) , Lake Agnes (Minnesota) , etc.? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:17, 31 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! 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with Clarityfiend . Convert to SIA and add references. What would be the new title? Jay 💬 07:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of lakes named Lone Star Lake : There are several entries in the category similarly named, e.g. List of lakes named Fish Lake . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While I don't want to relist this discussion a third time, except for the nominator, it's not clear to me what participants want from this closure among the limited options that are available. If you want to "reclassify" or rewrite this article, you are going to have to voice support for Keeping it first. After it is Kept, then changes can be made through editing but first we have to see support for a Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : I would see Keep as an implicit vote for Reclassify and Rename. Jay 💬 05:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Jay . That's pretty damn clear.  ;-) L iz Read! Talk! 05:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a start to a set index article as suggested above with good examples of standard practice for identically named lakes. I think there are other geographic features for which SIAs exist as well. — siro χ o 05:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And just to make it easier to notice for others, @ Maile66 has a revision here [18] that is a start of a set index article. — siro χ o 05:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and transform into a set index article per above discussion. The revision mentioned by @ Siroxo seems like a good start. Above comments demonstrate precedence for this solution. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 15:55, 13 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

List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games: Summerslam2022 ( talk ) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Summerslam2022 ( talk ) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - every entry is sourced, so I'm not entirely sure what the complaint is there. There's also long-standing precedent for "list of cancelled (platform) games" list articles to exist so I find the entire nomination puzzling. It's also a valid WP:SIZESPLIT because of the massive size of the List of Nintendo Switch games articles, which keeps getting split because it keeps hitting literal size maxes for articles. Im also confused conceptually how a list of games that will never be commercially released be a catalogue violation? Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is well-sourced, it meets LISTN, and the NOTCATALOG part of the nomination makes no sense. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete These are games released on other systems that they wanted to release on the Switch, but had problems and decided not to. You can't list every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems, that would be long and pointless. D r e a m Focus 20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a misrepresentation of what this article is. It's not "every single game that was released on one system but not ported to all systems". It's got established and specific inclusion criteria. It only lists games that have a reliable source that verifies a game was announced for the Switch, but was later cancelled. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The references I clicked on are just quoting press releases and making brief mentions that it won't be ported to the Switch as planned. Is there a single item on the list with significant coverage? D r e a m Focus 00:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:VG/S -approved sources commonly write dedicated articles about game cancellations. Like Polygon on Midnight Suns or IGN on Final Fantasy 15 or Gamespot on Hypersports . Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are not significant coverage, just quoting game designers or game companies announcing they aren't porting them. Some articles contain mentions of other things in them, but the content about a game being cancelled for porting to the Switch is not significant. D r e a m Focus 02:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're literally articles dedicated to the subject, with the Switch cancellation making the headline each time. That's not a passing mention, that's significant coverage. What is going on here? We've interacted at AFD for decades at this point now. You never hold articles to such a insanely high sourcing standard, nor would you tolerate someone trying to pull this on you, so I'm completely confused as to why you've decided to move the goalpost for this particular list. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just can't imagine anyone wanting to read this article. It seems pointless. If you want to add a sentence or two to the game articles as to why they weren't ported to the Switch, that might make sense. Does it matter if any games were announced then canceled, or just not planned to begin with? Should we have a list of games that were ported to every other modern port other than Nintendo Switch because of its limitations or other reasons? Not all companies release a press statement for something like this since its pointless. Web only news sources have to fill content so sometimes a few sentence announcement and make it into a very short article, doesn't really count as significant coverage. D r e a m Focus 20:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of that is a valid deletion rationale. That's one giant WP:IDONTLIKEIT violation. We don't delete things just because someone personally doesn't find it of interest. I was recently bored out of my mind reading the stag beetle article. That doesn't give me a valid AFD nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Nintendo Switch games Don't really see a reason this has to be standalone. Surely cancelled games can also be featured under the overall game list, but marked as cancelled rather than having a release date. Having a list solely for cancelled games feels like an airing of grievances from angered Switch owners. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The list of Switch games has already been WP:SIZESPLIT five times over, and is already headed for more. I also wrote all the "notes", and it was not from a place of grievance, but from a place of fascination in the video game development process. There's no negatively there (if it comes off that way, please, anyone tweak it, that was not the intent.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there are lists on Wikipedia that are literally just single letters such as Index of Windows games so I still don't see the problem. If it merits it, the list of Switch games can be split along the same lines. I don't really see where the game development angle comes in though, because most of them have barely any insight into any special reason for cancellation besides "it was too hard" or "it wasn't profitable". 100% cancelled games often have interesting insight into "what could have been" but these are just ports of otherwise released games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You "don't see a problem" with SIZESPLITing 26 unsourced Windows games lists but do have a problem with splitting out one game list that entails sourced commentary for every entry? I'm struggling to follow your philosophy on lists here... Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm entirely befuddled by the notion that it's a problem that this list of cancelled games is limited to only games cancelled for budget issues and games cancelled for technical issues. Should there be games cancelled for political issues? Games cancelled for fun? The only third thing I could think of would be games moved from Switch to the next platform, but obviously, that's not something that could exist at the moment. Unless you're taking issue with the existence of all list of cancelled video games, I don't see what the issue is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was puzzled by that too. "Difficulties in programming" and "difficulties in budget" are some of the most relevant and important aspects in the gaming making industry. And it's a list, so it's not like it's the place to write up a full multi-paragraph detailed account of things. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep All games are sourced, and it meets LISTN. I see no reason to delete this list. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It does not have "few" sources, it has as many sources as is necessary for the size of the list. Merging is also not viable, as the list of Nintendo Switch games is already large as it is. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Every entry sourced, NOTCATALOG doesn't apply here. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 17:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep ; Not seeing why this was nominated? The article is sourced and the article servers a purpose. How does NOTCATALOG apply here? Negative MP1 18:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing and passes WP:LISTN as a result. User:Let'srun 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as others have explained. It's well-sourced – I have no idea what the nominator meant by "hardly any sources" – and the only other arguments for deletion presented thus far seem to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT . - Revolutionary girl euclid ( talk ) 19:58, 4 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

Meitiv incidents: The last time this was discussed was 8 years ago, and at that time there was no consensus. But I don't see where there's sustained notability for this topic appropriate for an article. Rockstone Send me a message! 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions . Rockstone Send me a message! 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 03:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] merge to free range parenting , very selectively. Really the only sentence from this that needs to be added to the target is the one about establishing state policy. The article as it stands is yet another argument for not writing articles immediately so we can find out if the topic has any staying power. This oen did not, as there is almost nothing about it after the event occurred. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to have become a case study amongst academics, thereby meeting WP:PERSISTENCE / WP:EVENT . This is a non-exhaustive search to demonstrate how commonly this case is covered. Academic book from 2019 (4 years after) with SIGCOV [17] Journal article from 2017, a couple years after the incidents with about 700 words of SIGCOV, (Wiley journal via TWL, [18] Journal from early 2016 with ~260 words, about 8 months after last incident. [19] Law review journal article from 2016, more than a year after the incidents with a few hundred words (via TWL) [20] Law journal article from 2018 (~3 years after) with some SIGCOV (via TWL) [21] — siro χ o 09:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning merge to free range parenting , but otherwise keep. Siroxo has demonstrated an argument for notability, but a merge is probably still the best option. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:38, 2 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! 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo , and I do not think that a merge to Free Range Parenting is appropriate. The article is not great, but neither is it uninformative, misleading nor NN, and there is significant room to grow it. This is notable as a case in and of itself (or, technically, set of cases/themselves), not simply as an instance of FRP. For example, the actions of the local protective services may be as significant a case study as the purported neglect they so zealously and destructively pursued. The legal waffling of the various governments both adds notability and presents another dimension in which to enhance the article. It's sad that it has been left to languish, but that seems a poor reason to delete it. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 01:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This should have been mentioned in nomination statement but the previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meitiv family . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per rationales given above, this is a very notable and famous incident. ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources listed above by Siroxo, subject passes WP:EVENT and WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hanna T. Rose: — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 16:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - these sources are sufficient. Why are you putting this up for AfD when the subject is in both the Jewish Women's Archive and had an NYT obituary? Kazamzam ( talk ) 19:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The NY Times obit opens by saying that she "gained international recognition in her 41 years at the Brooklyn Museum for innovative work on the museum's role in education and in the community". It's clear from this source and the Jewish Women's Archive that she meets criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO . Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 20:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Kazamzam and Chocmilk. I would WP:AGF though, seeing that nom has been working in deletion. Stony Brook babble 20:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely; I'm not familiar with the Jewish Women's Archive but it does look like a tertiary source so can understand why the nominator discounted it. It cites the NY Times obituary and something called "WWWIA 7"; not sure what that is but if someone knows it could be good to see whether that's something to add to the article. Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That tertiary source is the Encyclopedia of Jewish Women - encyclopedia coverage is typically a pass of WP:ANYBIO #3, so shouldn't be discounted. -- asilvering ( talk ) 18:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Two NYT sources are solid, the rest help show notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , no valid reasons for deletion as a quick BEFORE identifies other items to add. Also, NYT makes a clear case for notability as is their choice to run an obit. Star Mississippi 21:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Two sources are sufficient for a new article. In fact, one source works if it's a new article still being worked on. This looks like the first article for a new Wikipedian. The basics are there, along with sources. Let's not bite the newbies, please. — Maile ( talk ) 01:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nom focuses in the intro on references, while by WP:NEXIST they should have focused on sources. It's a major misunderstanding of how notability works. Moreover, two valid references are also sufficient for the WP:GNG . In conclusion, no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. gidonb ( talk ) 03:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Why was this even nominated? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow Keep : Was created by a new editor using bare URL links, which can subject an article to an AFD in error by new page patrol folks, but notability not in doubt. -- Milowent • has spoken 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow Keep . Clearly meets GNG, consensus to keep is basically unanimous. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 16:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Moonlight Lady (anime): A previous PROD was removed when 2 "sources" were found and listed in the edit summary. Only 1 of those is a review, the other is a passing mention. Nothing else was found in a BEFORE. Donald D23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Anime and manga , Japan , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Can't find any sources either. Despite the sources found below, I remain unconvinced that reviews by themselves are capable of establishing notability, no matter how many there are, and especially considering they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc. Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) ; edited 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Waxworker ( talk ) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has a few reviews: "Moonlight Lady Vol. #1 - Mania.com" . Mania . 2012-02-06 . Retrieved 2023-04-24 . "Shelf Life - Bambuu Saga" . Anime News Network . Retrieved 2023-04-24 . Clements, Jonathan (2015). The anime encyclopedia : a century of Japanese animation . Helen McCarthy (3 ed.). Berkeley, California. p. 548-549. ISBN 978-1-61172-909-2 . OCLC 904144859 . {{ cite book }} : CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link ) Jumpytoo Talk 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Internet Archive link to the book Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First review is user-generated. I'm 66% sure the second review is user-generated. The third review is not a review, just a summary. Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how you are so sure they are user-generated; both Mania and Anime News Network are both listed at WP:ANIME/RS and are well-known in the anime field for their editorial oversight, particularly in Anime News Network's case. Link20XX ( talk ) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was misled by the "submit your own review" link at the bottom in the case of Anime News Network. Mania had a lot of stuff on the front on "making an account to contribute to the encyclopedia". I stand corrected (and wow, WPANIME really likes the Anime News Network) . Snowmanonahoe ( talk ) 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding your comment above, WP:GNG does not mandate that sources not specialize in a specific field, so I don't understand why they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc matters. While there is something like that in WP:AUD , that is part of WP:NCORP , which doesn't apply to this article since it is not about a corporation. Regarding Anime News Network, while it is true that anime/manga articles frequently cite it, it is just because it happens to be really the only major English anime publication, unfortunately. Link20XX ( talk ) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; in addition to the above sources from Jumpytoo, I also found this review in THEM Anime Reviews , which is also a reliable source. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources found by other AfD ! voters above. GNG is met here. Nomader ( talk ) 16:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources mentioned. Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- sources found meet GNG and are reliable per subject matter experts. Wanting something to be covered by other types of news isn't a valid criteria for deletion. matt91486 ( talk ) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the reviews mentioned above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:19, 3 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

Wun-Chang Shih: No international medal placements at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Skating , and Taiwan . Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of Chinese sources with SIGCOV (eg, Liberty Times [20] , [21] , Central News Agency [22] , My Formosa [ zh ] [23] ). His coaching career has also received media coverage (eg, TVBS News [24] , Mirror Media [25] , Central News Agency [26] , [27] ) — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 09:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Prince of Erebor. / Julle ( talk ) 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Plenty of sources for SIGCOV.WP:GNG applies. BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:53, 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

John McIntyre (copy editor): The PROD rationale was: "Doesn't look notable. The sources given are basically his employer, and people trying to sell books." Tartar Torte 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , and News media . Tartar Torte 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If this is the same person mentioned here [10] , I think he's notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per what I said in the PROD, that Tartar has kindly reproduced here. Dr. Vogel ( talk ) 09:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the article found by @ Oaktree b : I also found this in CSM, and these minor articles [11] , [12] . He may also meet WP:NAUTHOR as I found at least one scholarly review of his book [13] . BuySomeApples ( talk ) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think with all the new sources found, the individual is notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Incidentally, I arrived at this AfD by way of Bus Plunge . I noticed that this individual had a long-running column in the Baltimore Sun , which alone might or might not not fulfill WP:JOURNALIST (haven't dived in too much), but it certainly adds to the currently established notability. — siro χ o 23:21, 28 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

Son of Sam (EP): Only uses SoundCloud as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locust member ( talk • contribs ) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lucki : I could only find one announcement and two brief mentions in roundup announcement articles ( [10] [11] [12] ), and that's not enough for notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 05:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep . We have three short reviews available, each providing some secondary analysis of the subject: Sheldon Pearce in Pitchfork [13] , including for example: On Son of Sam, he raps as if he’s perpetually groggy from a Xanax bender, penning wandering but colorful descriptions of his highs and what exactly he does to get them. His writing hasn’t missed a beat, but his delivery has grown increasingly sedated and leisurely.... Leor Galil in Chicago Reader [14] including: ... rapper Lucki Ecks released Son of Sam, an EP that moves further toward the hazy, narcotized soundscapes he’s toyed with throughout his short career. He takes an abrasive, experimental turn on “Jigga 98”.... Chris Mench in Complex magazine [15] including: The majority of the tape is dark, with Eck$ spitting over hazy, haunting beats. It's certainly not destined for the radio, but his slurred, macabre style certainly has its appeal. At times, his voice can even sound more like another part of the beat than something totally distinct from it. Also have some short mentions in Brooklyn Vegan , Hip-hopVibe and a long retrospective review three years later in what seems to be a marginally reliable source Underground Underdogs — siro χ o 05:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 04:48, 27 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! 06:23, 3 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, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I'm skeptical about the last three sources Siroxo provides, but the first three just about scrape it over GNG for me. AryKun ( talk ) 19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per siroxo. dxneo ( talk ) 12:26, 17 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

June Pursell: The other claim, that she "made notable appearances in two films", is not supported by the (unreliable) source IMDb, which gives one uncredited(!) role as a vocalist, and one role as a "singer on the stage". Looking for better sources give ultr-short entries like here or purely passing mentions. She may be notable (though I haven't found the evidence for this), but then this should be based on reliable sources and accurately reflect these sources, not some unreliable sources and some claims not even supported by those. Fram ( talk ) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Women , and United States of America . Fram ( talk ) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SINGER (5) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable); (6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles; as demonstrated by these sources: [55] and [56] Dolovis ( talk ) 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source lists no albums, just singles. And she isn't an ensemble, and isn't a member of two or more notable ensembles either it seems. So none of your arguments seem to apply here. Fram ( talk ) 09:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Earl Burtnett and Jack Denny orchestras are the ensembles referenced; and 78 RPM records are not singles. 78s were the only record format availble before the LP album was invented. Dolovis ( talk ) 13:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Records with one 3 minute song on a side are singles, not albums. Fram ( talk ) 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Fram - Please see the updated sources. There was a lot of coverage on her through various newspapers.com newspapers. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Numerous RS have been added since the nom. APK whisper in my ear 03:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to meet on notability and sourcing requirements. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Okoslavia ( talk ) 15:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Discography of American Historical Recordings. UC Santa Barbara Library has a 1925-1932 database of her recordings. According to that, she recorded with American band leaders Jack Denny , Earl Burtnett and Roy Fox . I've added it under External links. Also, I added the Authority control template at the bottom, which should generate usual international links for her works. — Maile ( talk ) 20:09, 11 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

Baliochila barnesi: This short article is about everything one can source. Griseo veritas ( talk ) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . Griseo veritas ( talk ) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a valid species under an accepted name, and has three RS citations. awkwafaba ( 📥 ) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for linking this, it’s good to know. I tried in vain to find something pertaining to animals but obviously I didn’t look hard enough. Griseo veritas ( talk ) 06:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was going to link SPECIESOUTCOMES, but it's already done. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep per above. AryKun ( talk ) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added a couple of citations to the article, including the protologue, which is linked to BHL. This link should show that there is much information that could be added to the article, contrary to the nom's assertion. Esculenta ( talk ) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ! Why would we delete this species? Please read WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES . Jacona ( talk ) 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep duh Steven Walling • talk 06:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No need to be rude. Not everybody is as experienced with Wikipedia as you are, Steven. Griseo veritas ( talk ) 07:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're all learning. Steven Walling • talk 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given what I’ve learned from others input here and the existence of SPECIESOUTCOMES. Griseo veritas ( talk ) 08:19, 24 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

SI-UK: Coverage is limited to badly disguised press releases and passing mentions. Maduant ( talk ) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Education , and United Kingdom . Maduant ( talk ) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , Thailand , and Delhi . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This company is among the largest, and there are several reputable sources like IndianExpress, FreePressJournal, BusinessWorld, HeraldScotland, and DailyExcelsior that provide comprehensive coverage. Additionally, there are numerous other sources available online. The company operates in over 40 countries and has partnerships with leading UK universities. It also received a 'highly commended' recognition in the Student Counselling Organization of the Year category at the 2021 Pioneer Awards. By incorporating these sources, the article can be enhanced and benefit greatly. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to retain the article and mark it for improvement instead of deletion. Zehnasheen ( talk ) 10:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : the article should be deleted in accordance with the rationale provided by the nominator. RPSkokie ( talk ) 13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete. Glanced through some of the references, thinly veiled press releases indeed. However, if the nom was blocked then is the afd still valid? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Given that the nominator is presently under a ban, it may be essential to adhere to the appropriate procedural closure and then proceed with re-nominating the article. RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Response to comment is re-nominating the article prescribed under procedure or voluntary? Can You point me to the rules please? -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A nomination can continue if the nominator is discovered to be a sockpuppet. What I have seen is that if there were no "Delete" votes, then the discussions are closed early as a procedural "Keep". But since there is a difference of opinion here, the discussion can continue. L iz Read! Talk! 04:20, 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

Nicky Hoberman: Sources merely confirm her work was exhibited. LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and South Africa . LibStar ( talk ) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It's a stub, and is pretty well sourced as such. She appears to have exhibited in numerous locations, with a lot to sources to those sites. The sources focus on her art, which is why she's notable. We don't necessarily need to know an artist's background and personal life, just about her output. — Maile ( talk ) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources demonstrate her notability. The article is could do with more information but even as a stub it is still notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 19:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article's main source is a dead link from a gallery database https://www.whitfordfineart.com/artist/biography/307/nicky_hoberman . Another main link is the artist's website . However there are reliable sources at ArtUK and the Brooklyn Museum . I cannot tell if her art is actually in the collection of the Brooklyn Museum or if she is just listed in their feminist database. I don't see a way to expand the article and the current sourcing is bad. Leaning towards delete, unless there is sourcing to show that her work is in a collection or notable. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 23:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I still can't figure out if she is in the Brooklyn Museum, but citations of in depth reviews of solo shows added to the article. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 22:44, 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

Woman Kills Injured Man: With regard to the existing sources on the page, one is from the museum which displays the piece (so not independent) and another is a dead link to another online encyclopaedia (which would not appear to be a RS and may even be circular referencing from a WP project). So at best there appears to only be one source on the page that could count towards notability. JMWt ( talk ) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Norway . JMWt ( talk ) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep there’s a book ref (snippet) here and a magazine piece here . In addition it’s part of a major collection of modern art. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as a comment on these sources, the first is just a preview on GBooks so it isn't possible to make a definitive judgment but it looks like a passing mention. The second consists of two paragraphs. I'm not convinced either meet the standards of RS needed by the notability standards. JMWt ( talk ) 13:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "fairly generic title" -huh?? It's probably no good looking for sources in English. The artist's bio lists a number of books on this rather colourful artist and his work published well after this is painted, so I think we can be confident there would be enough in these. Johnbod ( talk ) 15:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching for "Woman Kills Injured Man" gives news articles about road accidents. The fact that the artist is notable doesn't mean every work of theirs is notable because notability is not inherited. JMWt ( talk ) 15:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say that at all. But notable artists about whom a lot has been published will have significan coverage of all significant works. Johnbod ( talk ) 15:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, well then consider this a challenge; show me some. JMWt ( talk ) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not having access to a good Norweigan library at the moment I can't. But perhaps someone else can. You do realize there is no obligation for sources to be online? Johnbod ( talk ) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You realise that when challenged you have to show that RS exist rather than just postulating that they must? JMWt ( talk ) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , prose has now been added about its initial display. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:50, 3 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

Kashana Cauley: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 30 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:22, 30 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

Carmen E. Garza: . "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider . Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , United States of America , and New Mexico . Snickers2686 ( talk ) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability. This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied. This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator. And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning. I think these factors push this over the line for notability. SeenToBeDone ( talk ) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC , such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [ [18] ] and Reuters [ [19] ]. Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk ) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations. No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 30 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

Michalis Attalides: The Wiki project proposed guidelines of WP:ACAD do not supersede the PROF and GNG. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 10:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:PROF - Notability (academics) - Criterion 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Michael Attalides was the rector of Intercollege , subsequently renamed the University of Nicosia . [4] Rector was/is the highest post at that institution. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, my concern is that University of Nicosia doesn't seem to be considered a major academic institution. If we are too loose, any rector of any university around the world would require a wiki page. For example, the rector of Cyprus West University is Ömer Camcı, if a editor would make a case that Cyprus West University is a major academic institution , it could argue that he could have page Ömer Camcı. I do not believe it's accurate. The University of Nicosia which is a private fairly unknown institution, is just one institution among all the ones in Cyprus. See List of universities and colleges in Cyprus . Therefore Attalides who is the rector of a relatively unknown academic institution and clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG , in my opinion fails notability guidelines. To me a major academic institution or major academic society refers to major institutions such as Harvard or University of Oxford -(Rector: Irene Tracey ) etc. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 19:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lethweimaster that's an interesting take. "Major academic" is a pretty weaselly word when I think about it. McGill University , yes, of course. What about the University of Hawaii ? Yukon University ? I have taken for granted that a big university is a major academic institution (Yukon U is not big, the U of Hawaii is). I see the University of Nicosia ranks in the 501 to 600 tier of The Times worldwide university rankings, which is better than I expected. It's supposedly the biggest in Cyprus. We'll see what others say about "major". We used to have a notability noticeboard but it's defunct. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NPROF further says "significant accredited college or university". I don't know anything about the university, although it seems to be accredited , e.g. by EQAR . That leaves "significant", which could be taken to mean many things. I would expect the institution to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at a minimum, but there are likely other considerations (the university here being for-profit seems like a red flag to me, for example). Suriname0 ( talk ) 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had the same concerns, that's why I put it up for AFD. The university is indeed accredited, for what it means (accreditation is just a matter of paying the right people). The real criteria: "Significant University" is in my opinion, not even close to being fulfill. There is a ton of for profit universities and it's in their advantage, for maximum tuitions, to have their rector on wikipedia. I agree with Suriname0 . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know others have different interpretations, but for me and from my American perspective, "major academic institution" is correlated to the amount of research that occurs at that institution (so generally, this refers to R1 and R2 institutions, per this list , with exceptions for very large public universities like the University of Hawaiʻi and prominent liberal arts colleges like Smith College ). Again, that's my personal interpretation, so do with it what you want. I'm not sure of the Cypriot system of this, so I don't want to make a bold assertion of this case, but I'm bearish considering this is a private for-profit institution. Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just confirming I have precisely the same intuitions about the US system. Hopefully someone more familiar with EU-country systems can chime in... Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Cyprus . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per WP:PROF #6. Generally "significant accredited" University has been taken quite broadly in WP:PROF discussions to mean most universities with some history or a thousand students. Any university which makes the Times Higher Education listing of top world universities--at any ranking--is significant. Throw on top of that the ambassadorships (which are not sufficiently notable in themselves but can help to imply notability) and this seems like a pretty easy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 11 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! * 14:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, but after re-reading the conversation, as well as the article, including the University of Nicosia, which is For Profit , I believe the rectors's page may have been written as a vanity page (COI) for the University's benefits and credibility. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 15:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree that this page has some issues, but I'm inclined to support the WP:NPROF argument. From what I know about the European system, sheer research volume matters a good bit less than in the US. However, we should substantiate the idea that this is a "major" institution. For me, that standard is probably met by this university's ranking in the Times – note that it's also in the top 200 for Business & Economics. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several editors raising doubts about the significance of the education institution this subject is at even though they haven't registered "Delete" votes. Seems worthy of a bit more consideration despite the numerical majority of those advocating Keep. Of course, a closer can bring this discussion to an end at any time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPROF . Obviously a significant institution. Plus multiple high level posts in government. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What makes it "obvious" that it's a significant institution? Many users were very unsure actually. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 11:42, 21 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

Attanthangal: Sohom ( talk ) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've modified the coordinates given in the article, thus a click on them shows at Google maps and Bing maps this location exists. I think it's a case of WP:POPULATED ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"). -- Cyfal ( talk ) 20:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, I do see a few reliable sources barely mentioning this as well on a deeper BEFORE search. That being said, I wonder given the lack of coverage whether it would be appropriate to redirect this to Chennai (with no prejudice towards recreation). Sohom ( talk ) 20:25, 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! 23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:POPULATED Geardona ( talk to me? ) 00:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – well, major Indian news organizations including Times of India & The Hindu recognize it, so WP:POPULATED applies. TLA (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To continue discussion w/r/t sourcing. Edit conflict on the close, and per request on my Talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the relist, the comment I was going to make in an attempted relist is that the above arguments for keep make assertions that WP:POPULATED has been met or that there is coverage available in TOI or The Hindu, but I'm not seeing any examples of sources that support either of those assertions in this discussion or in the article's citations. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added the only three sources that have barely mentioned this place to the article. This does include one pulication from TOI and one from The Hindu. However, if we zoom out of Wikipedia policy land for a second, Chennai is a huge metropolitan city that is the sixth-most populous city in India. Normally localities of such cities get hundreds (if not thousands) of sources talking about them. The fact that there are only three sources which are barely mentions of this neighbourhood, tells me that this neighbourhood isn't notable enough for a standalone article at this point. Sohom ( talk ) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

keep

Jamie Christopher: All sources are simply parroting his death announcement and involvement in two mega-franchises (Harry Potter and Marvel) with no noteworthy individual accomplishments. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep. What is currently on the page attests notability: 3 reliable independent in-depth sources about him. And a brief internet search shows plenty of other sources. He is clearly notable. Also notable as creative professional for his noted contributions to extremely notable films, as the said sources prove. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I believe he does meet notability guidelines, but the article definitely needs expanding. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 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! 20:47, 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! 23:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Death generally doesn't establish notability, but notability can become apparent upon death. There is a lot of coverage of this individual that appeared upon their death, not for their death but for their work. So I believe WP:BASIC is met. Side note, I am not sure if WP:CREATIVE applies to technical roles like assistant director, which is a confusingly named non-creative role in filmmaking. — siro χ o 03:08, 15 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

Hamed Ameli: I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC) Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. -- Finngall talk 16:56, 10 June 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 June 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been put forward. In any case the subject clearly meets GNG. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:36, 11 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

Women's Declaration International: If this is what wikipedia is, the article should be deleted. People can find better sources of unbiased information than wikipedia ideologues. Then the activists will have fewer pages to monitor and control. Tom Ruen ( talk ) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is a lot of garbage that comes up when you search the group on Google News, but the cites already in the article demonstrate notability. ( t · c ) buidhe 23:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see that the subject is notable. See Wikipedia:SIRS . Which are the multiple sources that satisfy the criteria? There is one from PinkNews (and we can't use any others from PinkNews to establish reliability). But looking at the other sources in the article: No consensus on WP:RS that Vice is reliable. Neither Common Weal , a think tank, nor Jezebel , a blog, are reliable sources. There are some Norwegian sources that may count. In good faith, what's the case? AndyGordon ( talk ) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — It seems like OP is just upset that their edits got reverted and is lashing out. Despite ample opportunity they have yet to point out specific issues with the article, mostly just attacking other editors. I guess they're trying to say it's a WP:ATP ? But as stated on the talk page, if the majority view of a subject is negative, the article will naturally take a negative tone, per WP:NOTNEUTRAL . -- Pokelova ( talk ) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm being practical. Wikipedia can't afford to have articles only written by detractors of any topic, and who revert helpful edits, like moving material to a criticism section rather than every paragraph is filled with "X, but critics say Y" format that activists seem to do when given free rein to write and block edits. Where is "Neutral point of view" under that? Tom Ruen ( talk ) 01:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My first thought on seeing your recent behaviour was to assume that yours was a recently registered troll account of the sort that we unfortunately see all too often. On looking further, I was shocked and saddened to see that you have been editing since 2004 and that your behaviour here is completely out of character. My second thought was to wonder whether your account had been compromised. Assuming that this is not the case then I implore you to take a break to deal with whatever has triggered this unusual behaviour and then, when you feel able, to go back to constructive editing in the subject areas where you are able to contribute constructively. Please don't throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account over this. DanielRigal ( talk ) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Imagine a "women's rights declaration" being reduced to this summary that doesn't even say what it is for or why? Tom Ruen ( talk ) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act . Procedural speedy keep . No even arguably valid reason has been advanced to delete. The nomination is just an incoherent diatribe that attacks other editors and the project in general. We don't need to waste time on this. Let's just close it. If anybody can see an actual reason to delete then they would be better off starting a new AfD where we can discuss their nomination without being distracted by this nonsense. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 01:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia should not have badly written articles controlled by activists. It is preposterous. It invalidates all of wikipedia when people see this. Better to have no articles that bias. Tom Ruen ( talk ) 01:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The more you allege a vague conspiracy theory the less people are going to take you seriously. Please stop. This is helping nobody. DanielRigal ( talk ) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, we need superbly written articles controlled by both activists and detractors. Neutral point of view. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Biased, no, it's neutral and properly sourced. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural speedy keep . Note that the nominator was pblocked from the article as a result of their edits. I would close this discussion myself if I weren't involved. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 03:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . This was clearly a WP:POINTy "nomination" by a disruptive editor who has now been blocked for their disruptive edits. The now blocked editor links to their Twitter account which includes such statements as "Transgenderism is a destructive identity" and "Transing children is child abuse," so it's clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE . The article seems well-referenced and this is in fact widely considered one of the more extreme anti-trans groups by all credible sources that I've seen. -- Tataral ( talk ) 06:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete . Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete unless evidence shown and agreed that it meets the criteria at WP:ORGCRIT . [User:AndyGordon|AndyGordon]] ( talk ) 10:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. People have now kindly provided several links showing it meets the criteria. AndyGordon ( talk ) 15:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per AndyGordon. Sweet6970 ( talk ) 11:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The group is clearly notable, as demonstrated by the sources in the article. It seems to have the same level of notoriety that LGB Alliance and Women's Liberation Front have, with significant, regular coverage from right-wing sources such as Fox [9] [10] , and is active in dozens of countries, so it's one of the more well-known (and outspokenly) anti-trans groups out there. -- Tataral ( talk ) 12:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS , Fox News is marginally reliable: we can't use political articles in Fox to establish notability. We need a list of multiple reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia:SIRS . AndyGordon ( talk ) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the Fox coverage we can see that they are indeed a cause célèbre for the right wing media, which is a reasonable thing to point out in an AfD even though we cannot say that in the article without falling into original research unless we have a reliable sources supporting it. Anyway, the nomination here is nonsensical. The best thing would be to close this without any prejudice to you, or anybody else, putting together a better nomination and trying another AfD. DanielRigal ( talk ) 17:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources already included in the article clearly establish notability. The recent Fox articles mentioned here are just examples of supplementary sources that demonstrate how they are, as DanielRigal said, a cause célèbre for the right wing media in the US. Rowling just tweeted in support of the group, this is a well known group in the field of anti-trans activism internationally, probably the only thing both its supporters and critics would agree on. -- Tataral ( talk ) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this appears to be a nonprofit organization with national/international scale, so the alternative WP:NONPROFIT criteria of the WP:NCORP guideline can apply, and requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization . Sources include The Scotsman in 2019 (focused on advocacy activity in Scotland, noting it began in New York); WP:PINKNEWS in 2021 (includes a focus on the organization, its advocacy, co-founders, and supporting organizations); there is also significant coverage of their advocacy in the US, e.g. Columbia Missourian in 2023 (includes a focus on their model legislation). Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And also there is this in The Australian , seems to be the same organisation. OK, so yes there are enough reliable sources for this count as notable. Thank you. AndyGordon ( talk ) 15:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep The nominator was blocked. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in article and Beccaynr above. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the sources that were already in the article at the time of nomination met the WP:NONPROFIT SNG criteria, and that's only improved over the last day as

keep

July 2023 Tel Aviv attack: This article is about your average attack during the Israel-Palestine conflict and, aside from some coverage updating the victim count, doesn't look to be significant from a NOTNEWS standpoint. Also, the death toll of two isn't much either. Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 02:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Per nom. Sadly a mundane Israel-Palestine conflict occurrence. Not discernably notable. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE [31] , [32] , [33] -- Shrike ( talk ) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It meets both the WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT , as detailed above, and does not violate WP:NOTNEWS . Unfortunately, notable and violent events in West Asia and elsewhere keep coming. The experience for Israel is that books and news media keep getting back to such events. gidonb ( talk ) 17:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Does not have major long term consequences. The only coverage is news coverage, not sustained secondary coverage. As such, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS . Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of interesting news stories. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There is enough news coverage that it WP:GNG is met (beyond WP:NOTNEWS ). ParadaJulio ( talk ) 12:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:RAPID . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. WP:NOTNEWS would apply here if it were a "routine" car ramming or coverage was limited to the local police blotter; this one received WP:SIGCOV in international media like the BBC, France 24, CNN , Reuters , and more WP:RS , clearly qualifying it under WP:GNG . The event also received news coverage after the event. Longhornsg ( talk ) 04:55, 19 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

Korry Howell: Joeykai ( talk ) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Also found this [50] , with the Chicago Tribune article, we probably have enough for basic notability, was an up-and-coming minor leaguer, then it didn't work out. Was notable at a one point, so should be ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Iowa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found three additional sources which are pretty helpful in establishing notability, see these: [51] , [52] , [53] Kline • talk • contribs 21:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs more clean up but WP:HEY works better, at least clean up isn't deletion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:45, 31 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

Halifax Explosion in popular culture: My BEFORE does not suggest that the concept of "Halifax Explosion in popular culture" exists outside Wikipedia and what we have here is a prosified version of the all too common list of media that mention topic foo . Seems like this article was spun off from Halifax_Explosion#Legacy section while it was being improved for GA/FA and has been forgotten since. Redirecting it back there might be a fine WP:ATD . Bottom line, while some works mention this concept, this is not a topic that merits a stand-alone articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Canada . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This topic does not exist outside of Wikipedia and I could find nothing in a google search. This article has no reason to exist. It also fails basic GNG. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It seems someone knew the topic wouldn't pass WP:NLIST so they put it in paragraph form. Still completely non-notable and doesn't pass GNG since there doesn't seem to be any source anywhere discussing the explosion in the context of culture. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this is a notable topic; it still resonates over a century later. I've read some of the books. In particular, Hugh MacLennan 's novel, Barometer Rising , is a Canadian classic. This article is not WP:OR . As for citations, most of items are blue wikilinks to notable books and films with their own articles; I see no need to footnote them. The few works that don't have existing articles can be cited or ditched -- that's a matter of cleanup. I reviewed WP:NOTTVTROPES . The site is described as "a wiki that lists plot devices, tropes, and the like in all manner of fiction." The essay (not a guideline) then describes 12 characteristics that set TV Tropes aside from Wikipedia; I don't see this article matching any of the 12. I reviewed our "In popular culture" content essay ("WP:IPC"). In the first paragraph, it notes: "When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short . That's exactly what was done here. There's also a specific section, "Creating 'In popular culture' articles" ("WP:IPCA"). The WP:IPC essay makes a good point that the phrase "popular culture" in an article title or section heading is a poor word choice and encourages the addition of cruft and trivia. Better titles would be "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion". I reviewed MOS:TRIVIA . This material doesn't look trivial after reading that essay. Compare this article with the trivia example cited in the guideline; this article is very different and qualitatively better. With regards to the earlier comment above that this is a disguised list, MOS:TRIVIA states "As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears. " So the question for me is not one of notability but rather: one article or two? Delete and redirect to Halifax Explosion We lose useful, reliable content Keep this article Merge with Halifax Explosion That reverses a decision made in producing a featured article. That's a non-starter for me. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ A. B. Regarding WP:OR and WP:GNG , yes, it is OR/not N because WP:SYNTH . No source cited discusses the concept of "Cultural references to the Halifax Explosion" or "Cultural depictions of the Halifax Explosion". Compiling a prose-style de facto list of such references is SYNTH OR. Regarding spinning off, see WP:SPLIT which notes that this can be done "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia". Finally, re "We lose useful, reliable content" - see WP:USEFUL . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS. Also, to quote User:Rorshacma from a similar discussion, I think that This seems to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT, as the Haka article is not so long that a spinout would have really been needed, and most of the information here, including the links to the related full articles, is already present there. Low quality content was copied, not split from the main article, then somewhat (although I think not sufficiently) improved in the main article while the copy (discussed here) remains forgotten. Best solution is to redirect and try to improve the content in the Featured Article. If the section grows, we can split it off then, at near-FA levels. Trying to rewrite this forgotten spin off while the section at FA still needs help too is waste of effort. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I left a notification of this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As stated, the overall topic of the article, "The Halifax Explosion in Popular Culture", does not appear to actually be a distinct topic that has received coverage in reliable sources. Halifax Explosion#Legacy already contains a well written description of the incident's impact, including discussion of several notable works, both fiction and non-fiction, on the topic. The works mentioned in this article that are not already discussed there, in fact, look to be mostly either non-notable works or of the "this thing mentioned it" variety. Neither the Halifax Explosion article as a whole, or the Legacy section in specific, are long enough that a separate article would either be needed or preferable for ease of reading. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic of the Halifax Explosion in popular culture has received coverage in reliable sources - see for example [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] . Nikkimaria ( talk ) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s 5 solid refs from reliable sources directly addressing the effect of the explosion on literature - thanks! — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not bad, but sadly, WP:TNT applies. The current article is poorly referenced OR, we need to rewrite it from scratch based on cited sources. And the FA probably needs a FA review considering the section there likewise should be rewritten. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TNT is an essay, not a sufficient justification to delete a notable topic. Your assertion regarding FA review appears to be equally without merit. Nikkimaria ( talk ) 00:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Piotrus , the essay WP:TNT (“Blow it up and start over”) states ”Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up.” . Those cases do not apply here. The definitive policy is the Deletion policy ; it lists the allowable reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. This article doesn’t satisfy any of them. Nikkimaria just provided 5 solid refs a few minutes ago about the explosion and literature. They more than address any lingering SYNTH and OR issues. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. The sources do indicate that we can write an article on this topic. What we have here, however, is not it. The old OR synth with randon examples that the original writer or writers thought relevant need to be blanked, and replaced with the summary of the sources found. And since this is based on the nearly identical version in the main article, improvement should take place there, there is no need to split anything given how short this article (and the corresponding section) are. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Noting that draftification is also an option, as was done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination) , though this is nowhere near as poor as that article. Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Curbon7 While this is prosified, other than that I think both article as just "as poor"... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources found by Nikkimaria. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 14:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nikkimaria has provided RS that shows the explosion has relevance within popular culture, hence no reason for deletion. Meanderingbartender ( talk ) 18:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Steven Dean Memorial Trophy: Let'srun ( talk ) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Washington, D.C. . Let'srun ( talk ) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a notable rivalry is a notable rivalry, even though this one had the major games played before internet era and newspaper references are harder to add-- Banderas ( talk ) 09:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:MUSTBESOURCES . Let'srun ( talk ) 14:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added several new sources. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk ) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 20:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:28, 24 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

William Lychack: Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works). Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR , no evidence of (3) so far. Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to having a work reprinted in Best American Short Stories and receiving a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship, both of which are really big deals for an author, his works have been reviewed by The New York Times (see here ), Publishers Weekly (See here and here ), Kirkus Reviews (see here and here ) along with additional reviews in places like USA Today, Library Journal, Booklist and many other places (these last ones can be found with a search in the Wikipedia Library). There are also interviews and coverage of the subject in places like The Pittsburgh Post Gazette and The LA Times Review of Books . Easily meets Wikipedia's notability standards for creative professionals . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has a solid history of reviews in US national press. Jahaza ( talk ) 03:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lots of sources per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as NAUTHOR per reviews of his work. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 09:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as above. The nominator should sign their nomination with 4 tildas. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:14, 28 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

2004 Auburn Tigers football team: Suggest merging with Auburn tigers football . XabqEfdg ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions . XabqEfdg ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Very clear WP:SIGCOV which allows this article to meet GNG. The team went 13-0, they were undefeated in the highest level of college football and were ranked top 10 in the AP polls for over 10 weeks. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It does need better sourcing, but this is so clearly a keep that the AfD is either mistaken or vexatious. SportingFlyer T · C 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not trying to be vexatious, so sorry if it came off that way. I just couldn't find sources describing this particular year of the team in detail (as opposed to describing it at the time). I do not know whether there are particular criteria for this sort of topic though, so if I have missed something I apologize and will withdraw the AfD. XabqEfdg ( talk ) 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply clicking on the Sugar Bowl article would bring up multiple sources which cover the team's season. SportingFlyer T · C 05:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep , as others have noted the team was a ranked FBS team and clearly meets the WP:GNG . Esolo5002 ( talk ) 05:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jeff Johnson (labor leader): I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG . A quick review: Source 1, 5, 13, and 19 are oral histories or personal papers/writing by the subject and thus primary sources. Source 5 also includes an unattributed biographical note, but it is published by the Labor Archives of Washington , which cannot be an independent source on the topic of Jeff Johnson, a local labor leader. The union alliance that Johnson led is listed as a major funder of the archives and Johnson was himself a board director of the Labor Archives. Source 2 is to WP:BALLOTPEDIA , about whose reliability there is no consensus. Sources 3 and 8 are to a newsletter published by Johnson's organization and thus not independent. Sources 4, 6, and 7 are to a labor-specific industry publication and thus ineligible for notability per WP:TRADES . Source 9 and 11 are local news blogs that are mostly reprints/paraphrases of an organizational press release. Sources 12 and 14-18 are WP:ROUTINE coverage of Johnson in articles that focus on other issues on which he is invited to comment. In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , and Washington . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You previously stated in my discussion with you that the article from the Tacoma News Tribune counts as a reliable secondary source. If that and source 10 count as significant coverage, I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. In addition, I would argue that the other coverage of Johnson in the Seattle Times and Everett Herald constitute significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The Herald and Tribune are real independent news organs (not just blogs) from Tacoma and Everett, Washington, which are the 3rd and 7th largest cities in the state, respectively. Labor history is a traditionally underrepresented field of history, and coverage of leading figures like Johnson on Wikipedia helps promote research. Deleting this article would be contradictory to Wikipedia's efforts to increase diversity in biographies. Mathieulalie ( talk ) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On further review, I realized the Tacoma News Tribune piece is mostly a reprint of a press release, which makes it a primary source. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a JSTOR source, hopefully that will prove notability. Mathieulalie ( talk ) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JSTOR itself is not a source, it's just an index (like Google News). In the underlying source by Myers ( see here ), Johnson is briefly quoted/referenced on two pages of a nearly 300-page book. That's a WP:TRIVIALMENTION , not significant coverage. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 2 is fine for now - as you say, @ Dclemens1971 there is no consensus about Ballotpedia, so, unless the source is deprecated in a future discussion, it is perfectly usable. Sources 4, 6, and 7 are marginally useful, but not unusable. I don't see a reason to dismiss them per WP:TRADES , unless it can be established that the sources are directly connected to Johnson, and therefore not independent. Sources 12 and 14-18, as you mention, make only cursory mentions of Johnson - but WP:ROUTINE , per my reading, says that routine events are not in and of themselves notable - it does not say that articles covering routine events are completely unusable for any purpose. Here, they are not being used to establish the notability of a routine event, they're being used to establish the notability of Johnson, by showing that he has been invited to make published comments on a variety of issues. Plus, there's source 10. Overall, while Jeff Johnson is obviously not a major, epoch-shaping world-historic figure, I see more than enough published material to establish that he is a notable figure in the world of modern labor organizing in the USA. For someone who is studying that topic, this article may be interesting and useful. I see no compelling reason to delete the article, so let's keep it and let interested editors continue to improve it. Philomathes2357 ( talk ) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Philomathes2357 : WP:ROUTINE is specific to WP:NEVENTS . Biographies go off of WP:BASIC and the "trivial coverage" mention there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was my general impression, thanks for the clarification. Philomathes2357 ( talk ) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Philomathes2357 . There is enough evidence of notability in the published sources. -- User:Namiba 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see just enough sources to pass GNG. This is especially true if the biographical note and the content description to the Jeff Johnson papers are independent. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not, though -- they're published by the Labor Archives of Washington, on whose board Johnson serves and which is funded by Johnson's organization. See here: https://labor.washington.edu/labor-archives#about Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Labor Archives of Washington is part of the University of Washington Libraries Special Collections, and the biography to his finding aid was written by a UW Special Collections staff member, funded by the Washington state budget. Johnson's papers were processed independently of his input. Finding aids are academic research materials, not promotional materials. The article was not written to promote Johnson's political career (even if it were, it would have little effect since he is retired) but as a public service to promote knowledge about the state labor council's activities, specifically its role in farmworker organizing and the 15Now campaign. Furthermore, neither the Labor Archives nor Johnson receives any money from people viewing his papers (or any other collections). Mathieulalie ( talk ) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Johnson appears to serve on a board of an entity that supports the Labor Archive , not the archive itself. And in this particular context, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the former president of a local labor union would be asked to join the board of a non-profit focused on a labor archive. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Labor Archives also isn't a nonprofit or a business, it is part of the University of Washington Libraries. Mathieulalie ( talk ) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, with that second sentence above I was meaning to refer to the Friends of the Labor Archives organization. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A biography about someone who's on the board of an organization that exists to give money to an entity and whose own organization is a donor to the entity cannot be truly independent if written by staff of an entity. See WP:COISOURCE , "less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish." Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep or redirect to Washington State Labor Council - there is smoke here. The problem is that we can't track down where the fire is. If you'll allow me to be morbid for a moment, I strongly suspect Johnson will immediately and unquestionably meet our notability guidelines the moment he dies and has obituaries written about him in several Washington newspapers. Fortunately for Johnson, he is still alive. But for our purposes and at the present time, the sourcing is thin (as the OP notes). What's available often briefly quotes Johnson by virtue of his position as the head of the union, and does not dive into specifics about the person themselves. I'd be fine with either keeping this article or merging its content into the organization that he ran. To me, the following sources count towards notability and have swayed me: Ballotpedia with its bio + "In 2015, Ballotpedia identified Jeff Johnson (Washington) as a top influencer by state." The biography written by archivists in charge of his papers should also count, as we have no reason to assume that the decision that Johnson's papers were important enough to archive was swayed by outside factors. Sources I don't think count toward notability include: I don't believe nwLaborPress/ Northwest Labor Press can count towards notability because it's a newspaper that specifically focuses on unions in Oregon and Washington. To me, it's the definition of a trade publication within this topic area, and our guidelines say that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability." The Tacoma News Tribune source is a press release with a little added text. For our purposes, it's a republished WP:PRSOURCE . The Seattle Times ' s first reference has Johnson mentioned twice for an email that he wrote to politicians. Subsequent references appear to also briefly quote him, although I've run out of free articles and haven't been able to view all of them. If that holds true, they don't meet the standard at WP:BASIC : "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". An example of trivial given in footnote 7 there is "a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' [...] ) that does not discuss the subject in detail." The Olympian is close as there is some context given. However, it's thinly written without much depth. HeraldNet articles 1 , 2 , and 3 don't meet WP:BASIC. Johnson is briefly quoted in all of them. Patch is not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED . (See the disclaimer at the top: "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In addition to the sources accepted as reliable, multiple mentions elsewhere add to notability. In addition to sources accessible on the internet, as a union leader it is highly probable that the subject has also been covered in as yet undigitized print media. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Just enough evidence of notability and does no harm. BobFromBrockley ( talk ) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep minimally satisfies the WP:GNG . Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 07:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

San Antonio parade shooting: Does not meet notability:events. BTW the lead is the main article and the whole lead is copyvio. I didn't zap it because then there would be no article. North8000 ( talk ) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . but clean up the copyvios. This is part of Category:Mass shootings in Texas . In and of itself, a sub of Category:Mass shootings in the United States . And on and on it goes. Perhaps they're all riddled with copyvios - or not. How do we say one is more notable than another one? — Maile ( talk ) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was using the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) to answer that question. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 20:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I kind of figured you were. Let's see what others say. Whatever works for all, is OK with me. — Maile ( talk ) 21:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to strong keep, With the new sourced background on the killer, I am convinced this article should be kept. — Maile ( talk ) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are lots of ways to misconstrue WP:N . "We can't know whether anything's notable, but it's in a category" might be the most wild one I've ever seen. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 22:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources found by PARAKANYAA demonstrate significant retrospective coverage. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Has SIGCOV in many books published decades after the event occurred. See: Covered for several pages in the 2012 book The Anatomy of Motive , published by Simon & Schuster Discussed for a page in Fatal Moments: The Tragedy of the Accidental Killer Discussed a non-insignificant amount (idk how many pages) in They Shoot to Kill A Psycho-survey of Criminal Sniping Discussed in the book Old Riot, New Ranger for at least 1+ full page. This wasn't a particularly exhaustive search and was only books in Google Books so there's likely more. I volunteer to add them if the article is kept. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now made it less terrible. Could have done more but this is about as much work as I'm willing to do on an article that might get deleted. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Impressive Thank you for doing this. You've really added some decent context and sourcing to this article, I'm now convinced this should be KEEP. Your editing has shed light on the overall mental picture of the perpetrator. . — Maile ( talk ) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also might add that the Texas archives final standoff video is pretty impressive in and of itself. — Maile ( talk ) 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With the extensive work done on the article since the nomination, IMO it has transitioned to one that should be kept on GNG grounds. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Parakanyaa, GNG pass. Carrite ( talk ) 04:37, 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

Intellectual: It should just be redirected to Intelligentsia . - car chasm ( talk ) 21:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see there is a lot of sources treating intellectual as a class in society. Famous philosophers talking about the concept, etc. Adler3 ( talk ) 00:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per Carchasm, this is unnecessary fork. Marcocapelle ( talk ) 05:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Social science . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the concept of the "Intelligentsia" as a class is clearly a different one from the role of the intellectual per se . -- Jahaza ( talk ) 15:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The word 'Intellectual' has defined in many ways. Intellectuals can be found in all walks of life, from academia to politics, from the arts to the sciences. Intellectuals are known for their ability to analyze complex ideas and concepts. FXBeats21 ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to intelligentsia which is a proper article. Having two articles on what is essentially one topic risks content forks; this article is just a rather baggy essay. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep intellectual (a social role) is clearly a distinct concept from intelligentsia (a social class). This article is not a haphazard collection of unrelated things bearing the same name, but a summary of a broadly defined social concept that has multiple aspects. Such is the nature of sociological study of roles. SFB 22:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but for all the wrong reasons. Reading both articles, it's obvious that the reason why Wikipedia cannot differentiate fully between intelligentsia and intellectuals is that society cannot either. In fact both articles define themselves with overlap to the other. Ideally, the subject could be treated in a single article. But at the moment, Inteligentsia is a very narrow article dealing with the subject exclusively as connected with the history of Eastern Europe and Russia, while Intellectual is far broader but perhaps less rigorous, but nevertheless peppered with genuine historical reference. There is slim-to-zero chance that anyone is going to carry out the enormous amount of work needed to create a satisfactory merge, so until then, we have two articles covering different aspects of an obviously notable subject that might be two subjects. So my ! vote is a practically-minded keep until such times as someone comes up with a concrete desire to do the work. Redirect is hopeless because without the merge, you'd lose an enormous amount of genuine information about non-Eastern intellectualism. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SFB above. There's enough of a distinction between the individuals (intellectuals) and the overall class (intelligentsia) to warrant separate articles. Both articles need work but the subjects are notable and well sourced enough for their own articles. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 13:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Seems that the core of the article is WP:WORDISSUBJECT . The parts of the article that are not WORDISSUBJECT are Intellectual status class , which has it's own article, Public intellectual and Persecution of intellectuals , which need their own seperate articles, and Criticism , which is mostly primary. Spinning out might be a good idea. small jars t c 17:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It looks like there is a difference between Intellectual and Inteligentsia, and there are plenty of references and background to build this beyond a DICDEF. I think that background is the key difference between this and a DICDEF and there's no need to merge into Inteligentsia. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk ) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Certainly room for an article here without devolution into the dreaded DICTDEF. Note: I wrote an article on public intellectual some time ago which was my one and only start to be merged or deleted. That still sort of pisses me off. I see now that "Public Intellectual" is a whole section of this piece and target for a search of the phrase which adds to my commitment that this is an encyclopedic topic. Carrite ( talk ) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have to say as the nominator I'm very confused at all the "keep" votes that appear to be giving valid reasons for deletion. I have yet to see a single policy-based vote arguing in favor of keeping this article, it's all WP:ILIKEIT , and so I request that all the keep votes be disregarded by the closing admin. - car chasm ( talk ) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see much of a case for deleting this, to be honest. The article's content goes beyond a definition of the subject, etymology and the kind of things which appear in dictionary entries, so it's not forbidden by WP:NOTDICT (and permitted by WP:WORDISSUBJECT ). Sure, the term "intellectual" has been applied to different things over time and in different cultures, but that doesn't make the article original research. The article clearly hasn't invented the concept of an intellectual or created it from various usages, it's a concept which an average person would be familiar with. Yes, there may be some overlap with Intelligentsia , but that's not a reason to delete or redirect this article, especially as Intelligentsia mainly focuses on eastern Europe. Hut 8.5 11:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of years in Uzbekistan: There are only a few links here that actually have pages. This page could better be served as a footer template. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions . Di (they-them) ( talk ) 18:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 12 links are legitimate. Since they used the template format, can't easily get rid of the pointless links. Deleting those redirects will make the bad links appear red. D r e a m Focus 21:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 21:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Footerize Every 12 months in Uzbekistan, a year passes. Chaotic Enby ( talk ) 21:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep 12 links go to actual articles, and although it's marginal in my opinion, I think there's enough links for the article to exist. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm concerned that if we eliminate one sovereign country's list of years, we create a terrible precedent. Certainly, more work needs to be done, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Bearian ( talk ) 17:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Northwestern Europe: Already removed a lot of bogus sources that were nothing more than googling for a term and then citing whatever comes up, ignoring context, disregarding inconsistencies in an uncritical pursuit of confirming one's own beliefs . Most additions were done by now-blocked User:Madreterra (blocked for.... "persistent addition of unsourced content)". My prod was deprodded by Necrothesp , who thought it needs to go for a full AfD, so here it is. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwestern Europe now also in AfD for similar reasons. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, WP:OR WP:SYNTH are both applicable to this article. Conceptually I can see how a wiki page on Northwestern Europe could be defensible and a great page, but in its current form this isn't close to that. Vote delete WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is no solid conceptual ground either, because the term is only used sparingly, in wildly different contexts, and everyone defines it ad hoc , for the purposes of whatever story they want to tell, or whatever research they want to do, or whatever graph they want to show. There is no long-term commitment to "Northwestern Europe" as an enduring concept and analytical category in the sources that I checked, and therefore no commitment to defining it consistently. In other words: everyone makes it up as they go along, and this article is an arbitrary sample of people making definitions up as they go along. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: My edit summaries may help explain just how random and SYNTH it all is. As I noted, most references are a URL which is literally someone typing in the words "northwestern europe is defined as" into Google Books, clicking on whatever looks cool, copypasting the URL into this page and then thinking they've "proven" something, disregarding contradictions and context. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to Regions of Europe . Reviewing the sources, it seems some don't even use the term "Northwestern Europe", and in others they use a lowercase "northwestern Europe", using simple compass directions in a brief usage without defining a specific region. Perhaps Nordic race should have more relevant geographic discussion with those sources, but I agree that this article seems like synthesis because there's not much discussion of the region as a whole and how it may be consistently described. The ethnographic definitions seem like broad generalizations that are rarely consistent with geography. One can make directional references to any place with one's own definition, but without more established meaning than pointing out the obvious of what "northwest" and "europe" mean, or finding more in-depth and universal discussion, I don't see the need for this. Reywas92 Talk 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My thoughts exactly. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium , Denmark , France , Germany , Iceland , Ireland , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Norway , Sweden , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but improve. Looking at other Wiki articles, it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region, in addition to its rather looser cultural definitions. So although it may be poorly sourced and written, my sense is that it definitely worth a topic as a geographical area tightly defined by a major international body and also, more loosely, but nonetheless meaningfully by historians, geographers and other specialists. Bermicourt ( talk ) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] it appears to be quite specifically defined by the EU as a development region What do you base that on? The European Union is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway, the UK (unfortunately), and Switzerland are not even in the EU. How is the EU supposed to define a set of countries a "development region" if it has no jurisdiction over half of them? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RE: [The development region] is not mentioned anywhere in the article . It is now . Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So "North-West Europe" is an interreg comprising "Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands and parts of France and Germany." As I suspected this excludes Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway, UK, but also Sweden and Denmark, and "parts of France and Germany", and also Switzerland. Completely different from the given definition and map. Starting to think this should be a DP if anything. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . And remove or cleanup the OR/SYNTH. Based on the sources returned in my own WP:BEFORE (some of which I've added to the article ), it seems that the topic (the term) has notability and a breadth of coverage in geographic, history, military and other works. While, per the nom, the article has become a COATRACK for OR, SYNTH and editorial on ethnographic and genetic content (neither section being, to my read and per the notes in the nom, supported by the linked sources), those issues can be addressed without deletion . Guliolopez ( talk ) 01:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your improvements. As noted above, I'm starting to think this is going to become a list of definitions about different things rather than an article. But even if we were to make this a DP, I'm afraid all entries would fail WP:GNG . E.g. interreg#Strand B: transnational cooperation shows these are temporary programmes. Interreg North Sea Programme is the only one with a standalone article and I'm not sure it meets GNG either. If it does, and this NWE programme as well, then this whole article must be renamed and rescoped and purged to fit the interreg project, otherwise it is still a WP:COATRACK . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've removed more SYNTHed and UNSOURCED stuff that were reductionist generalisations about religion and language families. Simplistic attempts to cast "Northwestern Europe" as "Germanic" and "Protestant" seem like ethnolinguistic pan-nationalist ideas, and are probably the reason why " Germanic-speaking Europe " and " White Anglo-Saxon Protestant " were included in the See also section. I had already removed the latter as being too tangentially connected, but we should probably be removing the former as well. Given that the purported region is home to millions of speakers of Romance, Uralic, Celtic, Turkic, Semitic and other non-Germanic language families, as well as being home to millions of Catholics, atheists/agnostics/humanists, Muslims, and other non-Protestants, such generalisations really don't pass the pub test . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 08:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm considering either declaring this an unnecessary content fork or a valid entity discussed in academic literature. Awaiting further comments. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a real geography, supported by WP:SIGCOV quality sources, just lesser used. WP should absolutely also carry and discuss these. In other cases, nominator addresses the WILD GROWTH of articles around such geographies, organizations or ethnicities, nominations I support. Here he is questioning whether we should keep the core in such cases. According to WP:NEXIST , we should. No concern here of WP:OR , WP:SYNTH , or WP:COATRACK beyond minor stuff that can be removed in simple cleanup. And WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ! The concept is out there, recognized, just not that frequently used in comparison to other subdivisions of Europe. gidonb ( talk ) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources: Europe; Volume II: the North-West: Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel. Chisholm, Geo. G. Published by Edward Stanford, London, 1902. Monkhouse , Francis J. The Geography of Northwestern Europe. New York: Praeger, 1966. 528p. Boesch, H., Monkhouse, F. J. (1967) The Geography of Northwestern Europe. Economic Geography, 43 (4). 369pp. doi:10.2307/143256 North Western Europe: A Systematic Approach. Morris, Joseph Acton. UK: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1973. ISBN 9780174440307 gidonb ( talk ) 02:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - indeed real geography per WP:SIGCOV quality sources. BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:45, 20 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

Christopher Michel: Interesting and multi-faceted American photographer, entrepreneur and writer. Notable enough to be artist-in-residence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . And yes, article needs some editing and refs. Vysotsky ( talk ) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Photography , and United States of America . ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete - changing ! vote to keep per WP:HEY after improvements made by Sj and Drmies . It has been improved with the addition of reliable sources and cleaned up. - Not one of the sources used in the article are independent of the subject. All I am finding in a BEFORE search is social media, his own website, LinkedIn, and more primary sources. What I am not finding are the usual coverage for notable artists and photographers, such as works in notable exhibitions, reviews of his work, or work held in notable museum or national gallery collections. I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia , indeffed on multiple language Wikipedias for cross-wiki spamming and socking which may strongly indicate UPE . Neverthless, this photographer does not meet WP:PHOTOGRAPHER nor WP:GNG criteria for inclusion as a notable artist. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not quite sure how to respond but want to provide a bit more color: my images and articles have been used in countless publications (including covers), album covers, seen by millions of people, and been the subject of many articles. My work has been covered extensively (USA Today, The Daily Beast, etc etc). I was also a columnist for the Naval Institute, photo editor at large for the Bold Italic, and have been sent on assignment for Outside Magazine, IDEO, etc etc from the edge of space, both poles.... My latest book is being co-written with Pico Iyer. I was also the Dalai Lama's photographer on one of his US visits. I was also the Ambassador for one of Leica's latest cameras and recently finished a nationwide speaking tour for them. I lead photo trips in extreme locations and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops. My work has also been in shows -- it's not held by any museum permanent collections but that's typical for photojournalists. I'm also the founder of Military.com, Affinity Labs, and Nautilus Ventures. In the early days, Wikipedia editors were scraping my creative commons flickr images and auto uploading them. I'm now spending my time assisting the National Academies to help raise the profile of scientists, engineers and medical professionals in society. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Forgot to add that one of my photos was the runner-up to the commons picture of the year in 2014: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/Results Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that image was also featured on the homepage of National Geographic. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a few relevant links: Washington Post The Photoblographer Outside Magazine Archives National Academies : Daily Mail Daily Beast Smithsonian USA Today Caltech Atlas Obscura Daily Mail Antarctica New York Times The Bold Italic Psychology Today New York Times on Leica Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Leica Camera Leica Camera Interview Natural World Safaris Guides Santa Fe Workshops Instructors Esalen Instructors Union of Concerned Scientists Bios Something Ventured Podcast Long Now Foundation Speech US Naval Institute Article Archive Protagonist in the Intelligent Entrepreneur Author The Military Advantage Author 90 Degrees South Cmichel67 ( talk ) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems to me that we have two broad issues here — one is odd targeting of me by a wikipedia editor named AncientWalrus and the other is related to issues with my wikipedia entry, primarily having to do with notability and payment. Context: For the past three years, I have been working full-time as the inaugural artist in residence at The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine. I work for free. Essentially, I fly around the country and make portraits of people that have made significant impacts in sciences, engineering & medicine — I license all those portraits with a creative commons license and make them freely available to the world. I also update their wikipedia pages when their photos could benefit from a more recent or higher quality image. You can see some of those images here: https://www.christophermichel.com/New-Heroes/National-Academies-Portraits/ and a description of my appointment here: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/03/national-academies-of-sciences-engineering-and-medicine-name-inaugural-artist-in-residence A week or so ago, I was leading a photo trip in Greenland when I received a message from AncientWalrus (whom I don’t know) asking if I was being paid to put those portraits up on wikipedia. I said no. Shortly thereafter, he marked my wikipedia page for deletion, questioned whether I had paid people to update my page, and deleted me as the founder of military.com (on the military.com page). He claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know). 1. I am the founder of Military.com — there are countless references to this on the web — including appearances on CNN, news publications, my book etc (I referenced these on the links on the deletion page) 2. I never paid anyone to do anything. Nor do I receive payments for my work. I do all this to give back. To help elevate scientists in society. 3. In the early days, wikimedia was scraping my flickr page for alll the creative commons content. I had nothing do do with selecting or uploading 4. Over the 20 years since I started military.com, I tried to update my wikipedia page to keep it accurate. Notability: Notability is a subjective concept. Here is my bio as background: https://www.christophermichel.com/About There are two elements here: one is whether I am generally notable. The other is proving it. I am generally well known in the entrepreneurial and photography fields. I am the founder of Military.com, one of the few web 1.0 companies still doing well. We have 10+ million users and help service members access the benefits of service. We were one of the first social networks to reach scale. We continue to be an important source of news and information for the broader military community. I sold the company to Monster.com. I then started Affinity Labs, which did the same for nurses, teachers, police officers, etc. I also sold that company. I also started a venture capital firm called Nautilus Ventures, which made close to 100 investments. I wrote a book about Military benefits published by Simon & Schuster. And my experiences as an entrepreneur were the subject of a book called, The Intelligent Entrepreneur, Published by Holt. I was asked back to Harvard to be their entrepreneur in residence and given an honorary doctorate by Tiffin University. In 2008, I became a full time photographer and photojournalist. I’ve written for many publications, including Outside Magazine and as a columnist for Proceedings. My photos have been seen by millions and have been used by google as a screensaver, on album covers, magazine covers, front page images in newspapers. I was a Leica Ambassador and teach for the Santa Fe Workshops, Esalen and Natural World Safaris. I’ve been interviewed by many podcasters and my work has been the subject of a number of articles and features. Here’s just one example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901372/Pictures-edge-space-Photographer-riding-U-2-spy-plane-captures-stunning-images-13-miles-Earth.html . I added a bunch more to my deletion page — although I can see now, they don’t want images where my work appears but articles about me. Like this: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/07/22/how-photographer-christopher-michel-makes-stunning-soulful-portraits/ or this https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/mesmerizing-photos-of-abandoned-structures-in-the-high-arctic or this https://magazine.caltech.edu/post/national-academies-new-heroes-faculty-portraits or this https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=UO_BALVMepM . There are many more. I have exhibited by work but don’t submit for awards (though did receive a 2nd place finish in the wikimedia commons photo of the year — an image that was put on the National Geographic home page. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 03:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Founder of military.com citation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 Cmichel67 ( talk ) 03:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Select Media Interviews: Accidental Creative Interviews Christopher Michel Dark Room Podcast with Photographer Christopher Michel Something Ventured with Chris Michel Kevin Kelly interviews Chris Michel CXO Interviews Chris Michel Long Now Foundation interviews Chris Michel Christopher Michel Opens the LeWeb Conference The Enlightened Executive with Chris Michel Leica Interviews Chris Michel Om Malik interviews Chris Michel AFCEA Interview Chris Michel Cmichel67 ( talk ) 04:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these select media interviews qualify as reliable sources per WP:RS . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I'm clearly not expert at communicating notability for photography - surprising as the appointment with the National Academies I have and qualifications and reputation would seem clear. I'm not a typical photographer as I mostly work to give back and not for galleries etc. It would seem that the business angle might be more straightforward! Cheers Cmichel67 ( talk ) 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] USA Today on Chris Michel Cmichel67 ( talk ) 04:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never claimed this He [AncientWalrus]] claimed that many of my countless images on wilkipedia were headshots etc put up by a banned editor named Russavia (whom I also don’t know). , Netherzone did. Thank you for clarifying that you are unpaid. This has nothing to do with the potential lack of notability. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just reacting to your comment here, "I'm also finding a ton of images that are professional headshots of him, in his own Commons category, mainly uploaded by a banned editor, Russavia" - sorry if I misunderstood you. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 16:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was a comment made by Netherzone, not by me, see this diff [1] AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry! Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have responded below. Netherzone ( talk ) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My page was never created or edited for payment. I made factual changes to the pages over the years as information changed. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You made all these edits without going through the appropriate pathway for editing with WP:COI : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Christopher_Michel&diff=1036499663&oldid=963970346 You changed wording to sound more flattering, you removed a "citation needed" tag etc. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AncientWalrus , thank for the ping. Yes that was my comment, I had noticed that the editor who created the article, User:Russavia, has been globally blocked for socking. But the real smoking gun that this article was created purely for promotional purposes WP:PROMO , WP:NOT is this: [2] . I have counted over 170 photographs depicting this photographer, many of them are vanity shots. To my mind, this is a sure sign of conflict of interest editing , promotional editing or undisclosed paid editing. Something's not right here. Netherzone ( talk ) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello. That may be the pattern you've observed but it is not happening here. As per last search, there were 11,912 photos that I made on commons. The majority are auto-uploads from my flickr account of images created with a creative commons license. I did not initiate these uploads or review them (and they include personal photos of me and other family and friends). They were done by a wikipedia editor. There are good images and bad, personal and professional images in my flickr. I believe that practice has stopped. For many many years, the only images I'm uploading are very high quality images of notable people -- astronauts, nobel laureates, authors - images I make for free and give away under a commons license for the public good. For example, I just spend the day with Dr Tony Fauci and made his portrait for the National Academies -- and made the photos available to the commons. I do this as a matter of practice. Just a quick search on commons will be illustrative. Versions of all of these are now on the commons and have been used in many entries. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here is the big gallery of scientist & engineer portraits that I use for the commons. They are all downloadable and usable with a creative commons attribution license. I do this for free. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (each thumbnail is a gallery) Cmichel67 ( talk ) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The metadata tells a slightly different story, it states that you hold the copyright - "all rights reserved" along with your name and website. However, it seems someone must have provided your permission for Russavia to upload them under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Netherzone ( talk ) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't speak to the metadata (could have been created in camera) but all of my uploads are licensed creative commons attribution. And also listed that way on Flickr. What happened many years ago with Russavia and other editors is opaque to me - but none of it was done with anything but good intentions. This conversation is seeming intent on punishing me in some way -- rather than trying to help me and the National Academies better contribute to the community. One would think that our serious dedication to providing high quality photography to commons would be easy to observe -- and would be something to praise not create an environment where people who don't understand all the intricacies of wikipedia and are made to feel badly and are punished. Enforcement of rules is important but creating an environment of generosity, kindness, and civility with the big picture in-mind would seem paramount. I'm trying my best! Cmichel67 ( talk ) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cmichel67 , I totally get that you are here in good faith, and please rest assured that no one is wanting or trying to punish you. The encyclopedia has a labyrinth of guidelines and policies that exist for one main reason (at least IMHO): to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. These "rules" if you will, have been drafted over many years collaboratively by the community thru the process of consensus. Some of those guidelines have to do with notability, and how it is established for biographies of living persons (and other subjects), and some are specific to their field of practice. Some of our policies are in place so that the encyclopedia is not used/deployed in certain ways. Others have to do with what constitutes an independent, secondary, reliable source, and significant coverage therein. And others have to do with COI. If these structures were not in place every single garage band in the world would have a WP article about them, as would every person out there looking for a job would want one, and every single advertising/PR agency would be clambering for a high-profile free advertising platform read by millions. So periodically we analyze the contents of the encyclopedia. That is why the editors in this discussion are scrutinizing the article that was put forth here. Let the AfD process unfold naturally, the community will decide the best path forward. Your input is welcome, but you don't solely get to decide the outcome. I hope that helps...! Netherzone ( talk ) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Echoing @ Netherzone : please take this discussion and the article tagging in good faith. Thanks for your tremendous contribs to Commons over the yeras! We are sometimes harder on contributors than others, out of a desire not to show preference; this is not at all personal, and certainly no reflection on the quality of your work. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you! Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Few if any articles about the individual. The CBC article is a photo of hot air balloons in Egypt, not the subject of the article, just added as an aside. Working photojournalist it appears. No awards won, no articles about his owrk. Heck one of my photos was 7th place in Wiki Loves Monuments a few years back, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In fact, there are many articles about my work Here and here and here etc. In addition, I'm the founder of Military.com, one of the notable web 1.0 companies still around and the largest military membership organization. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps this will give more context: Bio Cmichel67 ( talk ) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blogs and the Daily mail are not acceptable sources. Daily Mail in particular does not fact check or publishes falsehoods, which actually lowers your brand's credentials. I'd avoid working with them... Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , looks notable in more than one dimension. A rare case of someone with a prolific Commons portfolio who is notable for something other than photography, but the photography seems notable in its own right. I did a bit of cleanup. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you elaborate on how Michel passes GNG? Can you provide two sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . Or do you think this is not about GNG but rather a specific photographer criterion? The majority of the links provided by Michel very obviously violate one of the 3 requirements which means they ought to not count. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure -- the subject seems separately GN for founding and selling two companies (primary coverage in non-fiction work, in nyt + wsj, fellowship); for publishing a reference work that was widely reprinted and used in its field; and for photography work which more recently attracted mention by a range of regional or niche outlets (residency, photo communities, news about two separate events/collections). I added a few examples to the article for clarity. – SJ + 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Military . Netherzone ( talk ) 13:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question for Cmichel67 , I'm wondering if your photographs are held in the permanent collections of any notable museums or national galleries. If there are two or three verifiable notable collections that would count towards WP:NARTIST criteria #4, it would really help. I've also added Visual arts, & Military to the delete sort categories to get some more eyes from those WikiProjects. Netherzone ( talk ) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Although my photographs have been used in museums as part of exhibitions, they are not part of any permanent collections that I know of. That being said, it's not typical that museums collect the work of photojournalists! There might be some hybrid cases, for example, I just photographed Dr Jennifer Doudna for her official Nobel portrait and have photographed many Nobels and National Academies members whose portraits hang at institutions, like this portrait of Dr Margaret Levi, which hangs at Stanford. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 17:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cmichel67 , Is there a CV or resumé somewhere online that would list these? It would help to analyze the collections to see if they may be equivalent to notable museums or national galleries. I had a look at your website, but could not find that info there. Netherzone ( talk ) 18:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sadly, not that I know of. The metric for photojournalist is typically where their images appear. But, I'm different than most other photojournalists in that I give away most of my photography. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , meets GNG and per the appreciated referencing and explanation of sources by Cmichel167. Someone working on the page can greatly expand it from these, and hopefully Cmichel167 will use his skills at research in editing other Wikipedia articles (but be forewarned, Wikipedia is actually addicting - no joke as Biden would say - so keep that in mind if you do venture out from providing references for your page). Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] p.s. correction, Cmichel167 has been active on Wikipedia, and of course on commons. My fault for not checking editing history. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] thank you for your insight and help Cmichel67 ( talk ) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please pinpoint the references that in your view demonstrate GNG? There are lots of links and most of them definitely violate at least one of the requirements of a source to count for GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . It's important to beware that we have someone with a strong COI taking up a lot of space in the discussion. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . Netherzone ( talk ) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:ARTIST . WP:BEFORE shows a lot of social media, which I think should include the subject's uploads to Flickr. Photographer uploads to FLickr and then uploads to Commons. Zero curation for this collection that includes a very high percentage of selfies. Doesn't really matter if he is on top of a mountain, it is still a selfie. I am not finding in depth discussion on independent reliable sources. Not in any known collections. Working photojournalist. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure you use WP:BEFORE correctly here. I think it means that one should do research before nominating, not that for the deletion discussion only the state at the time of nomination matters. I agree that it would be good to collect a list of reliable sources to support the notability claims. The ones I found: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB998858467773570917 ( https://archive.is/2whS8 ): Christopher Michel, chief executive of the San Francisco company, makes no bones about the fact that the company is a consumer-oriented business... . The quote is the only mention of Michel. Not an in-depth article about Michel. https://usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/11/meet-photographer-chris-michel/70151730/ Potentially in-depth podcast https://www.thedailybeast.com/capturing-the-extreme-from-deep-space-to-the-north-pole? source=articles&via=rss In-depth profile https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2015/05/28/on-the-edge-of-space-a-photographers-out-of-this-world-selfie-70000-feet-above-the-earth/ ( https://archive.is/V5n8w ) Single event coverage All the other links posted by Michel in the discussion above are either niche publications/blogs without clear record of qualifying for reliable, or are not independent, or don't cover Michel in detail. Some of the reliable publications just mention him as author of a picture. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 16:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AncientWalrus , while it is not mandatory, it is generally considered best practices for editors to conduct a BEFORE search prior to ! voting. I've seen this stated many times in deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone I see. This is confusing because WP:BEFORE is explicitly about nominations not ! voting. Thanks for explaining. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. As I mentioned, many years ago a wikipedia editor used a tool to auto upload thousands of my flickr creative commons images into commons. I had nothing to do with it. For many years, the images have been highly curated and are unique images of people who have had significant impact in society. Cmichel67 ( talk ) 01:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's another recent article, if useful: http://www.asee-prism.org/up-close-6/ Cmichel67 ( talk ) 01:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things 1. On September 19th 2023 you uploaded 16 portraits of Robert Sapolsky so I stand by the observation that the photographs are not curated before being added to the Commons. 2. You seem to be conflating your activities as an editor with the discussion surrounding the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the photojournalist Christopher Michel. Also, you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON . Best, -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP The attempt to delete this page is completely uncalled for and unjustified. My read on this is that the attempt to delete the entry on Christopher Michel is an attempt at vandalism. BWJones ( talk ) 20:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC) — BWJones ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that BWJones ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. Edit request performed by AncientWalrus ( talk ) 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BWJones it is strange that this is your first edit after a 16 year editing hiatus (before you had only 5 edits [3] ) which makes it look like a sleeper account/sock. Who would not edit for 16 years, remember their login details and come back just now? Do you have any conflict of interest to declare? I note that just a few hours ago, an IP made similar allegations on my talk page [4] [5] . Together with the fact that the subject of the article has heavily edited the article and written the majority of words in this deletion discussion leaves me rather confused. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 23:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot to mention, there was also this incident today of an IP impersonating an admin and closing the discussion [6] . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: BWJones appears to have a conflict of interest. I'm not outing, as BWJones self-declared that they are "Bryan William Jones" here and providing a link to their website here as well where BWJones states Photo above, courtesy of Christopher Michel. (see https://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/about/ ) which indicates that BWJones knows the subject of the article and may have been canvassed to vote in this AfD. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an attempt at finding reliable sources that discuss the individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'll try one more Relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question for @ Cmichel67 : Given that someone who you've taken a photo of (BWJones) has come here to vote keep , have you contacted him or anyone else on or off Wikipedia asking them to come to your support? See WP:STEALTH . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 00:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but it's thin. The sourcing is OK, IMO, though I just plucked some feathers from the turkey. It's a good idea for the editor to stay away from the article--and after reading their comments here, and the lengthy and spammy list of links I was ready to vote down the article as well. Fortunately the article is better, and better referenced, than I feared, but I think it's also a good idea for the editor/subject to stay away from this AfD. Drmies ( talk ) 00:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - mainly per SJ, and generally agree with Drmies. Doesn't look like any rules have been broken, but Christopher is perhaps learning that autobiographers get a heaping dose of scrutiny and cynicism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like to note that editor Netherzone has changed their 'delete' to a 'keep' above, occuring after this relisting. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Randy Kryn ! Yes, I've changed my ! vote based on the excellent improvements to and clean up of the article - it now makes his notability apparent. Netherzone ( talk ) 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG can be shown with sources available including The Washington Post and short piece in USA Today . WikiVirus C (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Hey , the sources that have been uncovered since the start of the AfD are sufficient to meet gng . Jacona ( talk ) 18:10, 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

TL;DR: This article has almost 0 substance, and only 3 references from 2 sources, which are both dictionaries. Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to SMS language , which mentions this term in its list of terms. BD2412 T 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a good resolution at all. It violates the principal of least astonishment , and even if it took the user to the right place in the article there's no definition there so it still isn't as useful as it could be. Additionally use of this term isn't specific to SMS, so it's misleading. See below for better alternative. Dan Bloch ( talk ) 01:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either delete or Redirect to Wiktionary ( wikt:tl;dr ). Per nom; WP:NOTDICT , and article doesn't have any obvious potential to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch ( talk • contribs ) 04:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Danbloch : Agreed. In my opinion, it should be a soft redirect to wikt:tl;dr or similar with the {{ Wiktionary redirect }} template. -- Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 09:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, on further thought the redirect would be of value. Dan Bloch ( talk ) 13:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete without a redirect, soft or otherwise. I agree with the overall notion to delete as a DICDEF. However, there's no obvious target (it has far more use than just in text messages as suggested above). Having a redirect in place tends to inhibit searching article space for this text. You can still do it, but it takes an extra nonobvious step. And for those unaware, the search result page ( [1] ) already brings up a Wiktionary link right at the top. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 14:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is Wiktionary not an obvious target? Dan Bloch ( talk ) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wiktionary redirects are harmful. Having one in place makes trying to search article space for the term sitting at the redirect title more difficult. Couple that with the fact that they're also not particularly useful, because if no page exists at the title, the user searching for the term gets search results, which already include a Wiktionary link if one exists ...see the link in my comment above. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 23:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then yeah, maybe delete without redirect . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand (or maybe draftify): There's nothing in WP:NOTDICT that says we can't have an encyclopedic article about a term. In fact we do have some: e.g. gay or TERF (acronym) . This article is definitely not up to snuff as is, but I strongly suspect that there's enough material out there about the history of the term to make an article out of it. Loki ( talk ) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LokiTheLiar : I mean, the article doesn't really have much other than DICDEF in its current condition, and I struggled to find any reliable (non-dictionary) sources about the term . I never said that there shouldn't be articles about terms, just if they're notable enough, and aren't just basically Wiktionary entries. Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 22:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy link: Google:TL;DR Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Analysis The term "TL;DR" has been discussed in numerous reliable sources: A study of "the real world 'tl;dr' phenomenon" in a peer-reviewed journal ( Forrin et al. 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFForrinMillsD'MelloRisko2020 ( help ) ) The etiquette of using TL;DR ( Vincent 2022 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVincent2022 ( help ) ) When using TL;DR is rude. When using TL;DR is not rude ( Kryger 2023 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKryger2023 ( help ) ) The origins of TL;DR ( Hiscott 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHiscott2014 ( help ) , Crutcher 2019 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCrutcher2019 ( help ) , and Chatfield 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFChatfield2013 ( help ) ) How TL;DR "spread to other online forums" ( Hiscott 2014 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHiscott2014 ( help ) ) The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . There is enough information about the history, social, and cultural aspects of TL;DR to support an encyclopedic article about the topic such that this would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal . The current article is well-sourced and does not violate any policies. The article can be expanded and improved. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion , the article should be kept. Sources Vincent, Sarah (2022-11-17). "What Exactly Does TL;DR Mean, and How Should You Use It?" . Reader's Digest . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article notes: "TL;DR (also sometimes seen without the semicolon as TLDR) means “too long; didn’t read.” It’s an abbreviation that you’ll frequently find at the end of internet communications, usually ones with a lot of text. It’s a phrase that basically means “summary” and is followed by a short, one- or two-line overview for people who may not have read every word of a long chunk of text. ... Is TL;DR rude? No, it isn’t rude. But like any abbreviation, there’s a time and a place for it; there are different etiquette rules for formal and less formal situations. It’s OK to use it on social media, with your friends or in a quick, informal note to a coworker. But an important email, a big presentation or a business proposal is not the time to use slang or abbreviations of any kind." Kryger, Kelsey (2023-03-23). "What Does 'TL;DR' Mean? Plus, Here's When You'll Definitely Want To Avoid Using It" . Parade . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article has these sections: What Does TL;DR Mean? How Do You Use TL;DR? What Is TL;DR on Social Media Why Do People Put TL;DR at the End? Is TL;DR Rude? What Can You Say Besides TL;DR? Forrin, Noah D. ; Mills, Caitlin; D'Mello, Sidney K. ; Risko, Evan F. ; Smilek, Daniel; Seli, Paul (2020-06-09). "TL;DR: Longer Sections of Text Increase Rates of Unintentional Mind-Wandering" . The Journal of Experimental Education . Taylor & Francis . doi : 10.1080/00220973.2020.1751578 . ISSN 0022-0973 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The journal article notes: "One such textual feature is the length of sections in which a given text is presented. The growing use of the short form “tl;dr”—which stands for “too long; didn’t read”—suggests that people may be more likely to attend to bite-sized segments of information (e.g., Twitter posts, news-bites) compared to longer chunks of information (e.g., long paragraphs in a news article). ... Recent empirical work (Forrin et al., 2018, 2019) tested for the existence of this “tl;dr” phenomenon in an educational context. ... Here, we examined the role of intentionality in peoples’ tendency to mind-wander more often while reading longer vs. shorter sections of text. Our goal was to help elucidate whether this effect—which is related to the real world “tl;dr” phenomenon—reflects the intentional or unintentional disengagement of attention from passages with relatively long sections of text." Hiscott, Rebecca (2014-07-17). "LOL, WTF? The Origin Stories Of Your Favorite Internet Acronyms" . HuffPost . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article notes: "There’s no better sign of our times than Internet shorthand that demands writing be as short as possible. "TL;DR" likely originated on the comedy forum Something Awful around 2002, and spread to other online forums like 4chan, Slashdot and Reddit. The first Urban Dictionary definition for TL;DR appeared in 2003, and it earned its own Wikipedia page in 2007." Mohr, Melissa (2020-05-07). "Venturing into the land of social media acronyms. "Tl;dr" is the only internet abbreviation I know of that boasts a perfectly used semicolon. Where did the acronym originate?" . The Christian Science Monitor . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 . The article notes: "In her April 5, 2020, Wordplay column, Deb Amlen hides the puzzle’s theme behind a link: “Tl;dr (Spoiler!).” I had to find out more about this one. It is the only internet abbreviation I know of that boasts a perfectly used semicolon, although it seems that few people use the semicolon any longer. Tl;dr stands for “too long; didn’t read” and it seems to have begun in the early 2000s. It is hard to read large chunks of text online, so someone who posts, say, a 10-paragraph essay on her theories about “Star Trek” might receive a disgruntled tl;dr (or tldr) in response. Or she might realize she had gone on too long and acknowledge the fact by typing tldr at the end." Brigham, Katie (2013-08-09). "My favorite acronyms" . Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Another one of these great time-saving acronyms is tl;dr. This means, "Too Long; Didn't Read. " Apparently, tl;dr originated in online discussion forums as a way for users to aggressively respond to posts deemed unnecessarily long or preachy. Yet from these hostile beginnings, the acronym has blossomed. Now, it occasionally takes on a nicer tone, in which self-aware users invoke the phrase at the end of their own long message. This is then followed by a highly truncated and very convenient summary of their main points." Crutcher, Paul (2019-09-29). "Paul Crutcher: Don't bore us, get to the chorus" . Index-Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Deep in the belly of many internet comment threads you will sometimes see the letters “tl:dr.” Birthed on the web in 2002, these initials simply mean “too long: didn’t read.” In other words, either my time is limited or my attention span is too short to read the entire article or thread or theory or propaganda piece. So, “tl:dr” often is accompanied by a short summary of the longer material." Chatfield, Tom (2013). "TL;DR". Netymology: From Apps to Zombies: A Linguistic Celebration of the Digital World . New York: Quercus . pp. 156–158. ISBN 978-1-623-65165-7 . Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Words are cheap online, and sometimes there are simply too many of them. It’s for such circumstances that the five characters “TL;DR” have developed as a staple of online discussions. They stand for the phrase “Too Long; Didn’t Read,” and are traditionally deployed as a response to an excessively long piece of comment or argument in an online debate (or as a humorous way of asking someone to stop waffling and get to the point). TL;DR is an interesting acronym, not least because it’s one of the very few to contain a semicolon—a hint at its likely origins among the ranks of editors on Wikipedia and members of other less high-minded online forums like FARK, where it first began frequently to be used around 2003. One unusual variation on TL;DR is an animated image of a teal deer— sometimes used in online postings due to their similar pronunciation—but the ethos it embodies today is more often expressed both without the “official” semicolon and in deliberate haste." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TL;DR to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it is expandable beyond a dictionary definition. -- T avix ( talk ) 14:39, 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

Barry Biesanz: NO coverage at all found, appears to be a working person only with no critical notice. Not at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm shocked too, to be honest -- really didn't expect anything but I should've because a lot of these are actually listed in the article (kind of weirdly, but they're there). Newspapers.com pulled a plethora of coverage, including a feature-length article from the Edmonton Journal and other papers from the same ownership company ( [47] ). He was mentioned in a paragraph of "Trip Coach" from an Arthur Frommer magazine ( [48] ), appears in the "Bring the Troops Home Now" newsletter on p. 15 as the catalyst for a student protest in a high school that also garnered some press attention where he was featured in it ( "barry biesanz" , [49] , [50] ), appears in the NYT in a feature about Costa Rican wood in a positive review in two separate paragraphs analyzing his work ( [51] ). Needs cleanup, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article does seem to have at least a bit of a good (if un-referenced) base, so I'm not at WP:TNT . Nomader ( talk ) 04:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll include references to the newspaper articles today; I think I have a dozen or so articles. Most of the newspaper articles are pre internet tho, except for the two New York Times articles. I'll also add categories today. You are right, he was interviewed for the anti vietnam war protest in Time or Newsweek and Playboy, another reference to add today. Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 12:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, normally when I go to clip Newspapers.com stories, I do it myself -- most of these, it looks like you found them already (I'm assuming they're yours). If so, really good work pulling all of these together. Nomader ( talk ) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Still looking for citations for the other articles and exhibitions. Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 22:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Costa Rica and Louisiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Citations will be added today - there's quite a bit of news coverage. Cortez amarilla ( talk ) 13:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I checked the Edmonton Journal article and the nyt article . Both of these are easily sigcov. — hako9 ( talk ) 02:29, 9 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

Wikibooks: All the sources that I reviewed are primary sources, data table of activity, passing mentions. The only article that seems to talk in any material way about wikibooks does so from a Wikipedia centric view and how it's complementary [42] I don't feel like this article will survive a 3 reliable reference rule audit. Greatder ( talk ) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Internet . Greatder ( talk ) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Have you done a WP:BEFORE or checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (2nd nomination) ? Its notability is tied to the Wikimedia Foundation , we could consider a List of Wikimedia Foundation projects. IgelRM ( talk ) 03:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ IgelRM Wikiquote just about passes notability guideline with quite a lot of article about it and research paper mentions. Unlike wikibooks, which I have not seen much wide use or reporting of. Greatder ( talk ) 14:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It makes sense to have an article about each of the WMF sister projects. Consult with the Wikibooks community about improving the article. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jtneill Does the article in current form and references exist? I do not think so. Just because something is affiliated with WMF doesn't mean it's notable. It should be reinforced by multiple reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. Greatder ( talk ) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's definitely third-party discussion of the project. For example. here's an article from an IEEE publication about the project, its social structure, and its potential future impact on the textbook industry. Lubal ( talk ) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lubal Thanks! This seems like a really high quality source that I feel is enough to establish notability for this article. (If and when it is properly referenced in the article of course) Greatder ( talk ) 18:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unsure the association article grants full notability, but I think an AFD has limited potential to improve things anyway. IgelRM ( talk ) 10:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Really just offered that as an example, a Google Scholar search for "wikibooks" has a whole bunch of things that look promising. Lubal ( talk ) 15:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per... I don't know. Let's try obvious common sense. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ken Duncan (photographer): This is largely based around an interview with the subject so is not reliable . The Order of Australia is not an award that conveys any special notability. This whole article looks like a promotional job with nothing that meets WP:GNG . It has been tagged as potentially lacking notability since 2013 without any significant subsequent improvement. Velella Velella Talk 22:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Australia . Velella Velella Talk 22:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Velella. I would agree that on the surface, this article appears to be self-promotion for a small, insignificant person. However, based on my experience as an Australian with a mild interest in photography, Ken Duncan is reasonably famous in our region, at least as far as photographers go. His panoramic photos are commonly seen in homes, cafes, health clinics etc. I've heard more than a couple of people say phrases like "Oooh, I love that Ken Duncan" when spotting a framed print on a wall somewhere. There would only be a small handful of other Australian photographers with his level of success, and I can't even think of their names at the moment. If someone asked me to name a famous photographer, he'd probably be the first name that would come to mind. There are dozens of his photographic prints on the 2nd hand market, with some selling for many thousands of dollars, if that is anything to go by: - https://www.ebay.com.au/sch/550/i.html? _from=R40&_nkw=ken+duncan - https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-art/ken+duncan/k0c20039 There's also dozens of news articles about him: https://news.google.com/search? q=ken%20duncan&hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen , including by ABC news, Daily Mail, SBS, Channel 9 News, Australian Geographic, etc. I think the article needs some better sources/references, as I agree, a single Creation article is not adequate. I hope that it can be improved, and not deleted. SimonEast ( talk ) 00:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I did see these sources during a search before nominating but I couldn't see that any of them conveyed notability as almost all appear to be interviews , or based on interviews with the subject. Although interviews can be useful in supporting text within an article, they can't support notability as they are not independent. Velella Velella Talk 08:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete See below - Saw this on my watchlist and couldn't remember why. Looks like I added the notability tag 11 years ago, and there's been no real improvement to speak of since then. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep won an ARIA Award for his Cover Art in 1988. Appointed OAM in 2009 for "services to the arts as a landscape photographer and publisher, and for his service to the Central Coast community." shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 09:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Had a quick rummage through the media - seems like there's enough information about him in sources like National Geographic, Rolling Stone, BBC to make him consistent with WP:PHOTOGRAPHER -- Saul McGill ( talk ) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] links? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . RS and NG I couldn't find, as it turned out he worked for them, not them writing about him. But NG published a book of his photographs -- Saul McGill ( talk ) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. Interviews in industry and travel publications can often be promotional, but the BBC and Australian Geographic look good. Combined with the other sources and award, it's enough for me to strike my delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The ARIA Award clinches it for me; it's Australia's rough equivalent of the Grammies and winning one probably confers about as much notability. I've had this article on my watchlist for a while due to vandalism, even though I know nothing about the subject for obvious reasons (see my user page), and I was leaning delete/meh on this nomination until the ARIA Award came up. Graham87 ( talk ) 13:38, 19 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

Łuszczów-Kolonia, Hrubieszów County: Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:04, 14 July 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 July 17 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : (1) a kolonia is a legally recognized place under Polish law, so this is a populated, legally recognized place meeting the current wording of WP:NGEO ; (2) while this article is a bit underdeveloped pl:Łuszczów-Kolonia (powiat hrubieszowski) has enough content as to be well within our remit as a encyclopedia and gazetteer ; (3) I am seeing considerable discussion of the kolonia in books and articles discussing the WiN guerrilla organization in the postwar period, e.g. reports of this recent ceremony memorializing the Zarzyckis who were executed for sheltering WiN guerrillas there, so this can also meet the "sufficient sources to provide more information than a database entry" threshold (my paraphrase) that has recently been proposed as an update to NGEO. Applying the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, I think that this falls within both the letter and the spirit of NGEO. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . Normally I support the retention of articles on separate settlements, but as far as I can see this is just a few houses at one end of Łuszczów , itself a very small village spread out along a road. Nothing that I can see distinguishes it from the 'main' village, not even a road sign. It is not even "located away from previously existing buildings", but no further away than the other parts of the village. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- meets NGEO as a legally recognized populated place. The corresponding article in Polish WP has more sources if more sources are desired, but they're not needed. Central and Adams ( talk ) 18:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Gmina Uchanie has a list of villages and settlements where Łuszczów-Kolonia is mentioned. The article seems more complete with this. WonderCanada ( talk ) 18:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Pehr W. Palmrooth: Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Architecture , Finland , and Sweden . UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ARCHITECT .3 for designing multiple historically notable churches. — siro χ o 11:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting from discussion below that subject seems to meet GNG as well after more sources have been found. — siro χ o 23:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep so much famous and This is a very significant historical and religious churche: per WP:ARCHITECT .3-- Patricia (Talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:ARCHITECT .3. Has designss multipld churchesof significance. BabbaQ ( talk ) 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's a lot out there if you look for it (more sources on the .fi article, too). Clearly a notable architect, once this AfD's closed, page needs to move to his proper name, Pehr W. Palmroth, one 'o'... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep , see sources in the Finnish article. / Julle ( talk ) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But yeah, really needs to be moved to the correct spelling of his name. / Julle ( talk ) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query - There are references above to WP:NARCHITECT #3, but I'm not seeing anyone explicitly point out the sources that satisfy the second sentence 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) . The articles for the wikilinked churches are both very badly referenced, and I don't see anything better in their fi.wp articles. @ Julle and Alexandermcnabb : Did you look at the fi.wp sources in detail? #1 and #5 are database entries, with #1 being just the DOB and DOD, and #2-#4 appear to be WP:SPS . I'm not sure what fi.wp references you refer to (hah). - Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I trust your source evaluation here above my own, and strike my ! vote. / Julle ( talk ) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also note that simply saying There's a lot out there if you look for it is largely useless , unless one actually points out what sources they refer to. Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a lot of his churches and a source to the article. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. I'm honestly not interested enough to do more than that. My vote and rationale for it stands. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean the en.wp article we're discussing here? The one where the references consist solely of a name+DOB+DOD in a database (ref #1, Structurae ), a database entry of a cathedral he designed (ref #2, kyppi.fi ), another database entry consisting of name+DOB+DOD (ref #3, Kringla ) and a list entry of a total of 130 characters (un-numbered ref Sveriges och Norges statskalender )? That's incredibly far from reaching WP:GNG . Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe the coat of arms of the city suffices , otherwise Unless someone reads Finnish I think we can call WP:IAR on explicitly requiring newspaper articles about a 200 year old cathedral that survived a battle and an occupation. — siro χ o 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I read Finnish, and searched for Finnish language sources. The refs used at fi:Kuopion tuomiokirkko are all rather bad. Searches for both the architect and the Kuopio cathedral both just return useless hits, like a news blurb about how "there are still a few open slots in the summer for marriage ceremonies". Even the Finnish Heritage Agency listing is just stuff like "Made of stone, building started in X by so-and-so, halted in Z, continued in W, seats replaced in Y". By your call for an IAR keep, I take it that you too have failed to find anything that would actually meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARCHITECT #3. Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't read Finnish or Swedish (or Russian for that matter) and don't have access to newspaper archives in either language either. I actually tried to find pre-1900 newspapers in those languages (not even about this topic, just find the newspapers so I could query about the topic) but I literally don't know the languages well enough to find the archives in a reasonable amount of time. I'm invoking IAR for this because I believe WP:ARCHITECT#3 applies in spirit here. The purpose of the clause you're querying about really is not to exclude verifiable architects of notable buildings from 200 years ago. It would not serve the encyclopedia to follow this guideline to the letter here. Instead, let's follow the spirit of the guideline, and recognize that it better serves the first and second pillars to include an article about a verifiable architect of multiple notable structures from 200 years ago. — siro χ o 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you believe the guidelines should be changed, you are naturally free to propose the change on relevant talk page. I'm also rather confused why you keep bringing up pre-1900 newspapers , nothing in the guidelines says the references must be contemporary. Perhaps you are misunderstanding " periodical " in periodical articles or reviews as "period"? Ljleppan ( talk ) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I happen to have access to archives of historical newspapers and other publications published in Finland, and I can't see any relevant hits in either Finnish or Swedish newspapers. There's someone called "Carl Palmroth" going about; a reverend "A. Palmroth" does something or else; someone called "C. O. Palmroth" has levied a bunch of money from various bank accounts as part of some debt recovery process; a dentist called "R.W. Palmroth" advertises his services; a land survey commissioner called Palmroth is traveling to Hamburg in 1881 (nb: our subject died 1825); someone called "Georg Juhana Palmroth" gets a diamond decorated ring from the Russian Emperor in 1882; a lieutenant Palmroth is going about around 1807 doing something with a first platoon, etc. etc. The only even potentially relevant hits are non-news things like this , which lists the name of "Pehr Vilhelm Palmroth" as an ensign of the Royal Uplands Regiment, and this which says the same guy is a conductor in 1809. These contribute nothing towards a GNG pass. Ljleppan ( talk ) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this comes up multiple times I may propose a change, but I don't see a need now. Appreciate your input. — siro χ o 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] source I added a source in Swedish to the article. Good article and clearly stated about him. -- Patricia (Talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] source no. 5: here .-- Patricia (Talk) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This looks to be a self-published source and mentions the subject only in passing. It's neither a good article nor clearly stated about him . Ljleppan ( talk ) 11:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SPS ? by whom? He died 200 years ago-- Patricia (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "self" in "self-published" does not talk about the subject of the text, but the author. I suggest you (re)read the linked policy. Ljleppan ( talk ) 15:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] iam not sure but maybe this is one way: here . Patricia (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also changed:Petter "Per" Wilhelm Palmroth. not move yet. -- Patricia (Talk) 15:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Patricia Mannerheim for your updates. Thanks to them, I was able to find another in-depth source, added into the article, and I think its sufficient for GNG now, in addition to ARCHITECT.3 — siro χ o 23:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : Help me out here, again: what sources do you claim constitute a GNG pass? Because as far as I can see, the Finska Museum ref is just two extremely brief mentions of the subject, same for Sveriges kyrkor . Do you have access to the sources beyond what is shown in the Google Books preview? If yes, please describe how they match the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews requirement of WP:NARCHITECT #3. It'd be best if you could write up a brief WP:THREE statement (from either a GNG or an NARCHITECT angle, whichever you believe is the strongest) to help the rest of us figure out whether we agree with your rather plain assertion on the notability pass. Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just out of interest, asking for a friend and all that, but what is that long wooden thing over there? Looks to me a lot like a stick, I'd have to say... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the benefit of everyone, I went to scour the stacks and found the archival copy of Finskt Museum, vol XIX (btw, as far as I could determine, the book is not "in Finnish and Swedish" and the relevant article is only in the Swedish version). The two snippets shown by Google Books is indeed everything there is: two passing mentions. I also checked the separate index, and it contained the following entry: Palmroth, P. W., arkitekt F 1912: 63, 69. . So that appears to be all for that source. While in the stacks, I also sought out Sveriges kyrkor by Bergman. It mentions Palmroth only a few times. One is in an index of figures on page 594. Another is on a spread, where four drawings are attributed to him in two separate captions (pages 346-347). These drawings are describe briefly in associated text (pages 344-345), in a total of two paragraphs. Palmroth is barely mentioned. He's also mentioned in a three-paragraph description of a 1796 church in Venjan on page 561. The description is an extremely bare-bones description of the church, with Palmroth only mentioned in passing as the architect. Finally, he is mentioned once on page 591 in an English language summary, which appears to translate the three paras from page 561 verbatim, which just demonstrates how bare-bones the description is. My Swedish is rather rudimentary, so it's possible I missed something, but based on what I saw I consider precisely none of this helpful in terms of GNG. Ljleppan ( talk ) 14:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i wanna thanks to Ljleppan . Appreciate.I understand exactly what you are saying: work so much hard about sources and read them. but as a user who wrote this Article, still believed WP:NARCHITECT #3 per for the subject. -- Patricia (Talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is getting rather frustrating, with all the vague hand waving and poor sources presented so far. What sources do you base this on? What are the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or [the] independent and notable work required by WP:NARCHITECT#3? Ljleppan ( talk ) 12:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Above keep ! votes put forwards two arguments: either the subject passes WP:GNG (which is equivalent to the " basic criteria " of WP:NBIO ), or that the subject passes WP:NARCHITECT #3. I cannot see any supporting evidence for either position. In terms of GNG, the references presented in both this article and the fi.wp article are all either bare bones database entries (e.g. Structurae , Kringla ), database entries that only mention the subject in passing (e.g. kyppi.fi ), passing mentions ( Sveriges of Norges statskalendar ), self-published ( kauvatsankarjalaiset.net , upplandia.se ) or combination thereof ( pohjois-savonmuisti.fi ). This also applies to the sources presented above during the AfD. For example, having looked up physical copies in the local archives, Finskt Museum is two passing mentions. Sveriges kyrkor is not any better. See above for extensive descriptions of my attempts to validate the proposed references. A search for Finnish sources, including historical archives of newspapers and other works published in Finland whether in Finnish or Swedish going back to when the subject was alive, reveals no further sourcing that would raise to the level of GNG (or WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO , for that matter). As for WP:NARCHITECT #3, the above ! votes all conveniently ignore the second sentence of that very point: 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) . No such coverage is evident on the linked Wikipedia articles, and no such coverage has been presented in this discussion. The fact that Sveriges kyrkor - a compilation of literally 200+ books taking up several meters of space on shelves and discussing quite literally every Swedish church ever - barely mentions the subject or his works speaks volumes. In total, none of the keep votes have put forward the references required by the guidelines they point to. As such, I see no other policy (or guideline) based option but to ! vote delete. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Could I gently suggest consideration of WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:BLUDGEON now? The man is 200 years old. He is the (well) documented architect of many, many churches and public buildings in Finland and Sweden. The present clear consensus here is that he is presumed notable per WP:ARCHITECT . Let's leave it to other contributors, if any? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree . With full respect for all users. -- Patricia (Talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alexandermcnabb : As someone who had argued keep, I disagree. I think that Ljleppan makes a reasonable case, with reasonable arguments, and that no one else is seriously engaging with the discussion about lacking sources. I looked up Palmroth in what I'd describe as the major work on the history of Swedish architecture in modern times ( Den svenska arkitekturens historia by Fredric Bedoire), where he's once mentioned in passing because someone else's plans passed through his hands working at the superintendent's office, but there was no mention of his work as an architect. / Julle ( talk ) 01:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Julie Julle. To engage with the discussion about lacking sources, since the start of this discussion, it clear to me we now have a WP:HEY for WP:BASIC /GNG for the subject via sources now in the article. Consider, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . We now have that. I appreciate your source, and if you feel it helps I would appreciate you adding it, but I understand if you choose not to. Earlier, the discussion got a bit away from us, and that's completely fine, but I think that's why Alexandermcnabb raised their suggestion. — siro χ o 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : I'd be happy to ! vote keep if you just point out which sources in specific support such a position. But I'd also point out the sentence immediately following what you cited, as well as the explanatory footnote attached to it: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing . See also the rest of the explanatory footnote about database sources. In this case, all we have in reliable sources is trivial mentions such as directory entries or mentions in passing. (Ps. it's "Julle" with two Ls, not "Julie") Ljleppan ( talk ) 07:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My apologies for misreading the other editor's name! — siro χ o 09:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've struck and remedied it, thanks for pointing it out. — siro χ o 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UT Keep - The database of the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet) lists 36 buldings - mostly churches - with Palmroth as architect . / FredrikT ( talk ) 17:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that! The link gives the blank search engine, I think this one should give the 36 buildings result. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems it is not possible to link directly to a search result in the database. One has to type Palmroth's name in each case. / FredrikT ( talk ) 08:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you're right! It's odd, because it worked when I tested the link, but clearly some cache or other clears the result after a short while. Hey ho!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 08:25, 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

Peter Nguyen Van Hung: I don't see notability; he is an activist but without major achievements. Nadzik ( talk ) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Taiwan and Vietnam . Nadzik ( talk ) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , Japan , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Google translate isn't giving me any help on the Chinese sources but the State Department and Taipei Times both look like significant coverage in reliable sources. — Moriwen ( talk ) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - see also Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Nipponese_Dog_Calvero . Hoyanova ( talk ) 06:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI ar:special:diff/66394263 ; requests to create the article on the Arabic Wikipedia. (Please see GUC ) -- Alaa :). .! 15:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There is good sourcing, including the ones Moriwen raised, so this is fine. Notability should be determined apart from LTA case / UPE or whatever. TLA tlak 02:13, 20 March 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 ) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Mentioned in a few articles [13] , [14] , with probably the best here [15] , as human rights activist. I think we have just enough basic coverage about the person. A mention here [16] Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Taipei Times, The Diplomat and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:54, 24 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