Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Mark Grossman: BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But he has played one of the central roles in the most popular US soap opera for the past five years (which became an Emmy nomination). Wikipedia has articles about actors with far fewer credits. And I looked at his imdb pages and apparently he has also done film roles. -- Pisces ( talk ) 04:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BEFORE . One click and found lots of potential sources . Bearian ( talk ) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Google result sheet isn't exactly brimming with high-quality sources, but the nomination statement doesn't even contain a reason for deletion (we have plenty of pages for actors who have never been Emmy nominated), hence keep. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of golf video games: TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Golf . TWOrantula TM ( enter the web ) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If this list isn't notable, then Lists of sports video games and everything in it are not notable either and should likely have all been bundled together. However, I believe it does pass NLIST as sports video games are a notable subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:LISTN can be met, even if it's not currently shown in the article. Did you do WP:BEFORE ? Here are a few reliable sources covering the group: [33] , [34] , [35] (Well, sports, to zxcvbnm's point, but related), [36] (SI comparing different golf video games), [37] (A situational, but here it is), [38] (More group coverage), [39] , [40] , [41] ... and so on. -- ferret ( talk ) 14:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Valid navigational list. Category:Golf video games exist, and list are more useful than categories, more information able to be shown. We need to make the list guideline more obvious since this keeps coming up for years now. D r e a m Focus 17:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but damn does it ever need some serious cleanup. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources provided above show that the topic of this list is widely-covered by reliable sources as a group or set in both the golf world and the video game world, satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide ( talk ) 21:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ferret's sources. The list is not very well sourced at the moment, but the article as a whole meets the WP:NLIST criteria. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Most of the article includes notable games. There could be some chances for doing a small cleanup. Dympies ( talk ) 02:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is properly sourced, and it does meet WP:NLIST . I see no reason for deletion. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This vote is a little suspect, @ MKsLifeInANutshell . Pretty much ever ! Keep agrees the article is not properly sourced. Did you actually look? We're headed to a keep regardless but you need to be doing a proper evaluation before ! voting. -- ferret ( talk ) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the whole premise of this nomination puzzles me. The claim is that it fails NLIST. NLIST would generally be satisfied when reliable sources discuss a similar grouping of subjects. Do you mean to tell me that your belief is that publications have never written any articles about the incredibly common subject of golf video games . I get the concern when editors write these bizarre lists like "Platform games featuring animals and time travel", but why would one think a common sports video games wouldn't have coverage out there? Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per ferret Grahaml35 ( talk ) 01:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Association for Research into Crimes against Art: Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agreed, I cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search. Maybe worth mentioning in another article but definitely does not need an article of its own. Endersslay ( talk ) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please check the updated article. I have cited some 54 links to ARCA's work at this time. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, as well as mainstream newspapers and art-related publications. I am a bit puzzled that you could not find any reliable sources. I hope the ones I have added suffice. Avignonesi Avignonesi ( talk ) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Avignonesi , replying to you here since the threads are getting mixed up. Sources that mention an article subject in passing are generally not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:SIGCOV and, for pages of this type, Wikipedia:SIRS , on the standards by which we evaluate this. Despite the new sources you've added, the problems raised in our longer thread below (most are primary or cursory mentions) remain in my view. As such, most of the substance of the article is not a synthesis of in-depth secondary sources, but rather original research. See Wikipedia:NOR . Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting I have just edited my typo "threats" to "threads." Apologies! Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Agree for similar reasons. Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material. Also looked into alternative places to mention the subject, but none of the organizations or individuals mentioned has its own article. Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bear in mind that ARCA works with relevant law enforcement agencies in Europe, the United States, and the UK, many of which intentionally have a smaller electronic "footprint" by choice or who would require layers of permissions to authorise having their names used. This should not reflect negatively on the CSO or its work mission, but rather speaks to the discretion required when working in the crime prevention and intelligence gathering arena. Avignonesi ( talk ) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll take another look and change my vote if convinced, but I would emphasize that our standards for notable coverage don't make exceptions for supposedly secret or discreet activities. I'm not sure what you mean by CSO in your preceding mission. Is this another name for the ARCA? I don't see the acronym anywhere in the article. Separately, I'm not convinced much of the content in the article is particularly notable. For example, that an affiliated researcher has been appointed to a position at the British Museum doesn't mean much; I would find that much more notable if there was an official partnership between the ARCA and the British Museum. Also 3/11 paragraphs in this article are about one sentence in a Dan Brown novel mentioning the ARCA. In any case, I'll look into the sources added and consider changing my vote, but as it stands, even if the article is kept, I think much of this content should go. In the meantime, I'll do some copy-editing as its not in a great state. Arcendeight ( talk ) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On further consideration, I'm sticking to my original position. I further note that most of the sources included do not meet the criteria in WP:SIRS . By my count, only ~7 of 17 sources are secondary, the rest are used as primary sources. And several of these secondary sources don't stand for the propositions they're provided for. Two, for example, are about the Lot 448 film, but neither of the two mentions any tie between the film and ARCA. This does not count as significant coverage, which I think is really the crux of the issue: ARCA is, charitably, mentioned briefly only in a few secondary sources. By way of further example, the whole anecdote about the quotation in the Dan Brown book is only cited with reference to a blog post that does not contain the text the article claims it does! Arcendeight ( talk ) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Arcendeight, I continue to disagree with/oppose this article's deletion though perhaps, earlier, it did need a significant update. In hopes that you will change your opinion, I will start this discussion explaining what a CSO is civil society organization using wikipedia's own entry for such organisation types. I have also added this to the article for clarification in case others are similarly stumped. ARCA has been in existence, providing expertise it its field since 2009. CSO is a term which is fairly common in United Nations circles and given there are articles describing them I thought it was already clear. Hope my change has rectified that. My apologies in advance as I assumed if you were editing/following this page, you yourself worked in Civil Society circles or in the fields of Law or not-for-profits. In the US, UK, and EU there are different categories for not for profit and they are divided into the types of "causes" and memberships they represent and in the US also according to tax status. ARCA is a CSO via European Union standards. Now on to the tough stuff, I've added significantly more citations using primary and secondary sources. They are in fact out there and available, if one knows where to look. Since that too may not have been clear, I have probably overcited, in hopes to put this to rest. I am happy to edit this page further to make it compliant with what you are looking for, though I do think the article now qualifies as being encyclopedic as well as verifiable and Notable given that significant coverage of ARCA's work and activities sited in this article are backed up and cited in reliable professional and media sources. ARCA's been around and working on cultural property issues and crimes for more than a decade and has trained heritage professionals working in more than 40 countries. While small, it does important work and it is recognised by government institutions like the United Nations, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and most countries with art and antiquities crime investigation units. To link to some of its more public work, which I have cited and linked a PDF to ARCA's CEO was invited in official partnership to the British Museum's task force on this theft which involves more than 2000 objects from their collection. This is a select committee where ARCA's representative, Lynda Albertson, is only of just two of the 13 members appointed to the task force which have been publicly named. The other being James Ratcliff from the Art Loss Register. We cited this partnership as it is one of the few we are not judicially barred from discussing. Albertson is also the individual whose work with ARCA is highlighted in the film Lot 448 which was a Tribeca Film Festival documentary entry. The film mentions ARCA both in the filming sequences, as well as in its credits. I've added a second film credit, both of which are in IMDB for verification. As for the Dan Brown mention, I agree it is dated, and if it needs to go, I have no problems with it being deleted however it is verifiable that the organisation is cited in Brown's book, and the reference material he used was extracted from the blog article referenced. If you tell me what else this article lacks or needs, I'd be happy to try and see if I can find the requested data, but I don't think this page is is violation of wikipedia's focus on encyclopedic articles, or at least any longer. Avignonesi ( talk ) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose/Keep . I respectfully disagree. I was quickly able to find relevant links to important organisations who have worked with and cited the civil society's work including, UNESCO, UNIDROIT, and a European Commission funded project which substantiate this organisation's role in the art and antiquities crime area and therefore as a relevant entry to Wikipedia. I also note a recent documentary film, entered into the Tribeca film festival in 2021 which also highlighted the work this organisation has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi ( talk • contribs ) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no significant coverage from secondary sources. There are brief passing mentions, but that doesn't help the case for notability PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, mentions overwhelmingly fail to meet WP:SIGCOV . As such, most of the article is OR. Arcendeight ( talk ) 13:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to state for the record that I have made no threats, and I would appreciate it if the editor named "Arcendeight" would edit his/her comment for clarity. I believe they may have meant to use the word "threads" ,as threats implies malicious behavior, but given they used the word "threats" twice in their Talk rebuttal, I would appreciate it if they would clarify their statements or lined through them acknowledging to the Wikipedia administrators reviewing this page for possible deletion, that there has been no such activity on my part. Nota Bene: I would be remiss if I did not add that it has not gone unnoticed, that the most vocal of the editors marking this article as AfD, "Arcendeight", previously reversed edits I made, in relation to a more contentious entry to an article regarding a living person which related to the subject's editorial decisions regarding the nonpublication of an article on the topic of genocide in relation to the current Isreali war on Palestine. While I disagreed with the revert. I removed myself from that article's editing in order to not engage in controversy. Shortly after that, and apparently following the articles I have edited to the one on the Association for Research into Crimes against Art Wikipedia article, this same editor has now voted in favor of AfD. This is unsettling considering the probability of one single Wikipedia editor electing to edit two unrelated articles I have edited, out of the 6,781,369 articles listed on Wikipedia (as of February 2024) seems more than tangentially coincidental, especially given the fact that I had bowed out of editing the page where we had previously had opposing viewpoints. Despite my concerns regarding this "follow" and in the spirit of moving forward and working to correct very real deficits to this previously quite stale article over the course of several days, in the spirit of collaboration I have done the following. I have (again) reviewed Wikipedia:Notability which discusses that a article's entity must be verifiable and that it must have significant coverage in reliable sources which are more than a trivial mention, but do not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states that a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While I believe that this was already concretized with the edits I made to this article earlier this week, which included the addition of more than 60 primary and secondary source citations, including the Association for Research into Crimes against Art being cited in newspaper articles, journal articles, and high level institutional acknowledgements of the Association's work coming from UNESCO, UNIDROIT, ICOM, I would still like to try to further address the editors, who are in favour of the deletion of this article, concerns. Bearing in mind that they have said they "cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search" and "Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material." Here is the listing of even more citations which meet the secondary source criteria which I have now added to this article. For clarity, I have listed the topic areas where I have inserted these additional citations and am happy to move them elsewhere if the editors believe they would be better positioned someplace else in the article. ARCA's founding, listing as a nonprofit CSO and information about its work mission, are detailed in these secondary source books and conference papers. In addition I have listed a few secondary source journal articles. Hufnagel, Saskia, and Duncan Chappell, eds. The palgrave handbook on art crime. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019. Van Herzeele, Richard. "16 Connecting the dots." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime (2022): 220. Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Three Themes in Transition: Soft Power, Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods, and the Cartography of World Heritage Sites." International Relations and Heritage: Patchwork in Times of Plurality. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 263-284. Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods and Repatriation Toward a New Relational Ethics." Soft Power and Heritage. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. 261-279. Massih, Jeanine Abdul, and Shinichi Nishiyama. "Final Conclusions and Remarks." Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000-2011: Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015 (2018): 449. Bruinsma, Gerben, ed. Histories of transnational crime. Vol. 9. New York: Springer, 2015. ARCA's work and members research in capacity building, art crime during conflict, and the recovery of illicit antiquities is highlighted in these secondary source journal articles, conference papers, and book. Hardy, Samuel Andrew. "Criminal money and antiquities: An open source investigation into transnational organized cultural property crime." (2020): 154-167. Tsirogiannis, Christos. "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’auction houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 25 (2015): 107-144. Sulistyo, Iwan, et al. "A Review Towards Global Crime Governance in Overcoming Trafficking in Cultural Property." 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023. Guss, Aleksandra. ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja„Konwencja UNIDROIT z 1995 r.’ Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze II, no. 50 (2021): 293–99. Simone, Cristina, Mara Cerquetti, and Antonio La Sala. "Museums in the Infosphere: Reshaping value creation." Museum Management and Curatorship 36.4 (2021): 322-341. Di Paola, F., Giuseppe Milazzo, and Francesca Spatafora. "Computer aided restoration tools to assist the conservation of an ancient sculpture. The colossal statue of Zeus enthroned." The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42 (2017): 177-184. Amore, Anthony M., and Tom Mashberg. Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art heists. St. Martin's Press, 2011. ARCA's professional training initiatives are outlined in this journal article and book. BARTLEY, JANE E., et al. "Accessing Continuing Education for Provenance Research." 16th Annual Society of American Archivists (SAA) Research Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: SAA. Retrieved from https://www2 . archivists. org/am2022/research-forum-2022/agenda# peer Brummer Gallery Records. (2022) N. Vol. 1147. 2023. Herman, Alexander. "Plundering Beauty: A History of Art Crime during War." Art Antiquity & Law 25.1 (2020): 93-98. Huffer, Damien, et al. "From the Ground, Up: The Looting of Vưườn Chuối within the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Antiquities Trade." public archaeology 14.4 (2015): 224-239. Confirmation of ARCA's annual conference can be found in this secondary source book and two secondary (magazine) sources. Rush, Laurie Watson, and Luisa Benedettini Millington. The Carabinieri command for the protection of cultural property: saving the world's heritage. Vol. 17. Boydell & Brewer, 2015. O'Byrne, Robert. "Art theft is nothing new--the 17th century saw churches across Italy robbed of their Raphaels, wrote RW Lightbown in 1963." Apollo. Vol. 181. No. 632. Apollo Magazine Ltd., 2015. Abungu, George Okello. "Museums: geopolitics, decolonisation, globalisation and migration." Museum International 71.1-2 (2019): 62-71. The point now being, that I think this article demonstrates sufficient evidence, but has an excess of reliable sources (some 70 in total) which document, in overkill, the subject's significant coverage instead of a lack of documented noteworthiness, or lack of documented reliable sources independent of the article's subject. Especially when I look at other Civil Society Organisation articles within Wikipedia that are themselves not up for AfD and are similarly well cited. I might also add that there are other extremely poorly documented societies, organizations, activist groups, etc., which have not been well documented as being noteworthy who have not been stubbed AfD. In conclusion, I am happy to edit out the superfluous, or if the other editors prefer to do so they have the liberty to do so themselves and I think I have provided them with sufficient material to vet what they feel gets the job done. I'd also like to stress is that this is not a static page marked for Afd where the original creating editors have no investment in fixing the problem. One can see by the number of edits, that I am actively trying to improve the articles deficits, now that said deficits have been brought to my attention. I believe in doing so, this article adheres to and complies with (current) Wikipedia's standards. I could use tightening, and I can ask another editor to do so, but I did not want to wade into the vote matching approach to addressing this via the AfD talk but rather where edits normally occur, in furtherance of improving articles themselves. avignonesi ( talk ) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 sources that are 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage are better than 70 one line mentions. From a look over the sources you have added there are none that are all three of those things. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your comment Parakanyaa, if you can please select the three out of the 70 you feel meet the standards, given that you have read all the new additions in the 2 hours and 16 mins since I posted, I would be pleased to know which meet your standards. But to say that all 70 are passing mention only is categorically inaccurate. avignonesi ( talk ) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The onus is on you as the person who provided them. I checked several and they all seemed to fail. Feel free to provide three that qualify. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi PARAKANYAA, Early in my edits made this weeks to rectify problems on this page resulted in me deleting links and citations which didn't pass the 1-2-3 criteria you mention. All citations that are embedded now are: 1) reliable (most being academic sources, primary news sources, or publications from academic presses. 2) independent of the subject at the time the articles, books or conference papers were written, (though for transparency, three authors have been affiliated with the organisation AFTER the writing of the article or book indicated. 3) significant and not passing coverage. They speak to the Association's activities, its formation, its assistance in the recovery of looted and stolen art in the United States and the UK, and to it being called upon to comment on, or research, art and antiquities related crimes based upon its expertise. Additionally, since 2010, this organisation has been noteworthy enough to annually draw conference attendees from around the world who attend ARCA art crime conference and have objectively written so in articles I've cited. Photos of these events showing 90-100 attendees are available on the association's own social media pages which I did not link to as they would be self referential. Lastly since 2020 ARCA has been consulted upon and filmed regarding their work in investigations in two documentaries, both of which I have included and cited, one produced and paid for by SkyArts, a not insignificant channel, and the other sponsored by the jewellery company BVLGARI using an award winning director, as their entry into the Tribeca film festival. It doesn't make sense that a major Italian firm would sponsor an organisation that didn't hold standing in the field, nor would SkyArts waste valuable airtime approving a documentary which is/was viewable on their UK and Italian channels, which doesn't hold their viewers interest. Respectfully, I think it is safe for now to say that we simply disagree. avignonesi ( talk ) 17:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All you've done is WP:REFBOMB this article in an effort to save it. That is not a winning tactic. If you show me three of the many, many sources you've added that fulfill all three of what I mentioned above, then sure, but what you have provided is not a valid reason to keep the article. We can't keep it just because it's important, somehow, if there is not significant coverage to back up that fact. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already agreed that the total number of citation is in excess and have specifically asked for the dissenting editors assistance on which to keep and which to omit, moreover, because the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, as Wikipedia itself states. To wit, I asked @PARAKANYAA for his assistance, which he declined. I was simply asking for constructive feedback from the editors in favor of the AfD to select which they felt provided the clearest examples of citations within Wikipedia's current standards for inclusion, especially in light of the fact that they felt this article should be removed. I state on this record however that my "citation overkill" was done in part to highlight the fact that @PARAKANYAA claimed he could not find any significant coverage on the subject of this article and @Endersslay stated they too could not find any reliable sources when they did a detailed search. The fact that I found so many, I think shows I have an interest in not only preserving the article, but underscoring that the other two editors are perhaps less well versed in the subject matter. If I am wrong, I ask them in the spirit of collaboration to please feel free to provide me with a counter viewpoint. All that said, I categorically affirm that the citations added were not inserted to shore up my point, in contrast they were added to underscore the ease of which I found secondary sources documenting this organisation and to also underline the notability of the subject. My intent was for the opposing editors to take the time to read the linked existing legitimate sources to end this dispute, and knowing some are paywalled or are found in expensive academic books, I thought it best to make the list as comprehensive as possible and to then whittle that list back collaboratively. While I have (repeatedly) stated that I am aware of the citation clutter, I have also (repeatedly) requested the opposing editors decide for themselves what they themselves want to see as a "legitimate source" given they are the ones voting in favour of AfD. @PARAKANYAA said the onus is on me, but I am not in favor of deletion, so therefore I am not in a position to decide what he thinks does or does meet his standard. And as I perfectly know that no one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia elects to have articles about them. The study of art and antiquities crime should be no different. With that in mind, Here are not three but five select group citations. I have more than three as these are available to all editors as they are all open source whereas others are not. Citation 6 Hufnagel, Saskia, ed. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137544049. The editors of this book state who Noah Charney is and that he is the founder of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. They also state that he serves as the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Art Crime, the first peer-reviewed academic journal in the field and confirm the organisation's website. Citation 13 ARCA is acknowledged for its research by the International Council of Museums' - ICOM) International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. ICOM is an organisation made up of 45,000 members representing museums and museum employees in 138 countries. The ICOM observatory's citation reinforces that ARCA is part of a important network of international partners including international organisations, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and external expert stakeholders working in the field of illicit trafficking as it relates to cultural property which museum professionals can turn to. Citation 42 ARCA is cited within the framework of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and as a direct partner with UNESCO providing training in conflict and post conflict middle eastern countries. This citation clear shows that ARCA conducted this training, funded through UNESCO's Heritage Emergency Fund. As an added confirmation UNIDROIT mentions this training and photographs ARCA's CEO one one of the days of the training alongside a poster of the training session which has ARCA's logo clearly displayed alongside UNESCO's and UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/training-program-for-specialist-working-to-deter-cultural-property-theft-and-the-illicit-trafficking-of-antiquities/ Citation 53 In the open source court filings for the State of New York against Michael Steinhardt, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos speaks to the fact that Ms. Albertson directs ARCA, an initiative to promote the study and research of art crime and cultural heritage protection and that in this role ARCA compiles dossiers on international trafficking networks and liaises with law enforcement globally. Citation 55 ARCA was invited to UNESCO's Paris Headquarters as part of a Category 6 expert committee, aimed at reinforcing due diligence conducted in the European art trade while sensitising relevant stakeholders to the different implications of illicit trafficking of cultural property. This is confirmed by the PDF document which shows that Ms. Albertson gave a presentation right after the opening remarks in which she provided the attendees with an overview of the European art market and its role in the illicit trafficking of cultural property. Thank you for your time. avignonesi ( talk ) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To the extent that you seem to allege bad faith, @ Avignonesi , I categorically deny that. I edit regularly from my watchlist as you can see on my userpage. Your talk page is on my watchlist precisely because, when I reverted your edit a month ago, I posted a message there in order to explain my reasoning. As such, the AfD notification and subsequent CS1 error messages are on my watchlist. I apologize for any stress this perceived "follow," as you put it, may have caused. In any case, that is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion and my views are clear above, so I will bow out. Should you wish to discuss this further, I think my talk page or yours would be a more appropriate place so as not to clutter the AfD for the purpose of determining consensus. Warmly Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , easily meets GNG per sources existing and added. There seems to be a complaint about sourcing, with a call for "3, only 3". The first one I clicked on seems notable, so let's go one by one. Here's the first, from the Yale Daily News . Anything wrong with that one? Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for contributing to this discussion and I agree this one is ok @ Randy Kryn . I am not sure why the previous editors are asking me to justify with only three citations but I am trying to get this review for deletion rectified. What do you think about the other five citations that I posted above? I tried to select from extremely reputable international sources that I truly hope won't be contestable. avignonesi ( talk ) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't interviews not count for notability? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PARAKANYAA Having read interviews , I would agree with you that the Yake citation is Primary as per wikipedia's notations. So I have removed it, also because there were sufficient others which confirm the same details. That leaves 70 others if you want to go through these one by one. My suggestion is to look to the five I listed above as they assuredly meet your Citations 6, 13, 42, 53, 55. I specifically asked that these be reviewed as I am sure these in particular (and many others) meet the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage criteria for justifying this articles presence within Wikipedia. I listed these as I did not want to slow you down with your review process with links that are paywalled or books you might not have access to unless you are able to visit important art historical libraries. avignonesi ( talk ) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Citation 53: court filings do not count for notability Citation 55: being listed in a document with no commentary or discussion does not count for notability Citation 6 has them citing ARCA but no actual discussion of the organization. Citation 13 is just a listing of their resources (primary?) Citation 42, they're mentioned briefly but little to no discussion on them, this one is closer though None of these count. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would interviews not count for notability? The Yale Daily News is a reputable newspaper and (at least in the old bygone days) journalists usually check for accuracy and would be questioning the existence and importance of this organization if the data was inaccurate. The nomination states that no significant coverage exists, but it seems obvious from the added sources that it does. Why not just close the nom, or does the nominator still think that sources don't exist? Randy Kryn Read WP:Interviews . Essay not policy of course, but still. Good for facts but getting interviewed by a reliable source doesn't make one notable. Yes, they exist, they're not a hoax, sources exist , but not ones showing significant coverage PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An opinion essay. Please be aware of how journalism works (or used to). Journalists check, then double-check, sources, and clarify all statements to the best of their ability. Interviews are usually secondary sources, not primary, and individuals or facts used in interviews are then vetted, analyzed, and either passed as correct or the article or interview is scrapped. The opinion essay may not take the process of journalism into account. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews are inherently primary as they are not independent from the subject, and therefore cannot count for notability. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you read my comment above? Primary means the topic subject is writing about itself with no review or vetting being done. An interview of the subject or someone associated with the subject then falls under fact-checking and normal journalistic methods. Journalism 101. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The interview with the person who runs the organization is obviously not independent of the organization. All mentions of ARCA in that interview are from the founder of the organization - no journalism involved. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PARAKANYAA , you're wrong. Interviews are not inherently primary. Also, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent . If the local radio station interviews a historian about local history, then that doesn't make the historian non-independent of the subject of the interview (which is local history, not the expert). Interviews can be independent or non-independent. An example of an independent interview is when the interviewer is a journalist, the interviewee is a historian, and the subject of the interview is a piece of history that the interviewee had nothing to do with. An example of a non-independent interview is when the interviewee is an actor, and the subject of the interview is the latest film the actor starred in. Interviews can be primary or secondary. An example of a primary interview is when actors are asked questions about their personal experience with making their latest films. An example of a secondary interview is when the historian explains that there are two main points of view about a historical event, and that each viewpoint has different advantages or limitations. As a mathematical likelihood, most interviews are primary and non-independent. This particularly includes nearly all interviews of celebrities and politicians. But "most" is not the same as "all". You cannot figure out whether a source is primary or independent merely by looking at whether it's an interview. You must consider whether the interviewee is talking about himself or about something else. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WhatamIdoing Fair enough, and in future discussions I will take that into consideration. Still, this is the entire portion about ARCA: "There was a big New York Times Magazine article about it at the same time “The Art Thief” came out, so the momentum allowed me to establish the ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. It creates a bridge between academics and police by teaching police about art crime strategy with theory and practical knowledge." and "ARCA has established the first library with books published in the field of art crime and there are about 250 books in the collection,". He is talking about his organization. Non-independent. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the source in question is an interview, then we'd call that non-independent and primary. But if it's a normal newspaper article, and one small portion of the article quotes him, then that newspaper article is still independent overall, so Wikipedia would treat it as an independent source. Similarly, a newspaper article might be primary or secondary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more on that. I find that, over the years, editors have been quick to assume that newspaper articles are "second-hand, and therefore secondary", but even though that's the common mistake, it's also important not to go too far the other direction. If the newspaper article provides comparison, analysis, evaluation, etc., then it's secondary (according to our rules). It can be a bit complicated. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noted. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the second page source I clicked on , from UNESCO, a reputable organization . What is wrong with this one? Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing in there that is "significant coverage" of ARCA. They are mentioned, that isn't a point for notability when there's nothing else. I will concede that is a lot better than most of these other sources. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The whole article is about the collaboration event between UNESCO and the Association, everything in it concerns ARCA and UNESCO. Not understanding keeping this open, the nom has been well addressed and improvements in sources and to the page since its inception fulfill what should be the main purpose of AfD, to save articles that are savable with further effort (in this case the effort seems to have been successfully put in). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not saveable. At best there is one source that sort-of-maybe counts and nothing else. Interviews with the people who run an organization are inherently connected to that organization (therefore failing the criterion that sources be independent) and do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read Journalism ethics and standards . These standards cover interviews. Interviews, if published by reputable newspapers, magazines, or hard-news television shows, are secondary sources. They are vetted. They are fact checked. As for "this is not saveable" that seems an incorrect assessment, as it has already been saved by the addition of many reputable sources (I've clicked on a couple more, the page is notable, and this discussion has become a time sink). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree. Not a single source I have seen seems to show this organization being notable, merely 70 very brief mentions. Notability is not inherited and someone who is in the organization mentioning the organization in an interview for two brief sentences certainly does not count. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now about 6 times larger than when nominated, on raw bytes, & seems ok. Johnbod ( talk ) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Johnbod and Headbomb : This org publishes the Journal of Art Crime . It's not listed in Scopus, and I'm not sure how else to determine whether art and/or law journals might be notable. Do you have any suggestion? WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, no - I don't know much about journal notability. But many notable organizations must publish non-notable journals. Johnbod ( talk ) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I have checked twenty of the references cited in this article and find them to meet the secondary citation criteria as well as the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant criteria. Some of the other citations are unavailable to me due to paywalls or the fact that the academic publication/book cited I do not personally own. It is my opinion that this improved article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, however it could still use more work for smoother reading and perhaps arranging some citations in a better way and removing the redundant ones. A better alternative to deletion is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made. As it stands though it is overall a well cited article with numerous confirmatory secondary sources which I had no difficulty in confirming via open source and digital news sites. While the subject of this article is an organisation working in a niche specialised field that may be more well known to those familiar with the fields of art historical research and art and antiquities restitution, it is no less notable than other organisations that are listed in wikipedia hyper-focused on art crime research, such as the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, or the Antiquities Coalition, India Pride Project, and others. All of whom have pages and are organisations bigger and smaller than this particular one. who have not been cited for removal and who also do equally fine work. It is my opinion that many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. This one being 3/4th of the way to where it needs to be to be in good form. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with really few if any articles. To me the article on the Association for research into Crimes against Art should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart ( talk • contribs ) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Considering this user has never edited before today and the singular other edit is related to art forgery I assume there is a COI involved in this user's statement. Send some of those 20 references that fulfill the requirements, then. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have multiple degrees in art history and am interested in this field I have no COI. I simply started with simple things, articles on subjects I have an interest in and feel confident. If I had edited only one article on high speed trains, would you discount my opinion because I have never edited on art before? I don't think any new editor starts out editing by choosing a subject they are not interested in. I may be new to editing but not to the subject of crimes and criminals in the art world which is why I took an interest in this page, and when I saw it was up for possible deletion, I wanted to give input. Before voicing my opinion though, I spent time reading the entire article itself before making suggestions for improvements and also verified the links in this discussion and many of the others linked in the article which were available to me. (as I already stated). I will close with saying I understand, Wikipedia encourages editors to: Please do not bite the newcomers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers So thanks for making this newcomer feel genuinely (un)welcome. Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart ( talk • contribs ) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Bearian ( talk ) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus which currently is split between HEY and delete, as the newly added references might not satisfy SIGCOV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. I see above some people arguing that notability standards for organizations are higher than the GNG. This is false. A subject is notable if it meets either a subject specific notability guideline OR the GNG. Central and Adams ( talk ) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is not a single source in this article that would satisfy GNG PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, clearly that's your opinion, as you've already stated it about a zillion times. I'm happy to trust the closing admin to evaluate the arguments by quality rather than quantity. Central and Adams ( talk ) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

keep

The Business Standard: M.parvage ( talk ) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems to be cited a lot, but I found no sigcov. Carpimaps talk to me! 11:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For a periodical, being widely cited is a valid criteria for being likely notable per both WP:NNEWSPAPER Criteria#4 and WP:NMEDIA . Resonant Dis tor tion 10:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Following up on comment by Carpimaps ( talk · contribs ) - a quick check on Google Books & Scholar does indicate evidence of this publication being widely cited - which fulfils both WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA . Article however does need improvement and better sourcing. Resonant Dis tor tion 09:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA based on how widely cited the newspaper is. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NNEWSPAPER , even if a periodical is notable, it may not be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it if there are no reliable, independent sources that can be used to verify the information about the periodical. See WP:V Thanks. M.parvage ( talk ) 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The entire article is promotional. Please see my assessment. Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Source 1 Company Website website; see WP:IIS ? ? ✘ No Source 2 Research on Covid 19 But not the topic Not at all, except for some references ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . M.parvage ( talk ) 06:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 2 assessment is stated as " Not at all, except for some references "? That is the most egregious interpretation of a source I have seen. Source 2 is clearly independent and clearly an in-depth analysis of the The Business Standard' s reporting during Covid. There is also no evidence of a WP:Before given by the nominator. The subject is widely cited as per the ! votes - a quick google verifies this. Resonant Dis tor tion 07:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per ResonantDistortion. (I would have endorsed a merge to List of newspapers in Bangladesh , but for some unfortunate reason that list appears to be restricted to bluelinks, so is not a viable merge target.) I am grateful for M.parvage's source assessment, but I would have to join ResonantDistortion in disagreeing with the assessment of Source 2, which indeed seems to be quite in-depth and appears to be reliable and independent. There isn't as much to work with here as one would like (perhaps there are more sources in Bengali?), but this does appear to probably meet at least WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals . (That's one of two dueling essays on the subject; I think a close reading of NNEWSPAPER will show that that essay's standard is not met, if it matters.) At any rate, in my opinion, newspapers belong in a similar bucket to populated places, in that they represent a kind of encyclopedic background knowledge that warrants tipping the scales toward inclusion even when the sources available are (as they seem to be here) a bit sparse, because even a sparse article provides important value to readers and editors. (I am fond of the term "ecosystem services" for the added value that such articles provide in the overall web of coverage.) In addition, subject to the limitations of WP:V , I think it is also worth tipping the scales against cavalier deletions that aggravate Wikipedia's problems with systemic bias. All that said, there are two things that give me pause: (1) it seems difficult, at scale, to confidently separate citations for The Business Standard from citations for the Business Standard , and (2) this newspaper is not mentioned in List of newspapers in Bangladesh , which seems peculiar but may be due to the newspaper's fairly recent founding (possibly 2018?). -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the article with another academic source that contains significant analysis of the newspaper. [26] I also agree with all the points that ResonantDistortion, Vinegarymass911, and Visviva have already made here in favor of keeping. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, article could use more expansion and continued development though. - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:14, 27 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

Holawaka: Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Ethiopia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Waaqeffanna , of which Oromo mythology is a sub-topic, or Somali mythology . I've seen the story of Holawaka attested in many secondary sources, but have seen not much analysis, so a merge seems the best solution to me. Daranios ( talk ) 13:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can only see a snippet from The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Myths & Legends . If it contains enough commentary to expand the article beyond a stub, I am fine with keep , too. Daranios ( talk ) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 21:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search brings up dozens of sources, way more than enough to demonstrate notability. Pladica ( talk ) 4:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:BEFORE , in concurrence with Pladica . See in this list of snippets of books . Bearian ( talk ) 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Based on the current sources. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article needs development, but Bearian's BEFORE shows there is SIGCOV available in RS. // Timothy :: talk 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A notable mythological creature. The article requires expansion, not deletion. [14] can be used to expand the article. . 49.237.39.216 ( talk ) 00:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NEXIST , sources have been provided by the AfD participants. Lightburst ( talk ) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Naked Capitalism: Of the fourteen cited sources: four ([10]-[13]) are interviews with the website's creator; two ([1] and [6]) are About pages from the website; two are posts on the website itself ([8] and [14]); one ([7]) is a self-published blog post by one of the website's contributors; and one ([5]) is a post on another website by the website's creator. This leaves four reliable secondary sources , two of which only briefly mention Naked Capitalism in passing as recommendations, and the other two of which are short biographical stubs about the website's creator, without more than a passing reference to the website. One thing that becomes immediately clear upon going through these sources is that they lack significant coverage of the website - often only briefly mentioning the website as a product of its creator, without any further detail. There seems to be more information about the website's creator than the website itself, so if no more significant coverage from reliable sources can be found, maybe a short stub about her could be salvaged from this. But in its current state, I don't think this article meets GNG and as such, am recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk ) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Finance , Economics , Websites , and United States of America . Grnrchst ( talk ) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly notable (no comment on the quality of the article's current sourcing). Just a few minutes' Googling: Included among TIME Magazine's "25 Best Financial Blogs". [2] Financial Times [3] interview with "Yves Smith" specifically about the blog (Google for "On Wednesday, FT Alphaville met Yves Smith, proprietor of the blog Naked Capitalism" to let Google take you past the paywall) Listed as #1 most influential finance blog by Business Insider [4] Institutional Investor (magazine) [5] Risk (magazine) [6] ProQuest link Etc. -- Andreas JN 466 00:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've done some remedial work on the article. Note that this blog is archived by the Library of Congress. [7] [8] It also has about 100 mentions in the Wall Street Journal , many of them "Caught on the Web" recommendations. Andreas JN 466 13:59, 22 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 17:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Even using the sourcing given above, it's one in a list of items. Nothing at length about it... I can't find much for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b I should mention that the article in the Risk journal mentions that it is based on a piece in the journal Credit , a sister publication; this runs to three pages. People can have a look; it is available on ProQuest via the WP:Library . The Financial Times interview article (1,750 words) actually was one of a series about the blog (final instalment here . Even the TIME listing is over 200 words. There are brief endorsements in the New York Times like this one . I can have a further look around, but even just with those I would have thought GNG is well met. The one thing that does make things difficult is that Smith has written so many news articles that it's hard to find stuff about her and her blog in Google News. A lot of the hits are links to articles by her , with the author info mentioning the blog. (Note that Yves Smith – a pun on Adam Smith – redirects to Naked Capitalism .) Andreas JN 466 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly these sources just confirm to me that, if this article is to exist, it should be about Yves Smith. None of these sources refer to Naked Capitalism as anything other than Smith's blog. It isn't clearly independently notable from her, although she is clearly a notable figure herself. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 10:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I see it, the sources are primarily about the blog. Take the TIME and CNBC listings, or the Financial Times interview, which is all about the blog, or the Institutional Investor piece. It's the blog that makes Smith notable, not Smith that makes the blog notable. Andreas JN 466 11:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Susan Webber (blogger) and keep at that title. BD2412 T 18:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BD2412 The problem with that solution is that even though Naked Capitalism was started by Webber (a.k.a. Yves Smith), and she remains the most high-profile contributor, it is a group blog and is indexed as such here for example by EconAcademics.org (a site hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .) A past version of the article included a bunch of contributing writers (another editor deleted them because they were unsourced). Some of those contributors have been referred to or had their NC posts republished by third-party sources; e.g. Matt Stoller here , David Dayen (see [9] , Alternet running a piece previously published on NC , also cf. [10] ), Philip Pilkington ( [11] [12] ), Nathan Tankus ( [13] ), Jerri-Lynn Scofield [14] etc. So I think the solution is to bring the contributing writers back into the article, with references, and make clear to the reader that it is a group blog. (Indeed, if you look at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ today or its archives , posts by Smith are in the minority.) So could I ask you to give it another thought? Best, Andreas JN 466 14:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My impression is that the most notable aspect of the blog is its founder, and everything we currently have about it can fit in a section of an article on its found, with a redirect tagged with {{ R with possibilities }} . BD2412 T 19:55, 23 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! 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article has been almost completely revised and re-sourced since the AfD nomination. -- Andreas JN 466 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated. Naked Capitalism has received widespread coverage over a significant period of time. Thriley ( talk ) 15:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article has changed substantially since the AfD nomination, thanks to the excellent and dedicated work of Andreas . As their edits have demonstrated clear notability, with significant coverage in reliable sources, my concerns have been thoroughly addressed and I no longer believe the article warrants deletion. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as evidenced by Grnrchst, this has met WP:HEY . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

RA-78804: Per WP:AIRCRASH , in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG . Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Aviation , and Russia . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added several references from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Катастрофа Ил-76 под Абаканом . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect . The article in question doesn't meet the criteria for notability per nomination. However, there is already an existing article titled List of Russian military accidents that include incidents such as this one. Integrating this article into the existing list would be better solution. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 05:16, 27 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 ) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents where that states: "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Next to that the nominator wrongly states that the essay states "in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable". The essay itself states "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent." Most of the military accidents that happens regulary are carrying 1 or a few crew members. This accident killed 24 people, including 13 passengers. So (as example) in my opition it's about the same notability as the previous month 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash : a militairy airplane that crashed (15 peoeple were killed including passengers were killed). An investigaion has been done into the cause of the crash and advice was given to prevent a similar accident. There were multiple aspects on several levels (from the pilots, to the air traffic control, to aircraft weight inspector/approver to airplane map designer) that contributed to this crash including: The 337 metres high hill was not indicated on the map of the pilots The aircraft was overloaded Air traffic control was not checking the location of the aircraft after take-off A SOS signal went off but was ignored That makes that the accidents meets all the aspects of WP:Event But the article should be renamed: The current title of "RA-78804" is the registration number of the aircraft. According to the standards, the article should be moved to: 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash . 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Russian military accidents in the absence of any sources citing WP:LASTING effects such as changes to procedures. Rosbif73 ( talk ) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . There are Russian sources for it. But perahps rename the article to 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash -- Artene50 ( talk ) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename – Per @ Artene50 . Significant coverage of Russian-language sources. Svartner ( talk ) 05:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Russian military accidents . No evidence of lasting effects and per WP:DIVERSE . Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 09:35, 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

Andrzej Niwiński: Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Comments Source Database bio with very basic information. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "prof. dr hab. Andrzej Niwiński ID: 63740", National Information Processing Institute Polish Science, retrieved 2024-01-03 List as receiving an award, I do not think this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 2. ^ "Egipt. Odznaczenia dla przedstawicieli Polonii". Prezydent.pl. 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2024-01-03. Speaking engagement annoucement, "The guest of the next meeting will be prof. Ph.D. Andrzej Niwiński, Egyptologist", fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ "Spotkanie z prof. dr. hab. Andrzejem Niwińskim". Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach. 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2024-01-03. Youtube guest lecture by subject 4. ^ "Spotkania z Archeologią. Wykład prof. dr hab. Andrzeja Niwińskiego". Youtube. Muzeum Śląskie. 2023-04-17. Retrieved 2024-01-03. Link is 404 and I cannot find the source 5. ^ M.P. z 2022 r. poz. 810 BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . I was not able to find an entry in a national biographical dictionary, if sources are found, ping me. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Thank you. The article in under construction. Andrzej Niwiński is well recognizable author in Egyptology, but I am not sure if he have already any biography written. I will try to expland it as much as it is possible, and I will check the references again. Niwinski, A. (1993). Quirke, S. (ed.). "Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th Centuries BC" (PDF) . The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology . 79 : cover page. doi : 10.2307/3822191 . ISSN 0307-5133 . Nbarchaeo ( talk ) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Multiple reviews of his books ( [9] [10] [11] , plus offline in: Archeologia Żywa 1996, 2004, 2005, 2006; Ars Regia 1994; and Acta Poloniae Historica 2006), meets WP:NAUTHOR and likely WP:PROF#C1 . – Joe ( talk ) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . – Joe ( talk ) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Three more book reviews: JSTOR 40000588 , JSTOR 3822191 , JSTOR 43075790 . With the ones above that's enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This is the case of someone who should be notable, IMHO, but has trouble formally meeting GNG/NPROF. The best source about him I've found so far is a brief mention on a blog of one of his students: [12] about him receiving a major Polish state award (but I am not sure if technically this is enough to make him notable): Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland . I abstain since as I said I think he should be notable, but formally, he has major issues with SIGCOV. Note that he is notable for pl wiki because habilitation is sufficient for any academic there. We have different criteria, for better or worse. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some more assessments of sources brought up in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPROF is the one and only SNG that that community has unambiguously agreed sits separate from the GNG: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources....This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." Satisfies NPROF c2 and c7 with the award of the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland - one of only 17 awarded that year, see pl:Order_Zasługi_Rzeczypospolitej_Polskiej#Andrzej_Duda_(od_6_sierpnia_2015_–_do_nadal) . (Declaration - I finalised the 2022 stats ). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:07, 20 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

Bill Freyer: The article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT . There are no references and the two external links are stat sites. The one note leads to a book entitled "The Encyclopedia of AFL Footballers: every AFL/VFL player since 1897", which seems pretty useless for notability and remarkably similar to the aforementioned stat sites. IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia . IncompA 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The ongoing crusade against the uncultured sportsmen. Clearly passed the stupidly deleted NAFL. Unclear why inclusion in an encyclopaedia is useless for the inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Nothing controversial and/or unverified. Can't pretend we have to be careful about BLPs because he died over 60 years ago. Funny how nom claims there are no references, did they even look at the page before nominating it. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Any VFL player should be notable, even as perma-stubs, as there are print encyclopedias dedicated to their existence and therefore they have been "worthy of note." Also has multiple references. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T · C 11:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the article with many sources from Trove, an Australian newspaper archive. Some are passing mentions but there's enough to clear GNG – I would single out these pieces [65] [66] [67] [68] if we're looking for the best . I'm not really convinced the nominator did his due diligence here. When you're evaluating notability, it's not enough to look merely at the sources currently in the article. You have to thoroughly search where sources are likely to exist. And even though NAFL has been demoted from guideline status and no longer grants presumed notability, it remains a useful rule of thumb for when you should take more care to see what coverage is out there. – Tera tix ₵ 22:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many SNGs were problematic, but NAFL is pretty spot on - if you played in the AFL/VFL, you are almost certainly wiki-notable, because sources will cover you. SportingFlyer T · C 15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really? You think every single AFL/VFL passes Wikipedia's notability requirements? Even one-gamers? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps older one-gamers might not, but the competition has been covered so well for so long - especially considering playing lists have been pretty much fixed before the season starts - that it would be surprising to me if any failed, similar to American baseball and basketball pro leagues. SportingFlyer T · C 16:35, 15 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

Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall: TMXX0818 ( talk ) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found a few sources in Chinese, Bailian seems to be a major company operating many malls, department store chains and other retail chains, probably worth an article. I am always so reluctant to see lack of coverage in English Wikipedia because it's not covered in English, it's important to be inclusive where possible as English doesn't just belong to the US, UK, India etc but to the world as the world's unifying language of communication. Keizers ( talk ) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to change this to an article about the company. Definitely notable with sources. Keizers ( talk ) 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls , Entertainment , and China . TMXX0818 ( talk ) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Tang, Xiaoli 唐小丽; Xuan, Zhaoqiang 轩召强 (2023-10-30). " "百联西郊"今起试营业！好吃好玩的超多，优惠力度大" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall starts its trial operation today! There are so many delicious and fun things to eat and great discounts]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-14 . The article notes: "10月27日，百联西郊购物中心启动试营业，友宠、优雅、饕餮、欢聚、品质、健康6大生活方式板块，为市民带来全新的多维生活体验。现场人气十足，跟随“宁宁”镜头去打卡吧。 ... 百联西郊购物中心，于2004年开业，是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心，也是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心。" From Google Translate: "On 27 October, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center launched its trial operation, with six major lifestyle sections: pet-friendly, elegant, gourmet, gathering, quality, and healthy, bringing a new multi-dimensional life experience to citizens. The scene is very popular, follow the "Ning Ning" lens to check in. ... Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center opened in 2004 and is the first open mall in China. It is a shopping mall with a traditional architectural style and is also the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai." Cheng, Qi 程琦 (2023-10-28). "经过一年多闭店调整，百联西郊焕新回归：引入友宠等多元场景，重塑商业空间" [After more than a year of store closures and adjustments, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall returns with a new look: introducing diverse scenarios such as friendly pets and reshaping the commercial space]. Eastday [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-14 – via Sina Corporation . The article notes: "经过一年闭店调整的百联西郊购物中心于本周正式开启试营业。温暖柔和的秋日阳光透过新开辟的悦活东庭与悦尚西庭的巨幅采光天窗，在下沉式郊点广场相汇绽放，东里西巷人头攒动，共同见证百联西郊在花样年华焕新再出发。" From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center officially opened for trial operation this week. The warm and soft autumn sunshine shines through the huge skylights of the newly opened Yuehuo East Courtyard and Yueshang West Courtyard, and blooms in the sunken suburb square. The east and west lanes are crowded with people, witnessing the prosperity of Bailian West Suburb in the Mood for Love. Start fresh and start again." "百联西郊购物中心暂停营业，进行为期一年的闭店改造" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is temporarily closed for one-year renovation]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2022-06-16. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-14 . The article notes: "百联西郊购物中心 是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心 是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心 扎根上海西部18年 它见证着城市商业发展 也承载着长宁几代人 ... 在18年的经营过程中，百联西郊购物中心每年都会对品牌和业态进行局部调整。但随着消费快速升级，消费者越来越注重消费体验以及购物中心的可玩性，局部改造已不能满足品牌迭代更新需求，动线不合理及硬件老化也限制了中心发展，因此最终采用闭店形式进行改造。" From Google Translate: "It is the first shopping mall with open architectural style in China. It is the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai. Rooted in western Shanghai for 18 years It witnesses the commercial development of the city It also carries generations of Changning people ... During its 18 years of operation, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center has made partial adjustments to its brand and business formats every year. However, with the rapid upgrading of consumption, consumers pay more and more attention to the consumption experience and the playability of shopping malls. Local renovations can no longer meet the needs of brand iteration and update. Unreasonable movement lines and aging hardware also limit the development of the center. Therefore, closed centers were finally adopted. The store format is renovated." Xu, Jinghui 徐晶卉 (2022-09-13). "破题核心区存量更新，百联西郊迎来一年改造期，焕变"超级社区能量场" " [The inventory of the core area of PoTian is updated, and the western suburbs of Bailian usher in a one-year transformation period to transform into a "super community energy field"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-14 . The article notes: "位于区域核心位置上的百联西郊购物中心，需要全新的价值发现和形态重构，来提升其在西郊、古北、大虹桥三大商圈交汇跃升中的竞争优势；给这个类似纽约“上西区”的辐射域，和其中的居民，带来更新鲜的多元生活方式提案。7月起，百联西郊迎来为期一年的闭店改造。" From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center, located at the core of the region, needs new value discovery and form reconstruction to enhance its competitive advantage in the intersection of the three major business districts of Xijiao, Gubei and Greater Hongqiao; to give this "New York-like" The radiation area of ​​"Upper West Side" and its residents bring fresher and diverse lifestyle proposals. Starting from July, Bailian Xijiao will undergo a one-year store closure and renovation." "百联西郊购物中心即将焕新启幕，"超级社区"构筑高能级业态生活能量场" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is about to be renovated and opened, and the "super community" will build a high-energy business life energy field]. Forbes China (in Chinese). 2022-09-01. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14 . Retrieved 2024-04-14 . The article notes: "2004年，作为国内第一家北美风格开放式花园购物中心，百联西郊在十八载的岁月中，不断攒拾着区域发展的“西郊记忆”，成为全国购物中心的典范。" From Google Translate: "In 2004, as the country's first North American-style open garden shopping mall, Bailian West Suburbs has continued to accumulate the "Western Suburbs Memory" of regional development over the past 18 years, becoming a model for shopping malls nationwide." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall ( simplified Chinese : 百联西郊购物中心 ; traditional Chinese : 百聯西郊購物中心 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 00:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: page has been moved to Bailian Group • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 11:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some opinions on these newly found sources. Also, please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to a different page title. It really confuses XFDCloser which we use to relist and close discussions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the sources found by Cunard. WP:SPLIT the irrelevant section on the Bailian Group to its own page as this article should only be about the shopping mall. ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 21:55, 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

Aella (influencer): Good to know she only showers once every ten days, though whether that cracks the notability ceiling is questionable. Mathglot ( talk ) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Mathglot ( talk ) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn Mathglot ( talk ) 06:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I do not know if this is relevant, but the page seems to have attained 95,576 pageviews in the time since it was created in October 2023. I have made a number of pages, but never has one received so many pageviews, especially in such a brief period of time since I first made it. I think the page passes WP:GNG though based on the available coverage regardless. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some additional sources not in the article currently: Business Insider , Playboy , Reason . Thriley ( talk ) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Snarky remarks of the "Gee, how weird/icky" type are not a valid deletion rationale. Apart from the New York Times coverage that the nominator appears to be trying to dismiss above, the article also already cites WP:SIGCOV from a RS (a book published by PublicAffairs ). Together with the SIGCOV listed by Thriley above, this handily satisfies WP:GNG . (Reason and Playboy are green-rated RS, see WP:RSP#Reason and WP:RSP#Playboy . As for the BI article, I am not quite sure if it falls into the site's green-rated culture part or the yellow-rated remainder , but in any case the author seems to be a seasoned media reporter. By the way, there was also a separate Reason article with more journalistic content in addition to the interview.) Lastly, the nominator's insinuation that the article's subject lacks a substantial audience size as a writer except for a viral post or two is factually dubious (this is only a crude indicator of notability , but I thought it worth correcting since it was brought up as an argument for deletion above). Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as TOOSOON - coverage is not the sort of biographical coverage we would need to properly support a WP:BLP . What little coverage we have here was scraped together from the barest coverage we could find. Google News overwhelmingly shows trashy tabloid coverage of the woman who doesn't shower. HaeB hammers on the NYT coverage, but we don't give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story - that's the quintessence of a passing mention. As discussed on the talk page, the Auerbach book coverage is a single paragraph and a quote - it's a mention in passing, not BLP writing about Aella. This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan and can't find any actual RSes once their tabloid coverage has been removed (see history, and see their spirited talk page defense of using the New York Post on a BLP). It is possible Aella will do something genuinely noteworthy at some point, but at absolute best this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard ( talk ) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Curious about your definition of "hammering"; evidently it differs from wikt:hammer#Verb (I hadn't commented about that New York Times coverage before). Nobody argued that we should give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story alone, that's a strawman. And your delete ! vote fails to address or even just acknowledge the other RS coverage that has been cited in favor of notability. WP:SIGCOV isn't about length, but describes coverage that is more than a trivial mention, but [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The David Auerbach quote in the article summarizes an extensive body of work by the article subject in one area, it is not a "trivial mention" at all. This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan - I'm not saying that fan-created articles aren't a problem in general, but in this case the insinuation that Iljhgtn created the article because they are a "huge fan" seems rather unsubstantiated . (Yes, they were mistaken about the suitability of the NY Post as BLP source. But that's water under the bridge now - that citation was removed months ago.) Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 19:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as TOOSOON This page gets a lot of views, yes, but that doesn't mean that she is notable, it means that this wiki article happens to be the first result when you google "Aella" and she has a lot of fans. But if you do google her, the results are almost nothing but her own blog posts and one or two articles. Deciding if an influencer is "notable" is tricky business, but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", it was changed to "influencer" after it was ruled she is not in fact a scientist. What she is really is a meme which has been making waves in a small corner of the internet, and until she actually gains some notoriety outside of tweets about the girl who got a birthday gangbang or tabloid articles about the woman who doesn't shower, she is a meme. And generally memes only get Wikipedia articles when they reach a level of notoriety that she has not yet obtained. Jelephant ( talk ) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist" , I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] RS coverage outside of tweets has been amply demonstrated at this point. Let's stick arguments based on Wikipedia policies, instead of personal theories about memes and waves . Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- really a unique sort of independent scholar, to be getting any kind of coverage at all. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- It is appropriate that this nomination has been formally withdrawn. The subject may have an unusual career and lifestyle, but she is far from lacking in notability. Although the article in its present form is only short, with a small number of references, a google search reveals very quickly that she has been the subject of lengthy interviews/profiles in various publications over several years, eg unHerd, 2020 , Business Insider, 2020 , Reason, 2022 , Mere Orthodoxy, 2023 . There's probably enough content in those interviews/profiles alone to source a "good article", and they don't include the references already cited in the article. In fact, I'd be inclined to expand the article myself using those sources, but I am always reluctant to do any editing of an article that - fairly or unfairly - is the subject of a not-yet-closed deletion discussion. Bahnfrend ( talk ) 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Mere Orthodoxy exists to create media for Christian renewal" - I'm not entirely convinced this is a Wikipedia-quality RS for notability - David Gerard ( talk ) 10:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Gerard : You've quoted a top of page slogan that is being used to solicit donations. So what? Similar Jimbo Wales slogans appear at the top of Wikipedia articles from time to time. A quick look at Mere Orthodoxy's Editorial Board page indicates that the source appears to have the editorial setup characteristic of reliable sources. You might not agree with the source's editorial stance, but even if that is so, it wouldn't necessarily make the source unreliable. I don't agree with the editorial stances of ABC News (Australia) or The Guardian , but I often use both of them as reliable sources. And the Mere Orthodoxy article I linked makes some interesting comments about the subject of the Wikipedia article that might be worthy of inclusion in the latter article, as sourced commentary about the subject rather than as merely factual material. That's the sort of content that can potentially transform a stub into a "good article". Again, I am presently refraining from doing any editing of the Wikipedia article until the deletion discussion has been closed. Bahnfrend ( talk ) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] New Wikipedian but I would imagine a neutral perspective would allow nearly any publication as long as said publication isn't one person trying to circumvent the system. 1thousandseeds ( talk ) 00:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Not sure what the protocol is about removing the deletion notice from articles after the nomination has been withdrawn; but in any case I have just expanded the article adding citations to extensive coverage in three different RS (all green-rated at WP:RSP ), including one that hadn't yet been brought above: this GQ article from 2021. Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 20:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think after like 7 days or something an admin will come along and remove it. With the other sources now added by you though, the "Multiple issues" tag may also be something that is eligible for removal as well at this point. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 00:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist. Nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are several strong Delete arguments that render a quick Keep impossible. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft , pending satisfaction of the TOOSOON objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple RSes, including GQ , Playboy , Reason , and Business Insider . gobonobo + c 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources has not been demonstrated, and this clearly is TOOSOON or else not notable. Content with the draftify suggestion if that will achieve a consensus, but any improved article in draft space needs to address the location and use of suitable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This kind of WP:JNN ! vote isn't very useful. Above, several commenters have observed that the GNG is, in fact, satisfied, and discussed in detail how this has been demonstrated at this point, by examining undisputedly non-trivial coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources (plus coverage in two other RS that at least some of us think is significant, too). Simply asserting the opposite without addressing these arguments at all is the kind of thing that WP:ATA asks us to avoid, so it would be helpful to substantiate your opposing claims. Is it because you disagree with the current community consensus that the aforementioned sources are "generally reliable", as documented at WP:RSP ? Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources have to contain significant coverage, not just trivial mentions. Most of these do not. They have to be independent. That rules out the interviews. They have to be reliable, so there go the tabloids, and they have to be secondary. Which sources meet all these criteria? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, please be more specific with your objections. E.g. which of the sources provided above in favor of notability do you consider to be tabloids ? To help you get started with substantiating your claims, how about explaining them in case of the GQ article? It is independent , not an interview , and secondary. So we have assume you consider GQ to be a tabloid, in contrast to WP:RSP : There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics. In that case I think it would be more productive for you to first start a discussion at WP:RSN and see if you can change the current community consensus about this source towards your opinion. Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would Draftify be acceptable to editors? This is often a resolution to TOOSOON Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In light of the fact that the article now cites WP:SUSTAINED SIGCOV in several RS dating back to 2017 (not even counting the NYT article and the PublicAffairs book as the two 2023 citations whose SIGCOV status was disputed by one editor above), I consider the TOOSOON claims refuted and do not think that draftifying would be an acceptable outcome. Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – We have profiles in GQ and Playboy, and more, both perfectly relevant RS that has WP:SIGCOV of this subject. There is more like NYT that arguably falls short of significant coverage, so I really do not think this is WP:TOOSOON , as we have coverage over half a decade. TLA tlak 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I advise editors advocating for delete due to "blog" and less-reliable sources popping up on GNEWS to look a bit deeper, as some of the better sources come from several years ago. Look as well in other languages like Spanish. If you just scroll down more (possibly page 2 depending on your location), you'll come across some of Spanish-language media's most respected papers of record covering this subject. TLA tlak 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you post up links to sources you think would count towards GNG, and then we can evaluate those. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject meets GNG with coverage going back to 2017. Thriley ( talk ) 19:33, 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

Geekom: Almost all the coverage is product reviews in technology/computer press. Would need more third party coverage like major newspapers to meet WP:CORP . LibStar ( talk ) 04:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Products , Computing , and Taiwan . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I should not comment as I had a brief email exchange with a Geekom employee and thus a conflict of interest . I am willing to accept that I misjudged the article-worthiness of Geekom. They are , however, one of the largest producers of a niche market, which is why I considered and eventually undertook a request to make the article. If the majority of the participants in this discussion agree that Geekom does not yet have enough coverage to warrant its own article, then I propose a redirect to nettop instead. I would argue that the company has enough relevance in its own niche to warrant a mention the article of its niche (nettop). Admittedly, the nettop article itself is also poorly sourced, but I am willing to work on and transform that article while sticking to scholarly and major news sources. I acknowledge that my conflict of interest may affect the consideration of my comment by other contributors, but I believe that I should at least say something since I was responsible for this article's creation in the first place. Yue 🌙 06:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says: Conflict of interest ( COI ) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest . If the extent of your interactions with the employee was to request permission to upload File:GEEKOM Mini IT8.jpg , File:GEEKOM Mini IT11.jpg , and File:GEEKOM BookFun 11.jpg , I don't consider having "a brief email exchange with a Geekom employee" to cause you to have a conflict of interest about the company. If you have a deeper relationship with the company ("yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"), then you have a conflict of interest. Otherwise, I think you do not have a conflict of interest. By the way, per Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online , I recommend sending an email to [email protected] documenting the permission you received for the photos. Without documentation, the photos could be deleted as lacking proof that they were released under a free license. Cunard ( talk ) 08:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard : I will email them when I can to avoid such troubles in the future. I appreciate the recommendation, thank you! Yue 🌙 19:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in some form since Geekom's products have received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The article can be renamed to be "Products of Geekom", "Geekom's products", or "List of Geekom products" to address concerns that the reliable sources focus on Geekom's products instead of Geekom the company. Sources Geekom IT8 Mini PC reviews: Elliott, Matthew (2022-06-26). "Geekom IT8 Mini PC Review: An ultracompact desktop that works right out of the box" . PCMag . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "The Geekom IT8 Mini is about as far as you can get from a full-tower gaming PC, but its Intel integrated graphics are sufficient for smoothly running Windows 11 and streaming HD video. The scores of the NZXT H1 Mini Plus with its GeForce RTX 3060 GPU show the colossal gap in graphics performance between a game-worthy system and a kiosk or streamer like the Geekom." Athow, Desire (2022-03-14). "Geekom IT8 Mini workstation PC review: Small and mighty but with an old processor, is this a mini workstation to remember or forget?" . TechRadar . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "The GEEKOM IT8 surprised us by delivering a deftly engineered NUC-like mini PC that will shine as a micro workstation. Businesses will appreciate the presence of Windows 11 Pro and the plethora of ports although the lack of Wi-Fi 6 and solid after sales support network may cause some to stay away from this bargain." Palmer, Jordan (2022-04-28). "Geekom Mini IT8 review: Big value in this mini PC: This NUC competitor hits hard" . Tom's Guide . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "For a starting price of $439, the Mini IT8 is a great little desktop PC. It’s unassuming, you can mount it to the back of your monitor, and it’s upgradeable. It’s hard to find a better option for this money, especially when the alternative is spending a lot more cash on an expensive mini computer for performance gains you may not even notice. The Geekom Mini IT8 would make a great family PC or low-cost server. With its NVMe drive and 3200MHz RAM, it punches well above its weight." Geekom BookFun 11 review: Rossman, Jim (2022-04-21). "Gaming laptop brings understated looks and plenty of speed: Geekom's first laptop model is geared toward the gamer market with fast CPU and graphics — and you can add extra storage and RAM" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "Pros: Fast CPU and GPU; user upgradable RAM and SSD, Thunderbolt 4. Cons: No touch screen option. Brand is not very well known. Bottom line: I’ve enjoyed my testing of the BookFun 11. Good performance and solid design." Geekom Mini IT 11 reviews: Rossman, Jim (2022-12-29). "Geekom Mini PC packs a lot into a very small case: It has some useful features, users can upgrade the RAM and it's so small it practically disappears on your desk" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "The Geekom IT 11, with its 11th generation Intel CPU and upgradeable RAM and storage should keep this machine viable for a long time." Pickavance, Mark (2022-12-05). "Geekom Mini IT11 review: Another polished performer from Geekom" . TechRadar . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "Another high-quality design from Geekom offers a good computing platform and GPU combination. Able to cope with tasks that would swamp other NUC designs. The only weakness here is the cheap NVMe drive that comes pre-installed." Palmer, Jordan (2022-10-26). "Geekom Mini IT11 review: This little workhorse is ideal for most mini PC needs" . Tom's Guide . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "With an 11th-gen Intel processor, the Geekom Mini IT11 is a little workhorse that is perfect for most people who need a mini PC. It’s got solid specs, and like other Geekom machines we've reviewed, you can upgrade the RAM and storage." Geekom MiniAir 11 Mini PC reviews: Pickavance, Mark (2022-12-01). "Geekom MiniAir 11 Mini PC: A classy and affordable NUC" . TechRadar . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "A finely constructed and easily upgradable NUC design. The only issues with this machine over others are the mediocre performance of the CPU/GPU and that the M.2 slot is only two lanes, limiting speed. For the cost, a decent machine." Palmer, Jordan (2022-08-11). "Geekom MiniAir 11 review: The ideal budget mini PC: If you're on a tight budget, the MiniAir 11 is great" . Tom's Guide . Archived from the original on 2023-04-04 . Retrieved 2023-04-04 . The review notes: "A super affordable mini PC, the Geekom MiniAir 11 gets the job done with just the right amount of horsepower. It won’t win any races, but for light tasks such as web browsing, social media, video watching, and document editing, it’s a great option. It also features user-upgradeable RAM and storage." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Geekom's products 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 ) 08:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep or redirect to an article about the products. COI is ok so long as it's declared and handled correctly. I'm hoping you'll contribute further to Wikipedia! Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:08, 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

Laxmaiah Manchikanti: See User talk:Saidul123 - AH ( talk ) 03:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Education , Medicine , Telangana , Kentucky , and New York . Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Draftify The nomination raises real concerns about the recent state of the article, as does Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Laxmaiah_Manchikanti , and I don't want to downplay that. I also want to thank the nominator for their active work toward NPOV. For purposes of AFD, Google Scholar suggests a fair amount of citations [36] , some of which are of papers published in subject's organization's journal, and some of which are of papers published in other journals. And note, subject's organization's journal ( Pain Physician ) seems to be legitimate, I don't have full access to the major citation indexes, but they at least have record of the journal and the publicly available metrics seem reasonable. Subject seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC . — siro χ o 08:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, are there additional sources that could demonstrate GNG? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and heavily-cited first-author publications. The current stubby and nearly-unsourced state of the article is entirely the fault of the unfortunately-named nominator, who lobotomized the article prior to nominating it for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair to the nominator, the bulk of that article had been created by WP:SPAs , and was not in a good state for WP:NPOV . — siro χ o 23:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , or draftify until evidence of notability can be found – the draft currently has none. Maproom ( talk ) 17:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No real reliable sources, relies on primary sources. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Raymondeugenelane dropped a bunch of sources on Talk:Laxmaiah_Manchikanti#Avoiding_Drive_by_tagging . I don't think any of them are significant coverage , but I haven't analyzed them throughly. I think they do serve to verify some of the claims in the article, and several of them seem to be papers citing his work, which may count towards criteria 1 of NPROF. I'm not opining on those sources or the article topic right now, but I wanted to alert participants in this discussion to those sources on the talk page. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk | Contribs ) problem solving 20:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply. I am working to supply significant sourcing. Can you explain what these sources are missing? Or point me to a resource. Again, thanks. Raymondeugenelane ( talk ) 21:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, @ Raymondeugenelane , I want to point you to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laxmaiah Manchikanti as well, hoping to clear up anything we can. — siro χ o 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion is evenly divided among those who argue this article, in some state, is worth Keeping and those who are adamant that it be deleted. Would Draftify be a compomise solution? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've updated my ! vote above in response to relisting, seems a prudent course given the history of this article, the work still needed to improve it, and the possibility of more discussion on COI noticeboard . — siro χ o 07:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of author publications per David Epstein. I used the Wikipedia Library to search for refs. I found several on newspapers.com which I listed at Talk:Laxmaiah Manchikanti#More refs . After awhile, I gave up filling out citation templates. Dr. Manchikanti appears to be the go-to doctor when major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) are looking for someone to opine on pain management medical practices. Among other things, Dr. Manchikanti was also the owner of a failed for-profit law school for a few months. A ProQuest search turned up numerous papers authored by Dr. Manchikanti. He's written at least one professional-level book and contributed to or been cited in others. 150+ hits on this Wikipedia Library search. Google Scholar lists hundreds of his papers (I stopped at 540) and and they're cited 100s of times. This guy is the real deal (even if he did pay some writer). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject almost certainly meets WP:N . The reason I switched to draftify is the history of issues with the existing article around independence, V, NPOV, and related COI. — siro χ o 02:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Baham Museum: LibStar ( talk ) 00:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’ve added four refs. There’s more. Mccapra ( talk ) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whilst new sources are welcome, I'm not sure they meet WP:SIGCOV : - This one [55] has a single mention of Baham in 11 pages. No, it describes the background and context of the creation of museums in Cameroon, makes clear why this particular region was important, and describes how and why this museum (and others) were established. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This one [56] is merely a book sale listing from the catalogue of the museum. Yes it shows that the museum has a published scholarly catalogue Mccapra ( talk ) 06:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - This one [57] appears to be small 1 line mentions 3 or 4 times of the museum. LibStar ( talk ) 04:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about four museums in Cameroon, one of which is this one. It is discussing what they have in common so literally the entire article is about it and its three sister museums. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 04:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as sources have been found by Mccapra . Yes, we can be all pernickity and complain that the sources don't discuss these museums in the depth we would expect of a Western developed source discussing a Western major regional museum, but we're doing a big disservice to museums and the spread of human knowledge if we delete without judging the institution in its regional context. There is no benefit to our reader or to Wikipedia in deleting this article, and there is hope that, in time, it will grow and contribute to an area that Wikipedia currently covers rather poorly. Elemimele ( talk ) 08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in addition to the sources already mentioned, there is an UCLA PhD thesis by Erica Perlmutter Jones on The Multiple Lives of Objects: Museum, Memory, and Modernity in the Cameroon Grassfields which discusses the Baham and the Babungo Museums in detail. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified by

keep

Moominvalley: Much of this is unsourced and original research. I also reviewed the corresponding Finnish article and it has insufficient reliable secondary sources to generate SIGCOV. Sources do not say much more than this being the home of the Moomins . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NEXIST . According to sources, at least in Europe, Moominvalley is about as iconic as Narnia rather than mere fancruft. There is even a museum based on it. I have found SIGCOV in 3 book sources so far, Children's Literature Comes of Age , the Oxford Encyclopedia of Children's Literature , and Literary Wonderlands , so it already passes GNG and I am sure many more such sources exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The Swedish Wikipedia has another book, which according to the title might be about the universe as a whole or the location: Westin, Boel (1988). Familjen i dalen: Tove Janssons muminvärld. Stockholm: Bonnier. ISBN 91-0-047460-6 . Geschichte ( talk ) 11:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Zxcvbnm's sourcing. Jclemens ( talk ) 23:55, 14 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

Frank Boyd: The only references are databases. The special notability guideline for baseball has been removed, so that general notability is required but lacking. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and Ohio . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep What sort of WP:BEFORE did you do? Because if it's just Google, of course someone who played in the 1890s isn't going to have many results. On Newspapers.com , in just a few minutes, I found an obit and a funeral notice . And here's a handful more: [1] [2] [3] I presume that there's enough out there to establish notability. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Muboshgu's sources plus here is another source that also has its own reference list. Plus he has an extensive bio in Nemec's The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball . The old NSPORT may be deprecated, but virtually all Major League players, especially beyond 1890 or so, meet GNG. Rlendog ( talk ) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the nice work done by User:Muboshgu and User:Rlendog above. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:42, 23 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

Karen Bartleson: Does not meet WP:GNG Sabih omar 07:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : we could claim some notability since she was the IEEE president from 2017 to 2018. The IEEE official website shows that she has some publications, which is confirmed here at Google Scholar . Thus I think she satisfies WP:NACADEMIC by The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ... and this article could add a lot of reliable sources by the academic papers she authored or co-authored. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Engineering , and United States of America . — Karnataka talk 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As per TheLonelyPather, I believe that the IEEE presidency meets WP:NACADEMIC #4. I'm happy to reconsider my ! vote if this is an incorrect interpretation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A person doesn't usually inherit notability from working for a notable organization, but IEEEE President is good enough considering the rest. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 04:31, 7 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

2025 Rugby League World Cup: This is an article about an event/tournament that will not now take place; it has been cancelled/postponed to the following year, where it will take place in a different country. While there are references, many of them are effectively obsolete - "the event will take place", "France is bidding to become host", etc. I do not believe the article will pass the 10-year-test. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions . Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as nom. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article is well sourced with significant secondary coverage. The International Rugby League has made it official that the 2026 Rugby League World Cup is a separate event so it wouldn't make any sense from a reader search point of view to move the material on the 2025 page to the 2026 page if people are specifically searching for 2025 information. In addition, there is the possibility that if this information was included on the 2026 page, it may detract from the 2026 page itself. However if the information could be successfully intergrated, I would Support a redirect to a subsection on the 2026 Rugby League World Cup page. Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note the Rugby League WikiProject discussion on this issue. Mn1548 ( talk ) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It looks to pass notability and is generally well sourced. In contrast to the postponement of 2021 event, 2025 can be seen as separate from the 2026 world cup so merging it to the 2026 article does not seem the best option - that article will eventually become much larger and so would likely lead to issues over whether to remove or re-split the 2025 content. EdwardUK ( talk ) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : 2025's World Cup is separate to the 2026 World Cup and has coverage Rusty4321 talk contribs 00:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : We have articles on constitutional amendments that were never passed, and indeed that came nowhere near as close to happening as this event did. 2026 is different and should stay different. Nwhyte ( talk ) 09:35, 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

Beaufort Street, Chelsea: All other sources discuss buildings on that street (most of which have their own articles) or residents who happened to live on that street. Rs chen 7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . Rs chen 7754 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - And? It exists, it has some buildings of passing importance, and has had some notable residents. Why ever would you delete? KJP1 ( talk ) 22:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Our policies on notability . -- Rs chen 7754 22:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article obviously has sufficient noteworthy content. The suggestion that the information could be accessed by searching throughout Wikipedia for individual articles dealing with the important buildings and notable people isn't helpful.-- AntientNestor ( talk ) 06:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable street. Plenty of notable, sourced information. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Typical article for a notable London street, based on its history, buildings and residents. How else should we organise such information? Edwardx ( talk ) 12:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The buildings in it and the people who lived there are the proper content of the article together with other ancillary information such as locality, ambience etc. Other articles then give a more detailed treatment of buildings and residents as necessary if separately notable. I think we would have almost no street articles if we restricted them to streets that have an in-depth discussion of the street as a whole without mentioning any specific buildings or people. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 12:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, because most city streets are not notable. You don't see this proliferation of city streets anywhere else on this site except London. Why is that? -- Rs chen 7754 14:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because its history dates back to the Romans and there are a wealth of sources to draw on. London is not over-represented it is the streets of other cities that are under-represented. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the English-language Wikipedia, so cities in English mother tongue countries will of course have more articles. New York City is the only other such city with a similiarly large population, but that only in relatively recent times (in 1800, London was already over 1 million, NYC a mere 60,000). And NYC is a much newer city; and mostly built on a grid, so has far fewer streets. Edwardx ( talk ) 20:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . plenty of historical info supported by references. To delete would be to lose a useful entry. Keep — well-referenced article of a notable street included in other encyclopaedias and meeting WP:GNG . — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 10:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it? What about WP:SIGCOV ? -- Rs chen 7754 14:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Edwardx and the creator of the article who is well known for creating notable articles... many London streets are well documented and have deep histories with regards to the buildings there and who lived there...it makes a better encyclopedia by including them. Whispyhistory ( talk ) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As creator, I am dismayed to see so many notable British streets nominated by Rschen7754. Each has a unique history created by the structures built upon them and the people who lived there. A field in England could pass unremarked for thousands of years, then a hoard is dropped and a battle fought, a manor house built and a road run through it. The streets are the people, and the many references attest to that. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 07:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I see where Reschen7754 is coming from. Beaufort Street itself seems not notable under the WP:GNG as there needs to be indepth coverage of the street itself and not one of the article's references has this (nor have I found any). However, I disagree with the part of the nomination that seems to suggest notable buildings on the street do not contribute to notability of the street. I would think that having a series of notable buildings on a street would help to establish notability of the street, as buildings are inherently part of a street. However, here there's only the now demolished Beaufort House which precedes the street's laying out and the one listed building, which I don't think is enough. Notable people who have a connection with the street do not make the street notable as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. I've no wish to delete the article as it has encyclopedic merit on the history of the street, nor do I see a suitable merge target. Rupples ( talk ) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is that most of those buildings already have their own articles. Rs chen 7754 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm guessing you see this article as unnecessary duplication of content and view it as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK ? Don't want to misrepresent you, just trying to gain an understanding, so do correct me if I'm wrong. Rupples ( talk ) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sort of. You remove the redundant content and I'm not sure that you have an article after that. One shouldn't be able to use the sources for the building to also make the road notable. Rs chen 7754 20:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is fundamentally wrong. It's not an article about a road , it's an article about a street . Absolutely details of the residents and the buildings are the proper sources for an article about a street. If we didn't include those, there would be no street articles at all, which is perhaps what Rschen7754 would prefer. What does Rschen7754 propose, that a street or road article should restrict itself to where it starts and ends and the quality of the tarmacadam? Philafrenzy ( talk ) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk ) 13:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. meet GNG. Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. London arterial of some importance. Largely residential. Coverage is sufficient for the GNG. gidonb ( talk ) 16:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 17:56, 25 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

Raage Anuraage: Tagged for notability since 2021. Previous AfD ended in DELETE. Donald D23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India . Donald D23 talk to me 01:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It is a very popular series. Sources that are currently linked are clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo ( talk ) 12:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage exists and indicates clearly that this is a popular series, so not against keep ; opposing delete because at the very least redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Bangla#Former_broadcast should be warranted in my view. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:00, 2 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! 03:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Article can't be redirected to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla as this page has been deleted. An aside, popularity is only important in that it may mean that there is some SIGCOV of the article subject, in itself though it doesn't establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These sources on this page have enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.181.19.253 ( talk ) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cato Street: I have notability concerns for this article; it must either be deleted or moved to a general article that lists this play. I've looked on the news, Google, books, and scholars but couldn't find anything. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep . The stub cites reviews in The Guardian and The Sunday Times , as well as the Theatricalia listing. Here and Here are more mentions. The V&A Museum even has a feature about the play and its costumes . This play was written well before the internet existed, so most of the sources would be print sources. The play had a starry cast led by Vanessa Redgrave . I disagree with the nominator. It clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . If we want to fill out the stub to its full potential, someone will have to go to the library and get all the 1971 sources. From what I can see, it has an interesting background: Olivier commissioned the play for the Old Vic, but funding was not sufficient, so it played at the Young Vic. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've got 1971 reviews from The Daily Telegraph and the Birmingham Post . Combined with the existing reviews, this demonstrates notability for the play. Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If kept then it should be moved to Cato Street (play) and Cato Street redirected to Cato Street Conspiracy , the clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that would be fine. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 17:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - cites demonstrate notability; agree a disambiguate move would be helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 16:21, 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

Stochastic parrot: This is an article on an academic paper MASQUERADING as an article on a new AI term. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper. It is also not true that we don't have Wikipedia articles on academic papers (see Category:Academic journal articles ). GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 22:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Keep I have reviewed the sources and reconsidered my position, and decided to vote keep after seeing the term be used outside of On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots . GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 18:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting, Thanks! I was unaware of that Category:Academic_journal_articles . (I just counted, excluding the links to editors' user pages and this AfD discussion, there are 35 articles. For comparison, the Category:Lists_of_academic_journals contains 81 LISTS.) Is there a Notability standard for Academic journal articles (and Magazine articles)? or do they fall under WP:NBOOK ? --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know you should probably ask at the teahouse . GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 00:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenBootWizard276 : "I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper." Did you look? I find only 8,600 Ghits for the paper, but 67,600 Ghits for the term. See my ! vote below. Clearly the term is in common use. It's why I moved the article to its current location in the first place. Skyerise ( talk ) 10:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" Firstly, the term that originated in this highly influential paper is now widely used in WP:RS discussion of LLMs, as a simple web search will show. Secondly, the paper itself is the subhject of widespread commentary (see search cited). Thirdly, it's not just the paper; the sudden exit under disputed circumstances from Google of two of the paper's authors is an affair in itself. All of the above have been extensively reported and commented on in mainstream media. Putting all these together, this clearly passes WP:GNG . Finally; the last point in the deletion proposal is specious; we do indeed have articles on sufficiently notable academic papers; why, we even have Category:Computer science papers to put this one in. [edited in reponse to comment below from GoldenBootWizard276] — The Anome ( talk ) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ The Anome : see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think it would be notable if there were an article on the academic paper the term originated from, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?", instead of the article on the term itself. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would be very happy to have the article moved to that title, which was the original title of the article. I've changed my response above to reflect that. — The Anome ( talk ) 09:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at current title per WP:COMMONNAME . "Stochastic parrots": 67,600 results , "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?": 8,620 results . The term is already (!) in wide use is places that don't refer to the paper. Skyerise ( talk ) 10:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skyerise : The number of search results is not an establishment of notability. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoldenBootWizard276 : I don't consider the notability in question. My observation is intended to establish the WP:COMMONNAME by which to title the article. The use of the term is more widespread than mentions of the article. You've already conceded that the paper is notable (though without changing your !vote). I've demonstrated that the term is independently notable, so you should change your ! vote to either 'keep' or 'keep and move'. Skyerise ( talk ) 15:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skyerise : Most of the examples I have found of the term being used outside of academic papers are about the paper itself. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 16:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if most of the uses of the term are in machine learning papers, and even if most of those uses cite the article, that doesn't negate the notability of the term. I've included further reading examples in legal, literary, and other fields. Skyerise ( talk ) 17:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion and notable sourcing. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nuance - Keep short description of TERM - Delete paper whose only notability comes from authors leaving Google, NOT content of the paper itself as being seen as notable or new in the field, of which the former info is sufficiently covered in the articles on its authors. --- Avatar317 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : ( Personal attack removed ) There are multiple mainstream news sources specifically about the paper. Both the term and the paper are notable. The term derives from the paper, and the paper title can only be redirected to one place, not to three different author pages! The idea that the source in which a term originated can be excised from the article about the term is ridiculous. I can no longer take you seriously. Have a nice day. Skyerise ( talk ) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to name which "multiple mainstream sources" you are claiming exist? We currently have two: Maybe you should read their titles: MIT: " We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google . Here’s what it says." and Verge: " Timnit Gebru’s actual paper may explain why Google ejected her ". You still have no sources which say that this paper is notable for its research. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : Eleven listed sources (and four further reading examples which use the term outside of machine-learning literature) and you WP:CHERRYPICK two – to make an argument which seems to change each time you comment? Stop wasting our time. Are you still arguing that the paper is more notable than the term, or vice versa? I can't tell. Skyerise ( talk ) 19:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that the TERM is notable (and the origin of the term can of course be used) but that the PAPER is NOT, and therefore THE **FOCUS** OF THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE THE TERM. But the article was created in the name of the PAPER, and you have argued that BOTH are notable INDEPENDENTLY, which is what I have been disagreeing with. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : Great, then there is no problem! The focus of the article is already the term, it's already at the proper title, and this is not redirects for discussion . You've effectively withdrawn your nomination, and you should do so formally below. Skyerise ( talk ) 21:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is too much article content about the PAPER; YOU haven't removed that, (and I feel that you'd revert me if I did) and The Anome seems to feel that the PAPER is notable, and should therefore be a big part of the article. We can discuss the notability of the PAPER here also, so that if The Anome starts another article like they started this one (or undoes your move on this one) we won't have to re-do this same discussion. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : This is not the venue for a content discussion (See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup ). Only the main subject of an article need be notable, and you've conceded that it (the term) is notable. The rest of article content merely has to be supported by reliable sources. Skyerise ( talk ) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 and Skyerise : I think both of you should consider toning it down a notch; typing in ALL CAPS on the INTERNET tends to come across as SCREAMING at the other person, and there is basically no situation in which "Are you nuts?" is an acceptable comment to direct at someone else in a deletion discussion :( jp × g 00:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : I agree with Skyerise on this except that the term should be a redirect to the paper, not the other way around. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) See comment above GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - not quite a WP:SNOWBALL , but I propose this AfD be closed as keep and the title issue be resolved using requested moves if any editor feels strongly enough about changing the title to start one. Skyerise ( talk ) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My issue since I added the notability tag has always been that this article is TWO articles; it started as user:The Anome created it as an article about the PAPER, and you HALF-morphed it into a paper about the TERM. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : Again, someone else created the article. I researched it and came to the conclusion (as you seem to have), that the term is more notable and in wider use, and so moved the article and started to work on refocusing the article. However, the paper has to be discussed in the article; it has gotten many academic responses. And even if the paper isn't notable, which I dispute, there is no requirement that a redirected title be notable in and of itself. A redirect is to help people find information on a topic, not an assertion of notability. In any case, if you no longer think the article should be deleted, you should withdraw your nomination. This is not the venue to resolve article content issues, only whether to delete the article. Article content issues are resolved on the article talk page . Skyerise ( talk ) 21:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is that you essentially created a totally new article on a different topic ON TOP OF an already existing article. That's what this deletion discussion is about. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Avatar317 : That's a content issue . Do you still believe the article should be deleted? That's the only outcome you can get here. You don't get to use a deletion discussion to bludgeon other editors on content issues. You discuss it on the article talk page with the other involved editors and come to a WP:CONSENSUS for change. Skyerise ( talk ) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : per GoldenBootWizard276 's suggestion, I asked at the Teahouse here: WP:Teahouse#Is_there_a_Notability_standard_for_academic_journal_articles_(or,_which_notability_standard_should_apply)? so maybe others will come here and give their input.--- Avatar317 (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Be careful. That could be viewed as running afoul of WP:CANVASS , especially since you've conceded that the term is notable and have acknowledged that you are now trying to influence article content decisions. Skyerise ( talk ) 23:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to interject myself into an ongoing AfD beef, but isn't "influence article content decisions" the primary thing that Wikipedia editors are on this website to do? jp × g 00:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Emily M. Bender or Timnit Gebru . There are eleven listed sources, but these do not look to me like WP:SIGCOV that define a separately notable topic from that of the authors individually. Ref 1 seems to be a passing mention: the main quote is "A useful way of thinking about the limitations of data in machine learning then is in terms of a stochastic parrot, a phrase introduced by Bender et al. (2021)" but this is in a section that cites about a dozen papers. I am not sure about ref 2; Towards AI is a Medium-based website that calls itself a "content platform". I don't think that they are prima facie unreliable (I read a few articles and none of them seem to be overtly wrong about anything) but it's not clear whether this counts as SIGCOV. Ref 4 is the paper itself, and I have no idea what ref 5 is (it appears to be a link to a Google Scholar search results page for Bender). 6 is a dictionary definition of "stochastic" unrelated to the subject. 7, 8, and 9 seem borderline (they are mostly about Gebru's firing, and mention the paper in conjunction with this event as it seems to be the major factor). 10 is a YouTube video of one of the authors presenting the paper, which seems to be basically the same thing as refs 3 and 4, and 11 is mostly about GPT-4 and mentions the paper as one of several criticisms. I hate to use the term " refbombing ", because it imputes ill intent to the writer of an article, and I don't think that is the case here (the purpose of citations is to reference the content of an article, not to serve as ammunition for 'keep' !votes) but I think that this is a case where the volume of references makes it seem like there is a lot more going on than there actually is. jp × g 00:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , maybe move if really necessary although I think the popularity of the term makes it more notable than the paper title. // Gargaj ( talk ) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above discussion. The consensus appears to be not to delete, but what to do next is up in the air. I am leaning keep because it is becoming a common phrase. Bearian ( talk ) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Klaus Linnenbruegger: A web search finds no WP:SIGCOV . There may be offline sources but it seems doubtful to me. The article fails WP:GNG . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 09:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Germany , and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , there are sources I can find due to the fact that I have access to some Ottawa-based newspapers through the Toronto city library archives. I just need some time to focus on the article. Shotgun pete talk 9:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - will AGF and assume the sources detailed below are as significant as claimed. Giant Snowman 17:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have found more reliable secondary sources and have expanded the size of the article. Shotgun pete ( talk ) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe I addressed the issue by expanding the article and adding reliable secondary sources to make it more notable. I believe a least 4 of the news articles go into depth about the individual giving the person some significant coverage to start with. Shotgun pete ( talk ) 4:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , Per Shotgun Pete. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the sources added show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Henderson, Bruce (23 March 1978). "Maple Leaf rated highly". Ottawa Journal. p.29. - It goes more in-depth about the individual's coaching achievements and his team recruitment. Henderson, Bruce (26 May 1978). "All systems are go for Ottawa-Carleton". Ottawa Journal. p.20. - Talks about his successful team recruitment "Former Wizards coach returns". Ottawa Citizen. 11 September 2003. pp. B7. - an article that announces his hiring and a summary of his coaching achievements "St. Anthony's soccer star shrugs off success". Ottawa Citizen. 4 September 1973. p. 31. - an article covering the individual and the impact he has made Starnes, Richard (17 June 2011). "The secret deal is no longer secret". Ottawa Citizen. pp.B4. - briefly mentions his hiring and coaching experience I don't have live links to these sources but I know offline sources are acceptable on wikipedia. Shotgun pete ( talk ) 16:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , See above, Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 00:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Courthouse in Września: I've started an AfD on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:24:Gmach sądu we Wrześni ). My BEFORE does not suggest this effectively unreferenced building (our article links to a photo, pl links to the Couthouse page) is notable or has a status of a heritage monument (note: it is next to a prison building that has such a status, but that building does not yet have an article on pl or en, so no merger is possible). While it is good to monitor the pl wiki discussion for possible keep arguments, I think we should discuss things here as well. (A note for clarity: pl wiki article is about the building, not the court; our article is a substub that doesn't even make its focus clear, but I don't think local courts at that level are inherently notable, either. FYI the building hosts a local district court (Poland) office). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While it's true that it doesn't appear to be heritage listed, I think that a significant public building like this dating from 1906 should be considered notable. Rename to Września Courthouse though, which is much more intuitive English. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment . I see that Panek has said in the parallel discussion on Polish Wikipedia "Jest w wojewódzkiej ewidencji zabytków. Ma białą kartę , którą pewnie dałoby się to i owo uźródłowić" ("It is in the provincial register of monuments. It has a white card that could probably be used to renew certain things"). I don't know the significance of the provincial register of monuments, or a white card, however. BD2412 T 18:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing . Being listed as a zabytek at the provincial (voivideship) scale ([:pl:Wojewódzka_ewidencja_zabytków]]) seems sufficient, particularly given that this document has several paragraphs of coverage describing the building, its architectural style, interior, etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Muksamse'lapli: Very little references found through Google search. Seaweed ( talk ) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV . Pre-Internet persons covered in three reliable sources are probably notable. I am extremely hesitant to delete articles about indigenous folks. Bearian ( talk ) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I’m fine with deleting promotional articles about Indigenous people, but this article is well-cited and is notable. Yuchitown ( talk ) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I dug around and found enough online to satisfy myself this passes GNG. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:30, 25 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

Why Men Marry Bitches: However, I only found one other review, which was from a questionable source. The author did go on the Today Show to discuss the book, but I think that has more to do with the first book, Why Men Love Bitches , than the notability of this book. I feel like notability of this book is on the line. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 00:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the book received fairly wide coverage in the news. I've added a couple of refs to the article, but there are probably better ones available. Owen× ☎ 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OwenX : I appreciate the support in improving the article. However, one of the sources provided does not discuss the book at all (only its predecessor) and I could argue that the other source doesn't provide significant coverage of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The longer version of the Sunday times article referneces the second book as well. 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 ( talk ) 01:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Currently both books are charting on Apple ibooks bestsellers. See: https://books.apple.com/us/charts/nonfiction/9002 . According to Simon and schuster, the book sold 1 million copies and is also a NYT bestseller. 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 ( talk ) 01:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sherry Argov Right now we have one review and absolutely nothing about the content of the book itself. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See: https://books.apple.com/us/charts/nonfiction/9002 and please click on the "see all" link on the upper right side to expand the list. I share this not only for the two books being discussed, but the notability of the books that are on the same list (all of them have independent Wikipedia pages). 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 ( talk ) 02:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't source any book to an e-commerce site; that's pretty much one of the top rules regarding sourcing. You can't be that obtuse, truly. Nate • ( chatter ) 03:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Switching to keep as it took a bit, but a basic and supported summary not based on publisher/bookseller copy has been added, addressing my concern. Nate • ( chatter ) 22:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Yahoo UK has this article [42] and this in Bustle (which isn't the most reliable source, but this seems fine) [43] , should be at notability. Also some discussion (brief) in Brazil about the book [44] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tiktokers-send-self-help-book-for-bitches-into-charts-after-20-years-jpjhkgmdt https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446 https://www.today.com/video/why-men-marry-strong-women-460352067547 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/why-men-love-bitches/articleshow/6127860.cms https://www.bustle.com/articles/21737-do-men-really-love-bitches-depends-on-your-definition-of-the-word https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/why-men-love-bitches-trend-gen-z-tiktok https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446 https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/opinion/you/why-bad-girls-score-good/articleshow/21843606.cms https://newsghana.com.gh/why-men-love-bitches/ https://www.sololibri.net/Il-viaggio-Luigi-Pirandello-novella-analisi-commento.html https://www.elimparcial.com/tijuana/tijuana/Por-que-los-hombres-aman-a-las-cabronas-llegara-a-Tijuana--y-Mexicali-20211111-0013.html https://www.cultura.gob.mx/estados/actividades_detalle.php? id=105333 https://www.elsoldepuebla.com.mx/gossip/omg/aracely-arambula-david-zepeda-y-anastasia-rompen-tabus-con-un-trio-en-puebla-4764319.html https://www.bookey.app/book/why-men-marry-bitches 2603:8001:6E00:293C:B890:4827:F6C4:C286 ( talk ) 03:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times UK: "TikTokers send self-help book for ‘bitches’ into charts after 20 years ": Subscription, unable to find "marry" in preview, but may exist. Today Show: " Why men marry strong women ": Primary source: Interview with the author on Today The Times of India: Why men love 'bitches' : Reprint of the article in the Bangalore Mirror (shared below) Bustle: Do Men Love Bitches? : One sentence that mentions the book: "Argov, who also wrote the follow-up Why Men Marry Bitches defines a bitch as a woman who is confident, secure, and independent." Bustle: The Second Coming Of Why Men Love Bitches : One sentence that mentions the book: " WMLB and its 2006 sequel, Why Men Marry Bitches , first went viral on BookTok in 2021" Newsweek: The Author of 2002's 'Why Men Love Bi**hes' Is Heartwarmed By All the TikTok Attention : One sentence that mentions the book: " Why Men Love Bi**hes: From Doormat to Dreamgirl—A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship and its 2016 year follow-up, Why Men Marry Bi**hes: A Woman's Guide to Winning Her Man's Heart , were bestsellers not long after their original releases and have sold consistently since" Bangalore Mirror: Why bad girls score good : Provides an overview of the two book's key ideas News Ghana: Why Men Loves Bitches : Reprint of the article in the Bangalore Mirror SoloLibri.net: “Il viaggio”: la novella femminista di Luigi Pirandello (in Italian): Review that's not about any work by Shelly Argov El Imparcial: 'Por qué los hombres aman a las cabronas' llegará a Tijuana y Mexicali (in Spanish): Article about the play Why Men Love Bitches ; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches Government of Mexico, Culture" Porqué los hombres aman a las cabronas (in Spanish): Routine coverage about the play Why Men Love Bitches ; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches El Sol de Puebla: Aracely Arámbula, David Zepeda y Anastasia rompen tabús con un trío en Puebla : Article about the play Why Men Love Bitches ; doesn't mention Why Men Marry Bitches Bookey App: Why Men Marry Bitches Summary And Review : Maybe useful? Provides a summary of the book with some commentary on it. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Sexuality and gender , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Sherry_Argov . killer bee 09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NBOOK (and GNG). There are also reviews in Library Journal [45] , Maclean's [46] , Tuscon Citizen [47] — siro χ o 09:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with the above. The second book was featured on the Today Show two times (see caption: "Al Roker talks with Sherry Argov about her new book Why Men Marry Bitches"). The websites I was able to find about the second book only are: Publisher's Weekly, Tuscon Citizen, Macleans, Library Journal, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Nation (Africa), Periodicos (Brazil), Panorama (Italy), Domashniy (Russia), Siechnice (Poland) Kobieta (Poland), Babinet (Czech). The ones that review or reference her first and second book: Times U.K., Sunday Times U.K., The Times India, Mumbai Mirror, Newsweek, Bustle. https://www.today.com/video/why-men-marry-strong-women-460352067547 https://www.today.com/health/want-man-propose-5-relationship-principles-keep-mind-t74256 https://nation.africa/kenya/life-and-style/saturday-magazine/bookiscape-book-club--3442714 https://www.panorama.it/cultura/3-libri-riconoscere-stronzo-stronza https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-men-love-bitches-the-retro-relationship-bible-that-gen-z-cant-get-enough-of-w5cftc0r5 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/why-men-love-bitches/articleshow/6127860.cms https://babinet.cz/clanek-2569-knizka-proc-si-muzi-berou-potvory-a-hodne-holky-zustanou-na-ocet.html https://www.newsweek.com/book-tiktok-why-men-love-1568446 both books https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/10-things-i-learnt-about-men-this-summer-20120116-1q35y.html http://periodicos.uesc.br/index.php/eidea/article/view/397 https://kobieta.interia.pl/uczucia/news-dziesiec-dowodow-na-to-ze-marnujesz-z-nim-swoj-cenny-czas,nId,2403573 https://siechnice.com.pl/news/prezenty-walentynkowe-on-line-ostatnia-chwila https://domashniy.ru/svadba/sterva_vyhodit_zamuzh_20_principov_otnoshenij 69.122.188.214 ( talk ) 19:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The goal of this discussion is to determine whether the book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books . As such, we are looking for reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the book. Here's an analysis of the sources you provided: Today Show: Why men marry strong women : Interviews with the author are not independent and thus, don't count toward notability Today Show: Want a man to propose? 5 relationship principles to keep in mind : An excerpt from the book is not independent from the source and thus, doesn't count toward notability Nation: Bookiscape Book Club : Provides one paragraph discussing a book club response to the book. This does not provide significant coverage and thus, doesn't count toward notability. Panorama: 3 libri per riconoscere 'lo stronzo' (ma anche 'la stronza') che hai di fronte (in Italian): I'd say this is questionable. It provides a multi-paragraph summary of the text. The Times: Why Men Love Bitches: the retro relationship bible that Gen Z can't get enough of : Again, this article is based on subscription, so I can't tell if it actually mentions this book, but I'll AGF. However, based on the description, it seems to be written from an interview with the author, which may mean it's not independent. The Times of India: Why men love 'bitches' : Provides a summary of key points discussed in the text, though it's unclear whether the article is about this book or Why Men Love Bitches . Babinet: Knížka: Proč si muži berou potvory a hodné holky zůstanou na ocet (in Czech): This source provides a review of the book. It has significant coverage and is independent. Because I'm not familiar with Czech or Czech sources, I can't determine the reliability of this source. Newsweek: The Author of 2002's 'Why Men Love Bi**hes' Is Heartwarmed By All the TikTok Attention : This source still doesn't provide significant coverage about this book (see my earlier comment). The Sydney Morning Herald: 10 things I learnt about men this summer : This source doesn't provide significant coverage of the book. EID&A: A dicotomia razão e emoção na obra Por que os homens se casam com as mulheres poderosas? Uma breve análise do tratamento dado às emoções femininas (in Portuguese): This source was provided earlier and is currently listed on the article. It's a good source, though. Kobieta: Dziesięć dowodów na to, że marnujesz z nim swój cenny czas (in Polish): Provides an excerpt of the book, which doesn't count as independent. siechnice.com.pl: Prezenty walentynkowe - ostatnia chwila! (in Polish): This source doesn't mention Argov at all... Стерва выходит замуж: 20 принципов отношений (in Russian): This provides a quick overview of the first 20 principles, which I would argue (again) doesn't count toward establishing notability. If you disagree with any of my reasoning, please feel free to reply. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 13:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A lot of sources provided here do not actually support notability, as Significa liberdade very helpfully outlines. However, WP:NBOOK only requires two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews. I'm happy to take Library Journal [48] and Maclean's [49] as the two independent, non-trivial reviews. In future I advise the IP editor(s) here to focus more on policy and quality, rather than quantity: all these interviews, excerpts, and TV appearances are a distraction. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : certainly enough to support having an article. whether its better for readers to have one article discussing the books and the author is a separate inquiry. -- Milowent • has spoken 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG . User:Let'srun 15:47, 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

The Filmgoer's Companion: NN book. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Academic journals , Bibliographies , Film , and Products . UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep All I can find are copies of the book for sale. There are some old reviews of it [23] , [24] , [25] . I suppose they're ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a longrunning major reference work in its subject, and has gone through more than a dozen editions. I'm finding it referred to as "essential", "the standard", etc. I think Oaktree's reviews could make a pretty decent stub for it. We should probably move the article to Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies , leaving this original title as a redirect. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:49, 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! 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reviews identified by Oaktree b for WP:NBOOK imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:36, 27 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

Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Most sources that focus on Sciabarra in this article were written by Sciabarra himself and are thus not WP:INDEPENDENT , the other good sources are all about his book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical . This book of his is (maybe) notable, but he certainly isn't. There is no need to merge this article into the book's page, considering that the book's article already talks about Sciabarra in its "background" section, I'm asking for a deletion. SparklyNights 21:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Libertarianism , and United States of America . SparklyNights 21:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . No time to search for reviews but his other two books each have >100 citations in GS, so may well have them, contributing to notability under WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 12:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR . One of many bad nominations of libertarian/randroid thought created recently by SparklyNights. I'm sure they are acting in good faith in trying to clean up a crufty area of Wikipedia but they need to swing less wildly and pay more attention to WP:BEFORE : the notability of a topic does not depend on the bad state of our article on it. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein. Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:10, 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

Victor Julien-Laferrière: Bremps ... 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . He won the first prize at the Queen Elisabeth Competition , a notable competition. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are a few decent sources such as an AllMusic staff written bio here and a piece from Radio France here , and this here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:41, 15 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! 03:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Atlantic306's three sources. Those appear to pass WP:GNG . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 06:17, 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

2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round: Sources consists of almost entirely of WP:PRIMARY . Additionally, Wikipedia is not a sportsheet for the most ardent of fans ( WP:NOTSTATS ), whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to. WP:AFD will be a redirect or merge to 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit) and 2024 FIA Formula 2 Championship . I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason with more to be added in: 2024 Melbourne Formula 3 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Imola Formula 3 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Monte Carlo Formula 3 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Barcelona Formula 3 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Further additions for this same reason above): 2024 Sakhir Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Jeddah Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Melbourne Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Imola Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Monte Carlo Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2024 Barcelona Formula 2 round ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all - It's standard practice to routinely split out individual races from their parent (season) article. This keeps the parent article (in this case 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship ) readable. Your suggestion to merge, while also being a full admittance that there is notable content here, would cause the parent article to be far too cluttered. WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE once again apply here. "...whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to." That is your personal opinion and one which quite obviously has a lot of disagreement. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Furthermore, suggesting 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship as an ATD for the F2 races you bundled in is pure nonsense. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What about WP:NOTSTATS ? 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 05:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election were moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election )." This language seems to support the splitting of these individual races. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't have minded them to exist if reliable third party sources exists to back them up, but no, we get sources consisting of mainly WP:PRIMARY or nothing and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with. There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But you're not understanding that these are not standalone articles; their notability is established through sources which exist in the main article including Formula Scout and Autosport . The personal aspects of your rationale also really needs to stop, posthaste. Personal attacks like calling people "nerds" and calling their efforts "junk" are part of what got you sent to ANI before. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap. Worse is that there is no source. Is this the standards Wikipedia is heading to? "their notability is established through sources which exist in the main article including Formula Scout and Autosport" ...and not much else as checked WP:BEFORE . So 3 sources make a subject notable per WP:SIGCOV . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The statistics "split off" (they weren't split, these article were created separately) are not actually significant. The only significant results of feeder series are the championship results, which are already included on the relevant season article. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "(they weren't split, ...)" - Yes they were; the initial versions of these pages were redirects to the main article created by MaxLikesStuff , created out of WP:REDLINKS at the redirect target. Radioactive39 then converted these redirects into sub-articles in order to add content rather than add it to the main article and clutter it up. The stats in these sub-articles are summarized in the main article. There is nothing in NOTSTATS which indicates that these sub-articles are in violation of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Saudi Arabia , France , Italy , Spain , and Australia . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Formula One is the top tier of the sport and one of the (if not the single) most prestigious category in motorsport as a whole. The F1 equivalent pages to the ones included in this nomination, using this article as an example , contain little more additional information. Reading WP:NOTSTATS , the only thing these pages are missing is a little more summarised information. The nominated pages display the information in clear, concise tables and they provide information that is not available in the main season articles ( 2024 Formula 2 Championship and 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship ) and add context to the relevant motorsport championship. Romero13 ( talk ) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Fandom are always there for fans like you. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above discussion. These are not standalone articles — if you nominate these few you should go all the way back to 2004 and list all rounds of previous F3000, GP2, Formula 2, GP3 and Formula 3 seasons. But as much as some lack sufficient prose, all are notable individually and WP:SECONDARY coverage exists. Nominator also gets a WP:TROUT for their uncivil comments. MSport1005 ( talk ) 18:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "But as much as some lack sufficient prose..." I noticed that 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship does have summaries of the races in its prose, in line with the above-quoted section of WP:NOTSTATS which I opine supports our keep ! votes. This is the exact standard which I believe we strive for on Wikipedia as a whole; SUMMARY -style prose in the main article, stats tables split out into their own sub-articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sounds good to me. They aren't independently after all. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As mentioned above, these articles may not have any prose, but they have been a staple of the site for years, with GP2 and GP3 having had their individual race articles. ( talk ) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all : Per above discussions. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree, I have done that, only 3 websites offered similar things. Years ago, these would've been shot to pieces. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I like to point out that Wikipedia is not sports news per WP:NOTNEWS nor is WP:CFORK SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Necrobotics: Please finish AfD submission. 70.172.183.203 ( talk ) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from their request at WT:AFD . I have no opinion of my own at this time. -- Finngall talk 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject is clearly notable. Google Scholar gives 27 papers and these are not trivial mentions. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Plenty of good papers in Gscholar [16] gives a decent introduction to the concept. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : significant coverage in academic literature, including secondary aggregators such as IEEE. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 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

CompuTrac: In my opinion, it doesn't merit a standalone article, but it deserves a mention in the Technical analysis article. I wanted to merge it myself, but the WP:PROMERGE says that I should also copy talk page tags to the destination page. I'm not sure if I should copy WikiProject Computing there, it is tagged as low importance, and the technical analysis is about finance, and the software section in the article is fairly small. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There exists significant coverage of the software in magazines and books ( example 1 , 2 , 3 ), enough to write a lengthy article if one were so interested. Merging is also fine. DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG . As DigitalIceAge has pointed out, significant coverage exists in secondary sources, from which this article can be expanded. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:14, 1 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

List of locomotive classes: E.g. under British Railways and Great Western Railways only 3 or 4 out of dozens are randomly mentioned. The list lacks structure with some of the section listing locomotives by manufacturer and other by operator and random individual locomotive articles. Then there are whole continents that are not even mentioned (Africa) or only given minimal coverage (United States). There are plenty of Locomotive by manufacturer or Locomotive by country lists, combining them into one article that would have thousands of entries is not of much benefit to anyone. Only one cite is provided, that would only cover the Canadian section, but the article doesn’t have one, so effectively the list is uncited. Hoekiema ( talk ) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Close as out of process. Hoekiema , it sounds like you're looking for one of the options listed at WP:ATD . Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , I was looking for a delete at the time of nomination, that hasn't changed, so no need to close the discussion prematurely. Hoekiema ( talk ) 23:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree this page is a result of a split of the page list of locomotives . As a result, this list is technically still under construction. -- ThylacineHunter ( talk ) 05:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment withdrawn Delete per nomination. Completely unecessary duplication. If anything is need it is simply a list of lists of locomotive classes. It also hurts me to see such a badly formatted article with links used in section headings. -- 10mmsocket ( talk ) 06:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This was recently created per consensus at talk:List of locomotives#Splitting proposal . Yes it needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline. I'm not sure what 10mmsocket thinks this is a duplicate of, but the point of split was to reduce duplication. The work to enact that hasn't fully happened yet, but again that's not an AfD matter. Thryduulf ( talk ) 09:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The consensus reached on an AfD on another article doesn’t give a pass for a below par article to exist elsewhere. It appears that as a result of the AfD, that article was improved and the issues moved here. If editors feel that the article can be improved, but not within the timespan of this AfD, they can propose to move it draftspace and then put it forward for publication when done. Wikipedia doesn't have list articles for every football stadium, railway station or school around the world because they would be too large and unweildly. Instead there are more manageable list articles with boundaries, e.g. by city or country, or in the case of locomotives, by builder or operator. If the article does remain it should solely be a list of lists, e.g Locomotives of the Great Western Railway , Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway etc, and not a list of individual locomotives as in the New Zealand Railways and Victorian Railways sections, each having 60 locomotives, and by global standards neither are big operators, so their would be even larger lists for others. There are thousands of locomotive classes globally, listing every single one in a list that would go for a mile would be of no real benefit. Hoekiema ( talk ) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That does sound like a better idea than making this page endlessly long. I'll make a separate list for the Australian locos (currently just Victorian Railways). -- ThylacineHunter ( talk ) 09:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Thryduulf. Almost certainly meets NLIST. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 21:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets NLIST, recently created per consensus, provides some context and references for items. gidonb ( talk ) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Thryduulf. It is in the process of being created. Let that happen. De Guerre ( talk ) 10:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to ongoing expansion of the article. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The extent of locomotive classes is not so large that the list is doomed to be indiscriminate , and this passes WP:NLIST . While it was not in great shape at the time of nomination, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page . Editing can improve the page—and has recently improved the page a good deal—so I see no reason to delete at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's raining! gidonb ( talk ) 13:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Martin Kennedy (composer): Sources exist , yes, but they're not really very independent : they seem to be from either his employers (past and present) or his publisher. On the other hand, there's that handful of awards... but not all awards are created equal. How significant are they? Does it matter that the only source for them is (or seems to be) his publisher? (Also: Mr Kennedy, or someone claiming to be him, came on the live help channel and asked for the article to be deleted on the grounds that he doesn't think he's notable. I looked, and I'm honestly not sure; thus, I throw it open for more opinions.) DS ( talk ) 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , England , Alabama , Indiana , New York , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It appears that this Martin Kennedy and the other musician with the same name who originates in Australia are not the same person. Stony Brook babble 19:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:Author . 1. Cited by peers, for example. 1 ; 4. significant body of work with performances in large venues. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1: That... doesn't look like a citation by a peer. It looks like a mention of his name . 2: Okay. Cite? DS ( talk ) 01:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER . — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO , where point no. 1 states it's enough that The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The current version contains a secondary reliable source [1] for the claim that the subject won the ASCAP Foundation Morton Gould Young Composer Award, an award which has been in place since 1979, a total of five times, along with numerous other awards. The other sources present in the article verify this and other information, even though they may not be as robust due to being primary, connected in some way, or trivial. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Goldstein , an article with local coverage about a pianist was kept even though that subject doesn't hold a doctorate, isn't on any university's faculty, hasn't seemed to have won any significant awards, nor is any discography listed. Per the failed proposal at WP:BLPCD , acknowledging the request to have this article courtesy deleted is not the same thing as agreeing to have it done. Stony Brook babble 13:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - his awards and nominations seem to qualify him under the standards cited above. Llajwa ( talk ) 17:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above discussion. In addition, the ASCAP award is a significant award. Bearian ( talk ) 14:47, 31 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

Chohong Museum of Finance: toobigtokale ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . toobigtokale ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - not able to find any sources, perhaps closed per nom. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand from the corresponding article in Korean, ko:한국금융사박물관 Machine translation: https://ko-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%88%EC%9C%B5%EC%82%AC%EB%B0%95%EB%AC%BC%EA%B4%80? _x_tr_sl=ko&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good find, thanks toobigtokale ( talk ) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename . Seems to have sufficient notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain. Good find. The Korean wiki article is also unreferenced, but I found some coverage of the subject online including: https://sedaily.com/NewsView/268JMUKYQ3 and https://m.weekly.cnbnews.com/m/m_article.html? no=145524 . - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and South Korea . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources do exist on this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources cited by Eastmain and Indefensible above appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:48, 17 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

2023 Pan American Racquetball Championships: Sources such as this [36] are primary. Also per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE . Contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Guatemala . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - I was surprised this article was nominated for deletion, especially as the event in question is one of the qualifying events for the 2023 Pan American Games . The article details the latest edition of an annual international sporting event that's been happening for over three decades involving a sport recognized by the International Olympic Committee. It seems the lack of references is the basis for the nomination, so I've added references to the event most of which are in Spanish, as the winners were from Spanish speaking countries and it's usually the winners that make the press. Trb333 ( talk ) 03:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep for passing GNG. Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 22:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Covered by multiple secondary sources; I don't understand how it's supposed to fail sigcov or GNG. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 12:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of newly added references would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:23, 27 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

Beer Albion Football Club: See previous examples of AfDs on clubs in the same situation here or here . Number 5 7 07:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth mentioning that the article was created by the club's social media person. Number 5 7 07:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I feel this might be enough for WP:BASIC , but my vote is a very weak keep. I had a look at fchd , which often has historical games listed, like FA Cup, FA Vase, but it's only a recently started and only shows recent history. But their recent record of winning trophies has a bit of coverage and that's why I have gone for a weak keep. Govvy ( talk ) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Govvy : - FYI, FCHD only tracks leagues above a certain level of the league system, hence why it has no record of this club until they reached that sort of level. They have definitely never played in a national cup competition -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep If you include local coverage, they appear to pass WP:GNG . I would have accepted this at AfC. SportingFlyer T · C 13:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - if the article is kept, it should be moved to Beer Albion F.C. in line with all other English football club articles -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or Beer Albion FC - we've started to lose the punctuation... SportingFlyer T · C 13:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With the dots is the norm in Category:Football clubs in England ...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SF, probably enough coverage to justify it. Agree with Chris that it needs moving. Giant Snowman 12:05, 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

USAF Heritage Flight: No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lots of news coverage at https://www.google.com/search? tbm=nws&q=%22USAF+Heritage+Flight%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is any of it WP:SIGCOV . "Lots" implies quantity, not quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was as far as I could take it. I feel like it merits a mention somewhere, however there's no mention of the flight in History of the United States Air Force and United_States_Air_Force only mentions the planes. Absent a target, I guess it's weak delete. Star Mississippi 02:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to pass WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 05:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I agree that it seems to meet WP:GNG . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 17:05, 23 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

Sevin Okyay: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , and Turkey . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep . Not only has she received the honorary "Contribution to Cinema" award the nominator identified, she's the namesake of the Sevin Okyay Cinema Writing Achievement Award at the International Women Filmmakers Festival. [1] There seem to be a lot of sources available in Turkish which I'm not able to evaluate, but I suspect they'll support notability per WP:GNG . pburka ( talk ) 21:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : From checking, for me meets WP:GNG . -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG. Compulsive Researcher ( talk ) 16:37, 19 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

Cocaine: One Man's Seduction: I'm seeing mentions and database entries but nothing substantial which would meet the notability standards JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television . JMWt ( talk ) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Entry in Hooked in Film: Substance Abuse on the Big Screen (2019); Mentions in various books [22] ; [23] , (etc.); various reviews including [24] and last but not least, this one (in the New York Times ). Among other things. Notability is very clear and I'm inviting User:JMWt to withdraw this nomination. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] only the first and last of those could be considered substantial coverage in a RS, the others are simple mentions or in a blog. The first seems on point, more than half a page in a published book. The NY Times piece is in a section of daily reviews of TV movies, so arguably is just run-of-the-mill coverage which could be found of many TV movies. At best that's borderline. I'll let other editors consider whether the offered sources are enough for notabllity. JMWt ( talk ) 23:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , plenty of hits at newspapers.com, including [25] and [26] Donald D23 talk to me 23:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the newspaper and book coverage identified in this discussion. The NYT piece is somewhat critical of the film so counts as an independent review and its not run of the mill as they don't review everything that is on, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:32, 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

Pennine League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:21, 11 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 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is historically important as it was one of the largest amateur leagues in the country during its heyday, and is one of the last surviving traditional winter leagues. There are lots of sources at the British Newspaper Archive which could be used to improve the article. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 21:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Source are available, this league seems to run somewhat independently - Open to keep . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:33, 18 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

Galaxy of Fear: ltb d l ( talk ) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . ltb d l ( talk ) 11:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are some articles after all which discuss this, like [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , and others, even if these are not the most stellar of sources. I did not have the time to look for sources on the individual books. If there should be a majority against keeping this, there should at least be a merge of concise plot summary to, I guess, John Whitman , in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . Daranios ( talk ) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article had no refs so I put the refs found by the editor above into the article. The series has been discussed in third party media. Its a notable series and passes GNG. Desertarun ( talk ) 09:09, 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

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances: This article requires extensive cleanup, or it should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page, where it should be addressed in the history section.I think this article does not meet the criteria for notability or should not be live on the main space for now. And this article should be redirected to the Jethwa clan page or moved to draft space as it is not ready for now to be live on the main space article. Here are many examples of WP:RAJ sources Please see Refrences no. [1], [3], [6], [8], [17], [26], [27],[28], [35], [36], [37] all are WP:RAJ era sources. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups , History , Royalty and nobility , and India . Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:RAJ is an essay, not policy. That said, we should be able to balance out the concerns with more modern sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 11 out of 50 sources isn't significant, so that addresses RAJ concerns. Recent scholarly journals, which will have a more updated point of view. Seems fine to me. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first 25 sources are from the 1970s forward, so basically half the sourcing doesn't use British-era sources. These are fine. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep kindly remove this article from AFD because I made mistake will prod Delete I prod Jethwa dynasty and this page was wrongly prod for deletion Wich I also revert my mistake. Good Faith . Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has sources from the 1960s going forward. It appears you're trying to push some sort of agenda here, please be careful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] no dear I have explained that I made a mistake my intention was to prod Another page of Jethwa dynasty when I undo revert my mistake a bot again prod this page for deletion I didn't. Transe Ænd Danse ( talk ) 20:18, 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

Seoul Tourism Awards: The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans . The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Travel and tourism , and South Korea . Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage. [23] [24] [25] [26] I can look up more upon request. Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 ( talk ) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm seeing quite a bit of significant coverage on Korean sources, especially on some bigger Korean news sites like YTN like here [27] [28] and Kyunghyang Shinmun (linked above). If anything, the Wikipedia article just needs some updating. MetropolitanIC ( 💬 | 📝 ) 02:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG . Sufficient coverage exists in a number of reliable Korean-language sources. The article absolutely needs work, but the sources do exist. GhostOfNoMeme 09:10, 18 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

Friendship Association Norway–Albania: A search in gnews for name in English and Norwegian yielded nothing. The last AfD pointed to a library search that yielded hits in Norwegian newspapers which may or may not be reliable sources. If not, this fails WP:ORG . LibStar ( talk ) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Albania , and Norway . Shellwood ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , whilst Eastmain 's edit can't function as a reference in the article, the link given ( https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Vennskapssambandet%20Norge-Albania%22&mediatype=aviser ) clearly affirms notability. The organization has 188 hits in Norwegian press during 1970s. For a quick review, this includes articles in mainstream publications (like Aftenposten ) solely dedicated to the organization, covering it in detail. This is without going in the contemporary coverage in Albanian-language press, which we can easily presume was plentiful. -- Soman ( talk ) 21:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I also want to bring to the court's attention that the article creator was not notified about the AfD nomination. -- Soman ( talk ) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV ? LibStar ( talk ) 05:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I added several references to the article, @ LibStar . There is a nonfiction book published in 2017 about the tourist/study trips organised by VNA, a PhD dissertation from 1997 discussing two novels featuring the same trips, there is a journal article debating VNA's opinions, and as others have mentioned, many other articles from mainstream Norwegian newspapers. These friendship organisations were a big thing in the 1970s. Lijil ( talk ) 22:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Soman above. Also, Aftenposten is a very popular newspaper in Norway. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 22:27, 16 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! 04:44, 22 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! 06:23, 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

Éva Balázs: The historian of the same name is probably more notable than this Olympian and I think we can wait for obituaries. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Olympics , and Hungary . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] hu.Wikipedia has a lot more content and lists a bunch of sources. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More content without claim of notability for ANYBIO, but not much more for sources, certainly not enough for GNG. Hu-wiki is a good place for a Hungarian athlete. Why would we replicate that here? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Haven't analyzed all the sources yet, but Hu-wiki is a good place for a Hungarian athlete. Why would we replicate that here? What? Are you saying that we should only have English athletes here and that non-Englishmen are irrelevant to this Wikipedia? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment and question . I've not previously encountered the argument that the Wikipedia of a person's native language is the "good place" for an article but questioning why we would "replicate" it in En-Wikipedia. It's always been my understanding that, if a person is not notable, they shouldn't have an article on any of our Wikipedias, but if they are notable, they may qualify for an article on En-wikipedia as well. Also not sure I agree that the Hu-wiki article lacks a claim to notability -- it states that Balázs won more than 60 skiing championships and cites a number of sources. Do we have any Hungarian-speaking editors who could examine the sources cited in the Hu-wiki article ( here ) to assess whether they rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV ? Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should have said that while the subject is not notable here, perhaps the bar is low enough on hu-wiki. It is easier for hu-wiki to evaluate Hungarian-language sources, which even if translated would still be LOCAL coverage. NOLY requires medaling, which this athlete didn't do. As I don't follow sports I cannot tell if winning these skiing championships are at all significant. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Passing / failing NOLY / NSPORT is wholly irrelevant in modern (i.e. since March 2022 ) times – all that matters is GNG / NBASIC – now, taking a translation of the Hungarian sources I get: Péter Fügedy: 75 years in red and blue, Népszava, 1986. ISBN 963 322 376 8 Péter Fügedy: Our winners, our champions, WERK Nyomdaipari és Könyvkiadó Kereskedő Kft. , é. n. B. N. - National Sport, January 8, 1992. Monspart Sarolta: B. É. - Orienteering, 1992 Péter Kozák: Éva Balázs, Sándorné Őzse skier, orienteer, physical education teacher More information Who's who in Hungarian sports life? Written and edited by Peter Kozak. Szekszárd, Babits, 1994. Réva's New Lexicon. Main editor. Colleague István Tarsoly. Szekszárd, Babits, 1996-. Sports encyclopedia. Main editor. László Nádori. Bp. , Sport, 1985-1986. New Hungarian biographical lexicon. Main editor. László Markó. Bp. , Hungarian Book Club. Vasas Hírek - Monspart Sarolta 70. Those sources are biographical encyclopedias about notable Hungarians – that is not "local" coverage (or are you trying to say all coverage from one's native country is local – because if that's the case, well, you're wrong). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just remembered, in addition to the several likely significant books above, there's a paywalled Hungarian newspaper archive (that allows you to see previews) by the name of Arcanum.com – taking a look for their results of "Balázs Éva" síelő (trans. Éva Balázs skier ) there's plenty of coverage listed (111 direct matches) including what seems to be entries providing direct coverage of our subject, e.g. among others, the Who's who has what appears to be at least two pages of coverage (p. 222-223 at least?), there seems to be an article on Balazs in the December 12, 1988 edition of Népsport (years after her career), and Magyar Ifjúság 1973 apparently has a story titled (google trans.) The Hungarian cross-country queen Éva Balázs: A Hungarian world champion – that's almost certainly significant coverage. This has all the appearances of a notable athlete. I'm suggesting Keep . @ Cbl62 and Chris troutman : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found a website that provides a quote from one of the books discussing Balazs – it has over 500 words; SIGCOV. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - She won 36 national titles. I think it's safe to assume more coverage exists. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article is a stub. But she is a multi national competition winner. Plus Olympic appearance is enough for inclusion. BabbaQ ( talk ) 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Olympic appearance is not enough for inclusion, just so you know, the policy changed over a year ago. No comment on the other stuff though. March OfThe Greyhounds 08:47, 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

Banaras Hindu University women's rights protest: As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EFFECT , it lacks notability. LibStar ( talk ) 09:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Uttar Pradesh . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I disagree with the deletion rational. The fact that there were further reported protests in 2018 , 2019 , 2021 , and 2023 suggests that the article just needs updating. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , otherwise merge as a single paragraph to Banaras_Hindu_University#Student_unions_and_protests . On the one hand, on review of SailingInABathTub's links I get the impression that the subsequent protests at the university are discrete events with distinct motives, rather than a continuous series of protests. That inclines me to think that a list of protests in the university article might be the best way to go. On the other hand, this wasn't a pure flash in the pan. The sources in the article show coverage, some of it quite deep, mostly during the protest but extending over more than a year. Beyond what's in the article, a bit of searching shows repercussions into 2019, as well as international coverage during the protests. And WP:EFFECT is not a sine qua non of notability; it defines a conditional (IF effect of lasting significance THEN likely notable), but has nothing to say about the inverse case. Several of the other sections of NEVENT (breadth, depth and duration of coverage) would nudge at least gently in favor of notability. Overall I think the guidelines by themselves leave us in the may or may not be notable territory of WP:NEVENT point 3, with nothing pushing very strongly in either direction. On the third hand, there is also some continuing coverage of controversy over allegations and counter-allegations about the motivations for the protest into 2018. Untangling all this could be a job, but overall it seems like there probably is sufficient material to build an adequate article here, so I think the best option is to keep and improve the article. But the university article also seems like a good merge target that would make it possible to put different protests into context. -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:41, 22 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

Vixen (RV): The manufacturer is also non-notable. Boleyn ( talk ) 09:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on at least Car and Driver , Outside , Autoweek ~ A412 talk! 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There would seem to be little WP policy here. In theory all articles need to meet WP:GNG, which of course this doesn't because there are no secondary sources available. But there are alot of similar articles that don't have secondary sources either. There is a real need for Wikipedia define notability better. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I searched on models, rather thav Vixen RV, more sources turn up. Popular Sciene , CarScoops , AutoEvolution , and others. I think that there is enough interest out there to support notability. - Bilby ( talk ) 10:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Economic history of Azerbaijan: As it stands, it makes more sense to gradually build the "History" section of the Economy of Azerbaijan and create a standalone article if the "History" section in that article becomes large enough to warrant a standalone article. Having two separate articles on the same topic is at this point going to worsen the quality of both articles and make it harder for editors to craft comprehensive encyclopedic on Azerbaijan's economic history. Thenightaway ( talk ) 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:OKFORK - the Economy of Azerbaijan article clearly states that it covers the present Republic (ie post-1991), that's a perfectly good dividing line. There's no doubt this subject is notable in and of itself and requires an article - the present status of the article is mostly irrelevant in terms of an AfD discussion. Moreover, there's a difference between a notable topic containing original research (which can be removed) as against an article topic which is original research. What we have here is the former, only the latter is grounds for deletion. Ultimately, AfD is not cleanup. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:OKFORK per above. This seems to fit well into SUMMARYSTYLE as a child article of History of Azerbaijan and Economy of Azerbaijan . Article definitely needs improvement but my search on Amazon and JSTOR showed works on Azerbaijani economic history that I think show this could develop into a decent article. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

LinuxTLE: There are no independent sources Mdggdj ( talk ) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - A (questionably independent) Softpedia review here [57] , some academic coverage [58] , [59] . I'm not familiar enough with RS in Thai to search, but this appears important enough in its region and time that I would guess that Thai-language sources are likely to exist. ~ A412 talk! 07:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Thailand . ~ A412 talk! 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As with most computing topics back then, its use was covered in detail by a third-party how-to book: บัณฑิต จามรภูติ (2003). การติดตั้ง-ใช้งานลินุกซ์ทะเล และปลาดาวออฟฟิศ [ Setting up and using Linux TLE and Pladao Office ]. Bangkok: Se-ed. ISBN 974-534-637-3 . Also the subject of a master's thesis: On strategies for supporting and developing open source in Thailand : case study Linux TLE , though master's theses aren't usually regarded as WP:RS. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 06:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : From sources found. I presume more sources exist in Thai since it seemed to have some involvement from the government. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I considered closing this as no consensus, but one more relist in case someone proficient in Thai wants to try doing a thorough search can't hurt. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:45, 5 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 ) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the one mentioned above, I found more how-to books from different authors and publishers, which should satisfy the GNG's multiple independent sources requirement. [60] [61] [62] -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 16:56, 13 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

Chinese BASIC: I could not find any reliable source. Mfixerer ( talk ) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "Chinese Basic" . Australian Personal Computer . Vol.  3, no. 11. November 1982. p. 11 . Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "Chinese Basic. The hieroglyphics shown here are actually standard Basic code, displayed in Chinese, and the product which produces them has been launched by Multitech Industrial Corporation in the Chinese island of Taiwan. Originally produced to help Taiwanese (who didn't speak English) to learn Basic programming, the product is now being sold to other non-English speaking peoples—or to English-speaking computer builders who wish to sell to them." Zhao, Rong-Yao; Pu, Hao-Zhe (1976). "Development of a Chinese BASIC compiler". Proceedings of the National Computer Symposium of the Republic of China 1976 . National Taiwan University . The citation is listed here . Stefans, Brian Kim (2017). Word Toys: Poetry and Technics . Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press . p. 223. ISBN 978-0-8173-5895-2 . Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Even before the advent of esolangs, attempts were made to create programming languages in Chinese and other Asian languages. Notable is Chinese BASIC, invented in the early eighties, which permitted within the same program Chinese ideograms, English letters, and abbreviated commands (such as “?” for “PRINT”). Inputting Chinese into a keyboard is something of a science in itself, as elements of ideograms, such as the radical or a geometric element (the shape of a box, for example) of characters related by a complex set of "decomposition rules" have to be mapped out over a QWERTY keyboard. Cangjie is based on the graphological aspect of the characters: each graphical unit is represented by a character component, twenty-four in all, each mapped to a particular letter key on a standard QWERTY keyboard. An additional “difficult character" function is mapped to the X key. " Lee, Jinn-Bao (1982). A Curriculum Model for Computer Literacy in Taiwan (PhD thesis). Texas A&M University . ProQuest 303265003 . The PhD thesis notes: "As to the type of programming languages for the computer literacy instruction, Chinese BASIC was most frequently recommended by the high school principals while English BASIC was suggested by a majority of both the department heads and the industrialists. Other languages were recommended less frequently. " "伙計中文培基語言來啦" [Mate, Chinese BASIC language is coming]. Economic Daily News [ zh ] (in Chinese). 1987-10-24. p. 10. The article notes: "找國第一套中文培基語言已由經智資訊公司開發成功，這套命名為伙計的中文培基語言，可直接用中文使用，對學習程式相當方便，將有助於國內資訊教育的推廣。 " From Google Translate: "The country's first set of Chinese BASIC languages ​​has been successfully developed by Jingzhi Information Company. This set of Chinese training languages ​​named Buddy can be used directly in Chinese. It is very convenient for learning programs and will contribute to the promotion of domestic information education. " "廣智產多項套裝軟體 分依特性擬人化命名" [Guangzhi produces multiple software packages. Anthropomorphic naming based on characteristics]. Economic Daily News [ zh ] (in Chinese). 1989-03-06. p. 24. The article notes: "「伙計」是第一套中文培基直譯器（BASIC Interpreter），擁有GW-BASIC完全相容的標準功能，並增加賀克（Hercules）卡繪圖能力，提供真正的中文使用環境。 " From Google Translate: ""Buddy" is the first set of Chinese BASIC Interpreter, which has standard functions that are fully compatible with GW-BASIC, and adds Hercules card drawing capabilities, providing a true Chinese usage environment. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chinese BASIC ( Chinese : 中文培基 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Cunard's sources, especially the two academic theses. Fulfills GNG. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 12:59, 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

Baku Carriage Repair Factory: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references. When the subject of an article is located in a country where English isn't the primary language, a nominator should check the references included in the corresponding articles in other languages' Wikipedias. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:30, 26 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! 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These are good examples for subject passing WP:GNG : [27] , [28] , [29] . There are also numerous reliable secondary sources in Azerbaijani and Russian languages for fact checking. -- Sura Shukurlu ( talk ) 11:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of recently added content would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although a large portion of the article is unsourced and needs sources or should be removed, the subject itself doesn't have any notability concerns and meets the WP:GNG as there are multiple sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 15:57, 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

Jo Mango: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can resolve it now. No consensus in 2005 AfD when standards for inclusion were significantly lower. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE unless someone is willing to do the work to establish notability - there’s nothing so far. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've had a bit of a look into this and think it will meet the 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself' notability criterion (at least). So I'll keep working on the article to bring it up to standard. Alarichall ( talk ) 09:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Review in the Glasgow Herald is fine, but that's all I can see that would count toward notability. I can't find anything beyond streaming sites or a bio at the Conservatoire of Scotland where this person works. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, so I've added references to coverage in national UK papers including The Sunday Times , Metro , and The Scotsman . I haven't done a comprehensive trawl of reporting, but I think that the article now shows that Jo Mango meets the notability criterion 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'. Alarichall ( talk ) 11:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage references added to the article such as the Sunday Times, The Scotsman, and The Herald (Scotland). Am exercising WP:AGF as urls are not provided for two of the three aforementioned sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:32, 11 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

Kobla Ladzekpo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , Dance , Ghana , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — There are sources, such as this Los Angeles Times , that are significant enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Shoerack ( talk ) 09:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep just enough with the sources above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Is notable, but poorly. ArvindPalaskar ( talk ) 16:35, 18 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

Pavane for a Dead Girl: One passing mention, one non-independent source, one review. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; found quite a few sources when looking at websites listed at WP:ANIME/RS : Sequential Tart , Comicbook Bin , ICv2 (which is already in the article), and its review from ANN meets WP:100WORDS . Link20XX ( talk ) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Link20XX, plus some coverage from Manga Bookshelf [22] ; Kono Manga ga Sugoi! [23] ; and Natalie [24] [25] [26] [27] Xexerss ( talk ) 04:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources brought up by Link20XX and Xexerss. Fulmard ( talk ) 19:38, 18 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

Jennifer Rubin (policy analyst): Google search pulls up the numerous opinion pieces written by the subject, but no independent/secondary source talking about her. Sabih omar 20:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and United Kingdom . — Karnataka talk 20:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Unable to find any RS anywhere User:Let'srun 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding that I understand there are multiple people with the same name that have wikipedia articles. Let'srun ( talk ) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete: No only agree with what nom wrote but created by sock puppet. Delete! Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 10:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London . Very clearly notable. Are people possibly getting her confused with Jennifer Rubin (columnist) , who is a political commentator? -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are right! Even Jennifer Rubin (Columnist) does not seem un-notable judging by the well-written article on that subject. Sabih omar 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp. Meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 & #6. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:08, 4 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! 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp for government offices held. Sources would help. Edison ( talk ) 03:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The delete proponents clearly did not check her out. She is not a "political commentator", but a high-ranked government official and academic. Chhandama ( talk ) 07:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG - I don't see any secondary coverage of her. Keep ! votes are appealing to status, not sources. SportingFlyer T · C 23:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.ukri.org/news/esrc-executive-chair-professor-rubin-to-take-up-new-home-office-role/ is pretty good in my opinion, and there might be more out there. No strong opinions either way. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't appear secondary to me. SportingFlyer T · C 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also want to confirm my source search was for the policy analyst, not the commentator. There are also no WP:GNG passing sources currently in the article either - all press release type fodder. This is a basically a CV bio. SportingFlyer T · C 11:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are strong views on both sides. I am concerned and agree with User:Necrothesp 's comment that early participants and maybe even the nominator might be confusing this article subject with a different Jennifer Rubin. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Sal2100, the "status" of executive chair of the Economic and Social Research Council probably meets the requirement, among other positions. As for verification, the UKRI ref and others support that. Delete votes which misidentified should be discounted, otherwise perhaps close as no consensus and try again, but in my opinion we should probably just keep as meeting on notability and verifiability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User:SportingFlyer , your concern is now about verifiability rather than notability (which the subject appears to meet), correct? Primary sources can also be used in some cases, the UKRI ref comes from a British government website and can probably be used to at least verify her status. However there are other traces online which can be used to corroborate the UKRI, for example https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/esrc-chief-executive-and-ukri-innovation-champion-named , https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/19-09-18-2m_funding_award_recognises_the_centre_for_competitive_advantage_in_the_global_economy_as_a_uk_centre_of_research_excellence/ , https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/jan/dementia-projects-improve-peer-support-prevention-and-end-life-care . I think we can safely conclude her position is verified. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, my main concern is notability. She is clearly not notable per WP:GNG . No secondary sources have covered her in any sort of detail, and the sources you've just posited are not secondary, and she does not have any assumed notability. If there are sources that aren't generated by her organisations or collaborators I haven't found, please let me know. SportingFlyer T · C 17:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, very well. I think she meets on notability per Sal2100 as noted above. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. I'm not seeing it, but WP:ACADEMIC is really difficult to apply outside the walled garden. Easiest to just look at GNG. SportingFlyer T · C 18:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her position doesn't confer to being notable on its own. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the notability aspect is met per Indefensible, and the verifiability aspect is met by reliable sourcing from the UK govt. IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk ) 17:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I was considering Necrothesp's cite of this , but then considered this as possibly WP:ROUTINE , but after Beccaynr's exploration of wp:NACADEMIC I'm now in favour of keeping. (I changed my mind twice here) Chumpih t 19:29 and 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) , 16:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:NPROF #3, she is an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences [1] , and per WP:NPROF #7, she appears to have a substantial impact outside academia in her academic capacity, e.g. Professor Jennifer Rubin, Executive Chair of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Professor of Public Policy at King’s College London, has been appointed Chief Scientific Adviser and Director General Science, Technology, Analysis, Research and Strategy for the Home Office (UKRI, 2020). Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is that an independent source? Chumpih t 06:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NACADEMIC , The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable . For documenting election for NPROF#3 , publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source ; the source I cited above includes a quote from the president of the electing institution and a link to a pdf listing new fellows (that is not working nor available at the Internet Archive). The NPROF#7 guideline offers examples of how to demonstrate substantial impact, and this discussion seems to help show some of the challenges with one of the typical methods ("frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area") because searches are complicated by Jennifer Rubin the columnist/commentator, and on JSTOR, Jennifer Rubin Grandis. So I suggest her verifiable career outside of academia in her academic capacity seems to help support notability, in addition to the NPROF#3 recognition. However, there is also apparent coverage in Times Higher Education : ESRC chief executive and UKRI ‘innovation champion’ named (2017), but I cannot access this; and with an assist from ProQuest, I also found this Jennifer Rubin quoted in mainstream press: Guardian , 2020. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood. Thanks very much for this explanation and additional research. I change my stance. (again) Chumpih t 16:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This sort of explanation is exactly why NACADEMIC should be deprecated and replaced with GNG. We wouldn't push together bits and pieces like this for anyone in any other profession. I don't think that will happen any time soon, though. SportingFlyer T · C 16:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From my view, the recognition from her peers through the election as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is similar to other SNGs, such as a "significant award or honor" ( WP:ANYBIO ) or "The person is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers" ( WP:AUTHOR ), and overall, this recognition seems to help show, as noted in the academics section in WP:BIO , how "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But that would imply every fellow is notable, and that's clearly not the case from clicking the wikilink... I disagree with the premise of the academics section, but that's policy. NACADEMIC is just incredibly difficult to apply for someone outside the walled garden... SportingFlyer T · C 21:49, 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

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II: Additionally, all these extra details aren't supported by the single source provided, which I believe is WP:NOR . When looking for reliable resources about this fight and match card, I could only find a couple of news articles from ABC News (Australia) that explained the fight was happening and not much else. CREEDIXMO ( TALK ) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - World title fights are usually inherently notable events. This article was written at an era in which reliably-sourced material was not deemed as important to the article as it is today. It will be hard to find reliable links due to the fact the bout took place 20 years ago, but I am working on that as I speak. Jeanette La Trevi Martin ( digame ) 03:40, 12 July, 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Boxing , and Arizona . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A notable world title bout, the article needs rewriting not deleting. Sam11333 ( talk ) 15:04, 15 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

Elizabeth Salmón: In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN , but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example: Peruvian legal expert set to be new UN rapporteur on North Korean human rights - NK News North Korea COVID rules put pressure on women providing food - U.N. expert - Reuters UN Highlights Abuses Against Women and Girls in North Korea - Human Rights Watch UN special rapporteur Elizabeth Salmón laments lack of information from North Korea - Korea JoongAng Daily New UN special rapporteur makes first visit to Seoul - Korea JoongAng Daily North Korea: UN human rights expert is 'US puppet' - Agence France-Presse UN special rapporteur for N. Korea human rights to visit S. Korea this month - The Korea Times UN Special Rapporteur Focuses on Women’s Rights in First Report to UN Human Rights Council - Korea Institute for International Economic Policy I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG . Silver seren C 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I've reviewed the list and ported it to the article as Further Reading, with hopes it might underpin biographical content in the future. I appreciate your research. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 00:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , Law , and Peru . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The UN special rapporteur post seems to satisfay WP:ACADEMIC #7: having an impact outside academia in her academic capacity, in this case being appointed by the UN as a legal expert on human rights. Pam D 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I disagree that she meets NPOL, but being a UN rapporteur and having regular media coverage meets NACADEMIC #7. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Likely passes GNG with the JoonAng and other newspaper articles listed above. I'm unsure about satisfying academic notability, but there is ample coverage in RS for general notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Has anyone searched in Spanish for Spanish sources. They wouldnt come up if looking in English. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not. I would expect searching in Korean and whatever the Hangul transliteration of her name is would also be fruitful. Silver seren C 20:29, 23 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

Eric K. Little: Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America . Mccapra ( talk ) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military : Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [7] , but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG . A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist ( talk ) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket ( talk ) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW . We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra ( talk ) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly satisfies WP:GNG . Not just an attack page, as he is a general and therefore plenty has been written about him. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep US generals are not inherently notable, and this comes close to notability for a single event , but coverage like this [8] and, to a lesser extent, these [9] [10] reinforces that he was likely marginally notable before his firing. The article is far from an attack page and does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 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

Ashish Aviral: Shellwood ( talk ) 09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Have enough sources. Citadeol (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No comment on whether or not the man meets WP:ANYBIO . (Offhand, I'm unfamiliar with the particular awards, etc, and I lack the time to investigate.) But what if he fails to do so? Failure to meet WP:ANYBIO isn't a reason for deletion. -- Hoary ( talk ) 05:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are lots of reliable sources as well as secondary and independent sources to the subject. Fade258 ( talk ) 06:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources in the article appear to satisfy the WP:GNG by being in-depth, independent, and reliable. I am not familiar with Nepali media so I am relying on Google translate to establish depth and independence and general principles to establish reliability. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jody Maginley: Sources exist such as [9] but its not enough for WP:SIGCOV . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Tennis , Caribbean , and Antigua and Barbuda . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Loads of coverage [10] [11] [12] from Antigua's only newspaper (I could add more as thankfully this paper is written in English and easily available online) and also [13] [14] [15] these sources from his college career are plenty enough to meet GNG. Iffy ★ Chat -- 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Keep – I've found quite a few more good sources in local Antiguan or Caribbean news, like here , here , and here that I think are enough to reach WP:SIGCOV . I'll try to see if I can find anything from his time playing college tennis in the States, but I think there is enough to push him over. Adamtt9 ( talk ) 20:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Loads of coverage pop up after pressing the search button (including the ones Iffy provided), nom might have to do a more careful BEFORE next time. Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above meets WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Computer Stew: The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com . Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999 , a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET . toweli ( talk ) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America . toweli ( talk ) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria , which says: Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources , and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores . Sources "New This Week" . Entertainment Weekly . 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach." Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net" . The Boston Globe . Archived from the original on 2024-05-13 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep : Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : if sources are included; per the source in the article and the sources found by the nominator. That looks fine to me. jp × g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Amin Gaon railway station: Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with the article about the line it's on. Straight deletion of items of notable sets (railway stations in India) without a at least redirect to content in a broader article or list is harmful. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then you should ! vote redirect instead of merge because there is really nothing to merge. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. There's verification concerns. Amingaon is the settlement's name and the name of a former railway station in operation from 1907 to 1963. Amin Gaon is the title of the article, there's no passenger station but a railway line terminates at a container site, which some 'sources' (not necessarily reliable) suggest was a railway station. Perhaps was in 2017 when this article was written, but need confirmation. Rupples ( talk ) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to Amingaon railway station I think Rupples is correct the actual name of this station is without the space, searching for sources without the space gave some sources: Sharma, Sukanya (2016-06-19). "Re-living an “Abandoned†Space" . Space and Culture, India . 4 (1): 1–5. doi : 10.20896/saci.v4i1.193 . ISSN 2052-8396 . Bureau, The Meghalayan (2022-08-17). "NF Railway to preserve Amingaon Railway Station as heritage site" . The Meghalayan . Retrieved 2023-11-17 . Jumpytoo Talk 19:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move per Jumpytoo, the above sources make a good case for notability. signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 24 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

List of Sports Illustrated writers: Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , News media , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [ [30] ] and [ [31] ], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun ( talk ) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 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

Roger Morris (English writer): Most of the sources found in a BEFORE search deal with the British Army officer Roger Morris , and the remaining sources found about this subject are non-independent sources lacking significant coverage of the subject. Tails Wx 15:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , United Kingdom , and England . Tails Wx 15:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Kirkus Review has reviews for 8 of Morris's books covering a sustained time period from 2007 to 2020: R N Morris . Publishers Weekly has 7 book reviews: R N Morris . Further book reviews in The Guardian : [1] ; Library Journal : [2] ; and Booklist : [3] . These RS reviews should contribute to WP:NAUTHOR : multiple independent periodical articles or reviews . Resonant Dis tor tion 14:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Furthermore, Morris has twice been shortlisted for a notable award. Details of which, and more independent book reviews, have now been added to the article. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Wider evaluation of the sources and whether this passes NAUTHOR would be hepful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 16:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As well as the 18 book reviews identified above - there are another two published in the Library Journal : [4] , and further available in the New York Times : [5] , Spike Magazine : [6] , The Times : [7] , and The Millions magazine: [8] . It is not wholly clear why the notability of the subject continues to be in doubt. Resonant Dis tor tion 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation in this discussion would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm a bit iffy on use of Kirkus [9] and PW [10] , but there's clearly sufficient critical coverage of his work elsewhere in RS above to meet NAUTHOR#3 (and coverage at a single author article is clean where individual pages for books are not needed ref WP:NOPAGE ). ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 08:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mongol invasion of Central Asia: All the information in the article is summarized in either Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai or Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire ; this should probably either be deleted or redirected to Mongol invasions and conquests . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] EDIT per discussion with 3family6 below, I think Disambiguate also just about works. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Asia , and Mongolia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, this seems like a redundant, synthesized topic. Delete per nom. Withdrawn for now while I talk to the editor. The article has expanded and its purpose clarified since I originally voted, now fully for keeping . Remsense 留 19:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per above Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as WP:SYNTH . An interesting case, though, as it is literally the opposite of a WP:POVFORK . Instead of splitting one subject, it takes two valid topics and attempts to artificially combine them into one. Maybe a POVSPOON? Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or userfy Disambiguate as there is more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns, although they were the largest. The invasion of Cumania, for example. I'm actually in the process of creating some of that content. There is a need for an overarching treatment of how the specific campaigns all relate to each other. More directly to the issue, though, is that a quick search of "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" brings up multiple sources about the topic, not all of them about only the invasion of Khwarezmia. There's even at least two with that exact title. Here's some of the results: [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] . -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've greatly expanded the content to include other operations and campaigns in Central Asia. Should address the SYNTH issues.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree. Your expansions to the article and comments above indicate that you believe a substantial portion of the "invasion of Central Asia" began before the commencement Mongol invasion of Khwarazmia in 1218—this is not supported by any of the sources you have provided: Islam 2016 states "a punitive action against the Kara-Khitai was the prelude to the all-out Mongol invasion of Central Asia in 1218–1219". The campaigns such as the invasion of Cumania are not mentioned in the article entitled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia", which is completely devoted to the invasion of Khwarazmia. It is clear that Islam's conception of the "Invasion of Central Asia" is just our article Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire under a different name, and completely unrelated to your conception of there being "more to Mongol campaigns in Central Asia than just the summaries of these two campaigns". Abasov 2008 is an entry from an encylopedia entitled "Historical Atlas Of Central Asia"—as such, many entries include the words "Central Asia" in their titles, but are described on WP under different names. See for instance the entry "The Arab Conquest of Central Asia" (on WP Muslim conquest of Transoxiana ) or "Timur and the Timurid Empire in Central Asia (on WP Timur & Timurid Empire ). Aside from that, it must be noted that Abasov, like Islam, states outright "In 1219, Genghis Khan invaded Central Asia"—again, he does not mention Cumania, or any other campaigns, clearly showing that he is just referring to the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. The academics.hamilton.edu source similarly states "The Mongols began their invasion of Central Asia in 1218.. . on a mission of vengeance against the ruler of Khwarezm" I am confused by your citations above to Biran 2009 and a Boundless World History textbook, as neither use the phrase "Invasion of Central Asia". Nevertheless, neither discusses events before 1216. So to summarize, the sources explicitly titled "The Mongol Invasion of Central Asia" only discuss the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire , while none of the five sources you have provided support the inclusion of sections on the "Destruction of the Merkit–Naiman alliance", the "Submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks", or the "Destruction of the Merkit–Kipchak alliance". As it stands, the article thus contains quite a bit more WP:SYNTH than before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] what part of the world do those sections I added deal with? Geographic Central Asia. It is not SYNTH to mention campaigns that happened in Central Asia as part of a series of campaigns in Central Asia, especially when the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia. The five sources above that I mentioned I listed before I created this new content. I did not cite them to support these additions. I added these additions because there are additional battles that happened in Central Asia, when the argument is that there wasn't anything else happening in Central Asia.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some sources that include what I've added as part of Mongol activity in Central Asia: pages 8-10 , [59] , [60] -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 19:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the argument in question is that there is nothing else that happened in Central Asia That is not the argument: as written in the deletion nomination above, the article is not in itself notable—sources do not discuss it as an entity, and to combine multiple sections on individually notable campaigns that are not explicitly connected by reliable sources is WP:SYNTH . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You contended that the new content I added did not belong in this article. That's what I mean about arguing that nothing else occurred in Central Asia. They are explicitly connected, in the source material. One rolled into the next. The early mopping up of Merkit and Naiman opposition directly flowed into the conquest of Qara Khitai because Kuchlug seized the Qara Khitan throne. And then the Mongols were rubbing up against Khwarazm, which led to that conquest. This is reflected in many of the sources. And this source by one of the historians that I cite in the new content that I added explicitly says the preliminary expansion started in 1209.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, events flowing into each other is generally how time works. I don't think this getting anywhere productive, so I'll disengage and let the closer evaluate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If sources discuss all this happening, it isn't original synthesis. There's sources that include both the conquest of Qara Khitai and Khwarazm in descriptions of the Mongol conquest of Central Asia. And now I've provided sources showing that the other actions in geographic Central Asia are described as occurring in that part of the world, and now I've shown that there's at least one source connecting all of these other actions to the big campaign that was the conquest of Khwarazm. While the article still needs work, the concerns for why it is it is nominated for deletion are addressed. Editors are supposed to do their due diligence first and consult sources before nominating for deletion. I can see why the source material would be difficult to work through, but now it's provided, so the notability concerns don't hold water. And whatever remaining SYNTH concerns there might have been, the Timothy May article I linked to above clears those up. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. I'll be happy to clean up this article once I've finished the current project I'm working on. It just so happens through coincidence that my creation of articles related to the Mongol conquest of Siberia happened to also have a lot of pertinence to, and overlap with, the early Central Asian endeavors, so I had material relatively at the ready.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 01:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3family6 , non-leading question, could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense 留 01:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is pertinent to having any over-arching articles about large, inter-related campaigns when we have articles about the constituent campaigns and battles of which they are comprised? We could get even larger - for instance, Anne Broadbridge mentions the "Western Campaign", which is basically everything west and southwest of Mongolia as opposed to the campaign against the Chinese states (note: I'm not saying that in this case we should, but that there's precedent in reliable sources to do so). It's useful for readers (which includes myself) to have articles that are broad summaries that show how a series of specific campaigns are related. Secondly, while some of the content I've added could have its own article, specifically the submission of Uyghur and Karluk states, and the Battle of Chem will have its own article, some of the content I don't think will ever merit its own article. It's more notable in how it relates to these other key events than stand-alone.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 01:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The precise meaning of 'campaign' is key here. It may sound like a pedantic point, but is there any notion that the various central Asian campaigns were viewed at the time as being part of a larger 'campaign' as it were? Or is is simply a historiographical construction? I think an article could be viable either way, but it definitely affects what I think the focus and scale of the article should be. Remsense 留 01:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a great question. The conquest of Qara Khitai seems to be part of the same campaign as the initial operations in 1209 that followed-up Jochi's Siberian campaign, as it essentially is part of the "mopping up" of opposition factions that date back to the rise of Genghis Khan. And there's some historical speculation that the Uyghurs and Karluks submitted because the Mongols weren't in their territory just to pursue the Merkits. The part that's less clear is if Khwarazm was viewed as part of this. And I that depends on if there was always a plan to invade Khwarazm, and that's debated by historians. So it's a historical construction, but possibly reflective of how the Mongols saw it. After Khwarazm, it seems a lot clearer that the Mongols now saw the entire West as a possession of the imperial family and the respective campaigns were all part of securing that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 12:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] could you articulate what additional value is contributed to the wiki by the existence of this article as opposed to all its pertinent information (in a future, complete version to your satisfaction) being contained in the other relevant articles? Remsense and AirshipJungleman29 , I could see each of the sections I added being turned into an article, if they aren't already, and this article being converted into a reference article such as a dab or list article . I think there's value to having it in full article form, but I can see that as alternate option and I wouldn't be opposed to that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 03:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3family6 , yes, I see it now, I'm going to reverse my original position now. Thanks for the answers! Remsense 留 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still don't see how any of that discussion solves what seems to be core issue. What need is there for 'an overarching treatment' of the various (apparently very distinct) campaigns? I am not seeing them treated as a unified concept in the sources. What am I missing? Can someone give a short (paragraph or less) explanation of that, please? I am not hard to persuade to keep an article, but I'm just not seeing how this is not WP:SYNTH and probably WP:OR . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not original synthesis as there are no conclusions reached that aren't in the source material. I challenge editors to show where that is the case. The biggest issue I see is that most references to "Mongol invasion/conquest of Central Asia" refer to Khwarazm or both Qara Khitai and Khwarazm. But, given that 1) these other campaigns/operations also occurred in geographic Central Asia (where else could they be discussed? They aren't Europe or Siberia, although there's overlap. The securing of Xinjiang and surrounding area could be discussed in the invasions China, but if editors are opposing inclusion here, they'd have to oppose inclusion there, as well), and 2) there are academic sources to support both the submission of the Uyghurs and Karluks and the "mopping-up" campaign beginning in 1209. The sections on Qara Khitai and Khwarazm aren't cited, but that's a WP:V issue and there's plenty of sources to support that material that just aren't yet cited. -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, I still don't see this either. I don't see how the sentence "Mongol expansion into Central Asia began in 1209" requires an entire article to be created on the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia", especially as the same author says differently elsewhere and two other sources define the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" to be the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire . If this article is kept, it has to be moved to something like "List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia", as I did for the article formerly titled Mongol conquest of Siberia . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that it should be moved to "Mongol campaigns in Central Asia". AirshipJungleman29 , how would you categorize the minor 1209 campaign in Central Asia if it was created as it's own article? I.e., in the infobox, how would "part of the Mongol campaigns in Central Asia be incorrect, especially given that it can be cited to a source?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have already created it as its own article: Battle of Irtysh River (13th century) . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair. You would argue that the follow-up activities that would be included in the aftermath section of that article and my forthcoming Battle of Chem River article would be sufficient?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Background and aftermath sections are all that would be required 3family6 . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 01:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point, I am not sure that even a merge to that subject is worthwhile. I am still firmly in the 'Delete' camp unless someone can explain why this is an encyclopaedic subject in itself and not a synthesis that artificially combines separate campaigns in a way that the scholarship does not support. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Scholarship does support it. There's debate as to whether or not Khwarazm was always the end goal after Qara Khitai, and whether it was a goal or not, if the Irghiz River skirmish was a one-off or the prelude to the invasion (which in part depends on when it happened - 1209 or 1219, which is also debated).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per 3family6 and Remsense. And anyway, for the editors who want to delete it, why not just split it into separate articles and leave it as a list of the central asian campaigns? JM ( talk ) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keeping this as a list is another possibility if the consensus is to delete.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 23:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JM2023 , because we already have those articles ( Mongol conquest of the Qara Khitai and Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire ), and we already have a list of Mongol invasions and conquests as well. As the nomination pointed out, this is essentially WP:SYNTH - it summarizes the events of two individually notable campaigns, but is not in itself notable, and it is not discussed as [a unique, separate topic] in WP:RS . Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 23:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I buy the argument that each and any way we structure information on this website has to have been done before in a previously published source. To extend that reasoning, the section Mongol invasions and conquests § Central Asia is SYNTH, and Mongol invasions and conquests § History and outcomes must be split up into precisely the military activities that are independently notable. I did briefly attempt to disprove the assertion that this subject had never been published about under a title like this (which I gave up early without resolution after about ten pages of search hits from the first publisher I checked). AirshipJungleman29 , you're something of a subject matter expert on this, so question for you: is there any title and structure for this material that would satisfy your sense of history communication, or is the framing so problematic that it beguiles readers into misunderstandings? To me, who knows little about this, it seems like a natural way to group information about Mongol expansion in a certain geographic and temporal space. Am I missing something? Is the article missing something? Looking back over the Mongol invasions and conquests article, I see the heading "West Asia", see a single three-sentence paragraph, and this intimidating section hatnote: Main articles: Mongol invasions of the Levant , Anatolia , Khwarezmian Empire , Georgia , the Nizaris of Alamut , and Siege of Baghdad (1258) What if I want a deeper understanding than the three sentences, but I don't want to read six separate articles? Is Wikipedia unable to summarise material to an intermediate level of detail because that level of detail doesn't really have a precedent in academic publishing? Folly Mox ( talk ) 05:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Folly Mox Mongol invasions and conquests is a pretty terrible article. I have no idea why it's organised geographically rather than chronologically, as is done for literally every war summary on Wikipedia. It is also ludicrously short on detail—the three sentence paragraph you outline could easily be twenty times the length. As it stands, the article's organisation is WP:SYNTH ; but its content is not, because many sources do give an overview of the Mongol conquests. To answer your question, the only way this article should exist in my view is under the title List of Mongol campaigns in Central Asia . But we do not have articles on subjects like List of Napoleonic War battles in modern Germany , or List of Second Sino-Japanese War campaigns in modern Shandong , and I don't think we should, even though they would undoubtedly be "intermediate level summaries" between Napoleonic Wars / Second Sino-Japanese War and Lists of battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars / List of military engagements of the Second Sino-Japanese War . Let me know if that answers your question or if I totally misread it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 20:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AirshipJungleman29 thank you for that explanation, that makes a lot more sense to me.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 00:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry I meant to respond to this days ago, and had a reply all drafted, then my phone crashed and I forgot I never posted it. I think I'm of the opinion that simply reorganising information cannot be SYNTH, which involves drawing conclusions from a combination of sources where none of the sources individually supports the conclusion. The closest guidance we have for this opinion might be WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY , or its catchily named upstairs neighbour WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION , which sounds like a curse hex where someone changed a single character to avoid a naming taboo. Both of these are from an essay. That's not to say we can just write about whatever we want as long as it's sourced adequately: some things are not encyclopaedic topics. Being that the nom and the creator seem to be coming to an agreement below, I don't think I'll be leaving a not-vote, but I did want to circle back to this before it closed. Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm changing my keep vote to ""split off"" into individual articles the content that doesn't already have an article (I'm planning to do this, in the meantime I can put the content in my sandbox), and ""disambiguate"' the title. I disagree with AirshipJungleman29 and Last1in that this article is SYNTH, but AirshipJungleman29 makes a really good point about this article not following existing conventions that others in this subject matter follow. I think it will be superfluous and redundant. Remsense and JM2023 , see my change of mind here. -- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done ) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks 3family 6; also Remsense . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 17:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. As a closer, I have a few options available to me: Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify and Rename/Move. I can not "split off" this article into other articles or disambiguate it. Those are editorial decisions to be made by you all if it is decided that this article should be Kept. So most of this discussion here, while interesting, is besides the point and can occur on the article talk page if there is a consensus to Keep this article. Right now, I don't see a consensus so I'm relisting this discussion. As for any future contributions to this discussion, please keep them simple, realizing the limitations that a closer deals with, and move content-related discussions of what might happen later to this article to the article talk page. Thanks. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All right (sorry

keep

Jane Goodall Institute: Some independent sources mention the subject but there is no WP:SIGCOV to speak of and a lot of these sources are either from the subject's website or press releases/churnalism orchestrated by the subject. Icicle City ( talk ) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Environment , and Washington, D.C. . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Jane Goodall ; it seems heavily interwoven with Goodall and may be better incorped at her respective article. GuardianH ( talk ) 16:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some coverage here: https://news.asu.edu/20230627-jane-goodall-institute-and-asu-take-first-steps-expand-partnership , https://kjzz.org/content/1850833/asu-expands-work-jane-goodall-institute . I agree that merging to Jane Goodall might be the best option though; similar treatment by Encyclopedia Britannica. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional mentions: https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21/bu-wins-prestigious-jane-goodall-institute-environmental-awards-work-local-primary-school https://www.directionsmag.com/pressrelease/11794 https://web.archive.org/web/20230601224348/https://www.gpsworld.com/jane-goodall-institute-releases-storymap-highlighting-chimp-habitat-conservation/ https://variety.com/2017/film/news/jane-goodall-institute-partering-with-fox-caesar-chimpanzee-sanctuary-1202454311/ https://iaia.edu/anna-rathmann-executive-director-at-the-jane-goodall-institute-usa-and-the-partnership-with-iaia/ - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Lightburst ( talk ) 20:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC) t [ reply ] keep , meets WP:ORG . Also note that there is no one good merge target, as while much of the work of the institute was begun by Jane Goodall , projects such as Roots & Shoots and TACARE have grown well beyond her individual involvement. There are also other projects of the institute. If we were to perform a complex multi-way split/merge we'd end up with not-infrequent references to this subject with no anchoring article and it would not improve the encyclopedia. The SIRS sources linked below represent a non-exhaustive search, there is most definitely more, probably much more (most links to proquest) Wilson (2021) in Evolutionary Human Sciences discusses research done by ~50 employees of the institute, in depth [12] Mavanza & Grossman (2007) in Population and Environment discusses the TACARE project and the institutes involvement beyond Goodall herself, in-depth [13] Lonsdorf et al, (2022) American Journal of Primatology discuss the institute's involvement (beyond Goodall herself) in TACARE and related training, in depth [14] Johnson-Pynn & Johnson (2005) in The Journal of Environmental Education discusses Roots & Shoots project including the institute, in depth [15] D&B Hoovers profile of institute [16] — siro χ o 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo, there seems to be enough notability for the subject beyond its founder. Article definitely needs ref improvement though. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo, significant coverage. And per Indefensible the article needs to be updated with sources like these. -- Green C 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Siroxo and the others. Delete the Jane Goodall Institute? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, this is one I'll beat my chest and shake my head at, and log off for now. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support merge I've read through the above and I can conclude that there isn't enough WP:RS to satisfy a separate article about this organisation without applying WP:SYNTH to those primary sources which will innevitably result in a listy, WP:OR heavy article. Jane Goodall can host any content supported by whatever reliable seconday sources there might be, although I haven't seen many of those yet. Icicle City ( talk ) 14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I find Siroxo's argument the most convincing, with the subject meeting notability policy with coverage independent of Goodall herself. Resonant Dis tor tion 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While the article itself remains poorly sourced, the additional sources produced here are enough to support an independent article. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:37, 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

November 2021 English Channel disaster: Firsttwintop ( talk ) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , France , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 ( talk ) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main article notes the incident properly : "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news . It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop ( talk ) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) . This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop , did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop ( talk ) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep . This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) . The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) . Mariawest1965 ( talk ) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] Keep : This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships ( talk ) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) : the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 ( talk ) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — MonsterRacer1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] MonsterRacer1 , how did you find this AFD on your first edit? L iz Read! Talk! 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 ( talk ) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete ! vote, but the ! votes are divided between keep and merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc ( talk ) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) . I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop ( talk ) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet ) [ reply ] That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships ( talk ) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable event, covered in multiple books as well as all the media reporting in the article. E.g. [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] . Without a doubt a notable event with lasting significance. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This fulfils WP:NEVENT . Cambial — foliar❧ 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Please note that Firsttwintop ( talk · contribs ) and MonsterRacer1 ( talk · contribs ) have been blocked as block-evading sockpuppets. - Aoidh ( talk ) 03:21, 27 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

Arthur Meaby: GraziePrego ( talk ) 02:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Full obituary in a major national newspaper. We have always considered this to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Youth Hostels Association (England & Wales) : Fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is OBIT, with all the normal issues that go with using OBITs as sources. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth . Ping me if SIGCOV sources from WP:IS are added to the article. GNG requires multiple, IS, SIGCOV, sources. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is absolutely nothing wrong with using obits in national newspapers as sources. Not sure why you think there is. By capitalising, you seem to be suggesting that the page you want is WP:OBIT , which I'm sure isn't it given it has no relevance to this article. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I expanded the article and added more sources. Although I would like to see additional sources (especially on his work designing railroad carriages), I am convinced that Meaby is notable and worthy of coverage beyond the suggested link to the organization's article. I also agree that a bi-line obituary in The Guardian pretty much proves notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist, to consider recent expansion/addition of sources by Rublamb. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Based on the Obituary and expanded sources, this would suffice. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 02:30, 12 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

Gun violence in the United States by state: Some columns dropped in the merging process, but none directly related to guns. Plenty of room for more columns/tables in the mentioned page. Wizmut ( talk ) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that is is not the same sort of deletion request as in the previous AfD - I consider the following columns as less-relevant, but would be open to adding them back: Removed from Firearm death rates in the United States by state : State abbreviation Population Population density (To be) removed from Gun violence in the United States by state and not added to the other article: Population Murder excluding negligent manslaughter (one column for non-gun homicide per table is enough) Wizmut ( talk ) 07:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Firearms , Lists , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm very confused about what this AfD is trying to accomplish. Merge and redirect I guess? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, merge and redirect. Although the merging is already done, unless someone wants to say otherwise. Wizmut ( talk ) 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Both list have problems. Only listing how many people were shot and died, when many who get shot get to the hospital in time and live, is ridiculous. Its still a crime whether the person dies or not. If its "firearm death" then you should list how many people were killed in what was deemed self defense. Also list deaths by accident. D r e a m Focus 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gun accidents by state I can find for 2021 from CDC, gun assaults by state I can find for 2019 from FBI - but more to the point, assuming a few more columns are needed, do you think we need two articles or just one? Wizmut ( talk ) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As long as it's not a wholesale deletion, and is mainly being merged with a similar article, I'm not opposed to deletion. -- Hi Ev 07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a great idea to merge these pages, since the subject and the data overlaps greatly. Also appreciate the work already put in on merging the data, eliminating the extraneous columns, and updating to a more current source from 2021! Great steps forward. I'm not opposed to merge, in fact I would like to help out with it. I just want to ask about the direction of the merge. Firearm deaths is a more narrow category than firearm violence. I think merging into the broadest category would be better, so that more types of topical data can be included. A title like "gun harm" could also be appropriate, and more general than both the two existing titles. The second concern I have is the page usage. The gun violence page has much more traffic (thousands of views per month), as well as more watchers/contributors/viewers of recent edits. It seems like it would be beneficial to be merged in that direction. Cliffroared ( talk ) 00:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Completely flexible on all points. Choosing the right term might be difficult because suicide is not always considered violence, not all violence results in death, and gun harm isn't a common term (wish it was). The CDC can be seen using the phrase "gun violence and injury". [15] Perhaps "Gun violence and injury in the United States by state?" Wizmut ( talk ) 01:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I see discussion but we need very.specific.proposals.on.what.to.do. It's not the time to discuss which columns should be in which article. This article was brought to AFD but it doesn't seem like the nominator is seeking deletion which makes this entire discussion rather confusing. We need proposals that are not vague and editors who support them or have alternative suggestions on what to do. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies. This is a weird mix of a part-merger, repeat nomination, renaming... anyways. Here's a specific proposal: Rename Firearm death rates in the United States by state to Gun death and violence in the United States by state Delete Gun violence in the United States by state and redirect to new page continue content discussion on the new page Wizmut ( talk ) 08:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Close this discussion which should never have been started here and certainly should not have been relisted. The proposal was not for deletion and it is utterly inappropriate for AFD. Try improving the article(s) by editing and with discussion at talk page(s). Thincat ( talk ) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's cut out the bureaucracy . This is a weird case of lots of cruft needing deleted and being left with two almost-identical articles. Before nominating I had already put a refurbished version on one of the two articles, but it would have been reckless of me not to check in to see if I had gone too far. Turns out nobody minds getting rid of the cruft and nobody has said there should still be two articles. Wizmut ( talk ) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What would have cut bureaucracy would be to have proceeded with your editing (and thank you for this aspect), including the redirecting as you thought suitable. All you did there was fine. Nothing required AFD. The only reason for an AFD would be if you wanted the edit history before the redirect to be deleted and that would not have been appropriate if material had been merged. AFD was not at all best (or even good) practice. Thincat ( talk ) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this comment. I'll wait another few days and just make the changes in my proposal above, unless anyone objects. If anyone has content suggestions please make them on the talk page for either gun/firearm article. If it's appropriate for me to say so, I'll withdraw the nomination from this process, but mind that I do still intend that everything mentioned here redirects to one page. Wizmut ( talk ) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm now wishing I hadn't criticised. You were, I think, doing well meaning and worthwhile editing but, in my view, did not need to seek confirmation at AFD. However, my comment now seems to me to have been too harsh. Best wishes! Thincat ( talk ) 10:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries, the points were well-taken. Regards Wizmut ( talk ) 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - this is an extremely important article right now. Laypersons will literally die without it. Folks need to know whether they should move out of their state to another, if they are afraid of crime, or nearing retirement. I just read a Fox news article about a couple in California, who moved to a place they thought was safer, but California is actually and factually in the 3rd quartile of crime rates. It was linked from Apple News . Our readers need and deserve facts, not fear. Bearian ( talk ) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Gabbla: NP83 ( talk ) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Algeria , and France . AllyD ( talk ) 06:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This is one of a number of articles about films selected for the Festival of African Cinema whose information was captured in WP via CC BY-SA under a Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge initiative, but where the original online resources no longer exist. For such initiatives, perhaps clearer source preservation is needed from outset? AllyD ( talk ) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have added a couple of references showing critical reception of this film. As well as these, the intro to a 2009 festival showing said that "With his second feature (...) Tariq Teguia proves himself to be the most important new director in Algeria" [19] . More recently, the synopsis of a paywalled Journal of African Cinemas article (2016) claims "that Tariq Teguia's 2008 film "Inland" establishes a new frontier for North African cinema with the creation of a unique visual style that moves away from the thematic considerations of national cinema." [20] . Overall, I think there is enough independent coverage for WP:NFILM . AllyD ( talk ) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as two reliable sources reviews have been added to the article and together with the coverage mentioned above WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Scott Sibley: While he has held various positions and roles in business and politics I think the references provided do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. The philanthropy section is also failing as it lacks the necessary citations for verification WP:BLP. Without further evidence of in-depth coverage from independent sources, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for a standalone BLP Comintell ( talk ) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftily. Water thin argument for notability. and the page needs complete revamp Comintell ( talk ) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck AfD initiator's ! vote. Once is enough. - The Gnome ( talk ) 16:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw AfD nomination I was misinformed about the notability criteria for politicians, specifically WP:NPOL . Apologies to the closing admin. This will not happen again. Comintell ( talk ) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Journalism , Law , California , and Nevada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NPOL a politician holding state/province legislative office is notable. I imagine there would be offline coverage in newspapers from the early 2000s when he was in office. Article may need cleanup to meet quality standards, but it's certainly not irredeemable. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as a member of an American state legislature. Deletion is not clean-up . Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perhaps doesn't establish his notability as per WP: GNG, but passes WP:NPOL . Gedaali ( talk ) 20:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article does need some improvement, but state legislators are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. Since he held office 20 years ago , the coverage that he surely had due to being a state legislator would be unlikely to Google well, and would almost certainly have to be retrieved from archives — but that's precisely why we have NPOL to clarify that certain roles are inherently notable even if the article is weak in its current form, because Wikipedians tend to be lazy about locating sourcing that would actually require effort to find, and state legislators do typically have more coverage than anybody's actually been arsed to uncover. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable per WP:NSUBPOL . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep State legislator. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 14:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't quite like that there is some promotional writing in the article and there isn't a lot of independent sources, but this meets WP:NPOL . Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 06:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL , but clean up the promotional language in the article. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 12:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Von Smith: Does not qualify for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Missouri . Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete :Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of interest to Wikipedian fans of American Idol , or the small number of fans this singer may have, and (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ... ... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jack4576 ( talk · contribs ), would you review the sources I posted? Thank you. Cunard ( talk ) 23:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep He's mentioned in Billboard [2] in 2020, I think it's just barely fine for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Foley, James A. (2007-03-08). "YouTube Gives Singer Instant Celebrity" . The Augusta Chronicle . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "You can attribute Vaughn Smith's success in part to his phenomenal vocal talent. You can credit the other part to YouTube, the Internet phenomenon. The 20-year-old singer, whose stage name is Von Lee Smith, has gained a tremendous amount of sudden acclaim for his rendition of the song And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going from the hit movie Dreamgirls, which since November has received more than 215,000 hits on the popular video-sharing Web site www.youtube.com.Mr. Smith flew to New York recently to appear on The View, where Rosie O'Donnell insisted he perform the popular song. ... Mr. Smith comes from a musical background. His father, Doug, was in the 1960s rock band Notorious Noblemen, who were inducted into the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1998. His mother was a singer on the Kansas City jazz scene from the late 1970s to the early 1990s." Klepper, David (2000-06-07). "A star is born - online - Greenwood boy in talent search" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "A 13-year-old Greenwood boy is singing his way to the top of an Internet talent competition, thanks to a rousing performance and a little bit of luck. Vaughn Smith, who will enter the eighth grade at Pleasant Lea Junior High School in the fall, has reached the quarterfinals of an Internet talent search sponsored by Ed McMahon, who was host of the television show "Star Search. " ... Vaughn has performed most of his life, singing at school, in choirs and with his mother, Val Smith, a professional vocalist and organist. Still, performing on the Internet is different." Penn, Steve (2006-03-28). "Singer seems set for stardom" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Yet, as Smith, of Lee's Summit, began to melodically weave his way through a rendition of "Since I Fell for You," by Lenny Welsh, he made a connection with the crowd. Reaction began to grow. ... Backstage, he was deluged by well-wishers and autograph seekers. Singer Myra Taylor , 89, couldn't believe her ears. "I've been around the world a couple of times and back again," Taylor said. "And that was one of the finest performances I've ever seen. " Singing runs in Smith's blood. His mother, Val Smith, was once a local jazz and blues singer. His father, Doug Smith, was a rock 'n' roll singer in Iowa. Vaughn himself started exploring soul music at age 12." Pen, Steve (2008-04-24). "Steve Penn: Young crooner ready to spread wings" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Smith is the Lee's Summit crooner who became an overnight sensation when someone posted a clip of him singing Jennifer Hudson's "And I'm Telling You" on YouTube. The performance got so many hits (it still does) that it landed him a TV singing debut on "The View. " Now Smith has landed a recording contract with hip-hop singer Akon. In fact, Smith is moving to Atlanta next month to complete a CD he's been working on with Akon. So far, 15 songs have been recorded." Watrous, Monica (2009-03-04). "Get up to speed on our latest Idol contestant" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "As Greenwood, Mo., native Von Smith ascends the ranks on the eighth season of "American Idol," you probably have a lot of questions. ... Smith was home-schooled and acquired his musical chops from a jazz/lounge-singing mama, Valinda, and a rock-star dad, Doug, he said in a 2008 interview on modernvocaltraining.com. At 13, he lost in the finals to a female country singer on Ed McMahon's "Next Big Star," according to that interview." Poorman, Dan (2017-11-21). "Crank up Postmodern Jukebox" . The Post-Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The review notes: "When Von Smith took the stage, in his signature straw hat and suspenders, he turned an ’80s rock ‘n’ roll classic (“Sweet Child O’ Mine”) into a bluesy big band classic. Again, reading it, you might say, “Alright” and continue sipping your coffee, but to hear Smith’s velvety runs, cartoonishly good range and singular stage antics is, as the old folks would say, “something else.” Smith made extensive use of his comic rubber face again on Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me a River,” where, in a truly dynamic vocal tag, he had Ithaca living on a weird plane between hilarity and astonishment." Bream, Jon (2019-01-20). "Pick Six" . Star Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Postmodern Jukebox. I discovered the group on YouTube while looking at Von Smith and Joey Cook, who are among the rotating artists in this ensemble. I really like their vintage arrangements of pop songs and am excited to see them Feb. 6 at the State Theatre." Wilson, Gail (2007-03-04). "In Box / Our Picks of the Week" . The Press of Atlantic City . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Jennifer Hudson's rendition of "And I Am Telling You" in "Dreamgirls" prompted many to go to YouTube in search of her performance. But rather than see Hudson sing the tune, up popped a 19-year-old "skinny, white boy" from Kansas City, Von Lee Smith. Little did Smith know that when he put his performance on YouTube in October, Hudson's upcoming performance would be such a hit. Smith made his first national TV appearance on "The View" Feb. 27. His soulful rendition of the "Dreamgirls" song has received more than 255,000 views." "What's new in town, what's making news" . The Kansas City Star . 2008-04-30. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Von Lee Smith of Lee's Summit landed a recording contract with Grammy-winning hip-hop artist Akon. Smith became an overnight sensation when someone posted a clip of him singing Jennifer Hudson's "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" on YouTube. The performance got so many hits it earned him a TV singing debut on "The View. "" Tsai, Joyce (2007-02-27). "Local singer to be on View - The 20-year-old from Lee's Summit is an online celebrity for a "Dreamgirls" song" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "At age 13, Vaughn Smith belted out song after song on Ed McMahon's talent show "Next Big Star." He made it to the finals but didn't win. ... Smith, whose stage name is Von Lee Smith, will sing his rendition of the "Dreamgirls" song "And I Am Telling You I m Not Going," which has made him a celebrity on YouTube.com. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Von Lee Smith (also known as Vaughn Smith) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 23:48, 14 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

Bombay Cricket Club: Coverage is all local as per WP:AUD . LibStar ( talk ) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Middle East , India , and Oregon . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 15:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The appropriate WP guideline for this article, a business, is WP:NORG , which includes the WP:AUD criterion: at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. The sourcing in this article includes three substantive articles from The Oregonian , a newspaper with statewide circulation, as well as circulation in southern Washington state. This article easily meets the notability thresholds for both GNG and NORG, with the higher criterion of AUD. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I'm satisfied with amount of secondary coverage in a variety of reputable sources. I would ask the nominator to have a wider discussion about AUD or specific sources (specifically The Oregonian ) instead of mass nominating restaurant entries at AfD. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD . Please use caution when nominating articles for deletion as AfDs take up community resources. Many more contributions are needed in the article space! gidonb ( talk ) 10:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : nomination ideas are invalid. Closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, and source regionality is not a requirement. ɱ (talk) 21:18, 26 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

Muhlach family: That is not allowed on Wikipedia. The short lead section of the article makes this claim more prominent. There are no previous revisions of the article that do not have a genealogy, making it more likely to be deleted. This article was made by: User:Carl Francis ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) who was already targeted by 2 proposed deletions of his/her articles, that being Ejercito family and Gutierrez family . For the exact same reasons noted above, the following articles have also been nominated for deletion (they are also made by User:Carl Francis ): Cruz family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Eigenmann family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ejercito family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Gutierrez family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Laurel family (Philippines) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Padilla family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sotto family ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) I can consider the following options for all of the articles: Merge these articles into whatever appropriate page applies to the family, such as Aga Muhlach for Muhlach family . This might not make any sense, because not all members of the Cruz/Eigenmann/Ejercito/Gutierrez/Laurel/Muhlach/Padilla/Sotto family are notable. Delete these articles altogether. This is what I would choose. Keep these articles and remove the genealogical content. Keep these articles and expand them while keeping the genealogical content (see WP:NOTGENEALOGY ). Any other option as decided by participants of this AfD. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not sure it was the best idea to bundle all of these articles together into one AFD. Each article has to be assessed individually, so there may not be "Delete All" or "Merge All" opinions being offered unless these articles are very similar to each other. L iz Read! Talk! 04:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I decided to bundle these 8 articles into this AfD because they are all made by User:Carl Francis , and they all follow the same structure: A short lead section, e.g. "XYZ family is a family of entertainers." A "List of members" section that contains a genealogy of the family, e.g.: Father XYZ ∞ married Mother XYZ Son XYZ Daughter XYZ Sometimes a "See also" section, though there is not much to see there. A "References" section that contains references for the genealogy, not for the family itself. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 08:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Laurel family is one of the more important political dynasties in the Philippines , having produced a president, vice president, several senators, representatives and other local officials. The Sotto family, is sort of the same, being the first senatorial political dynasty. The Padillas are mostly local officials, but in multiple places. The "acting" families can go, but the political families? Not so fast. Bad idea to bundle these. Withdraw your nom. Howard the Duck ( talk ) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 8 articles that are bundled here are really, just genealogies. There is nothing else that explains the families, it primarily focuses on the family tree. Look at their "References" sections, it is just references used to build the family tree, a.k.a. genealogy. As I said before, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Think again. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 01:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject of the articles, the Laurel family and Sotto family are WP:N ; the Padillas, somewhat less so. We are debating if the subjects of the articles are notable. AFD is not clean-up. This news article discusses the Sotto family. This news article even discusses the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 debates if the anti-dynasty provision in the then being-drafted constitution should apply to the Laurels, saying that the Laurels were in government even during the Emilio Aguinaldo days. Other WP:RS discuss the Laurels even in the Spanish colonial era. Think again. Howard the Duck ( talk ) 03:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the broad concept of "Laurel family" may be notable does NOT mean the article should be kept as-is. Just because AFD is not cleanup does NOT mean that we cannot recommend a TNT or redirect here to allow a start-over that actually addresses any significance of the dynasty. If the page is now nothing but a genealogy with a family tree including non-notable members, it can be excluded if reconfigured, but that's no reason to derail the discussion when that's duplicative to the List of political families in the Philippines page. Reywas92 Talk 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect all When the article is nothing but a genealogy, I don't believe an article is appropriate. The Sottos, Padillas, and Laurels can be redirected to List of political families in the Philippines#Laurel family — Batangas , List of political families in the Philippines#Padilla family — Bulacan and Camarines Norte , and List of political families in the Philippines#Sotto family — Cebu, Quezon City, Parañaque and Pasig , where officeholding/notable members are already listed, without prejudice against recreation with actually substantive content and sources. Reywas92 Talk 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Close per Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK . Let's revisit each article's AfD in its own merit. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I sure agree with you. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 04:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ummmm.... so close it? Howard the Duck ( talk ) 05:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried to unbundle the 7 other articles in this AfD but they were quickly reverted. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 05:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Liz : is it possible to unbundle this nomination to make an Afd for each article? I think nom is fine with separate the AfD for each article. Currently, I think this AfD bundle is a trainwreck and we won't reach a good consensus. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconding this, I vote for close per Lenticel because we need to evaluate the merits (or lack of it) of each article on its own. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since there are no Delete opinions, this AFD can be closed if EJPPhilippines states that they withdrawing their nomination. You can either state that here at the bottom or under your nomination statement. L iz Read! Talk! 05:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am withdrawing my nomination. I will try to renominate the 8 articles separately. EJPPhilippines ( talk ) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Gordon Smith Henderson: Although this is written and sourced differently enough to not be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of previously deleted content, it still isn't showing improved evidence of satisfying notability criteria. This does include more content about his legal career than the first time, but still stakes his notability as a lawyer primarily on (a) purely local crime coverage in his hometown that briefly glances off his existence as a lawyer in the process of being principally about the criminals, and (b) purely local run of the mill human interest coverage of the type that any reasonably prominent local figure would merely be expected to receive in his local media (e.g. marriage announcements and death notices), with absolutely nothing that suggests a credible reason why he would be a special case of uniquely greater notability than other lawyers. Meanwhile, the attempted notability as a politician is still staked on non-winning candidacies that do not satisfy WP:NPOL -- the only new thing that's been added is one piece of speculation about a cabinet appointment that didn't materialize, but "was briefly speculated as a possible appointment to a position he wasn't actually appointed to" is not a notability boost either. Otherwise, the remaining sources are tangentially verifying stray facts about his father and his son, which don't help to build Gordon's notability at all — notability is WP:NOTINHERITED , so he isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his father and son have Wikipedia articles, but there still just isn't anything here which counts as strong evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia in his own right. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law , and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . KC who was so prominent that he was a leading candidate for Attorney General of Ontario. I think he's probably notable enough. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KC would be fine if the article were sourced properly , but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this , and "was speculated as a potential candidate for appointment to an office he wasn't actually appointed to" is no part of any Wikipedia notability criterion at all (especially when that speculation is coming from the local newspaper in his hometown and not from anybody with any real "insider" knowledge). Bearcat ( talk ) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appointed King's Counsel which in that time was a big honor. As a lawyer multiple sources said he was involved in every important criminal case of the time and there are hundreds of news articles from reputable newspapers about him. As a politician he was prominent on the political scene and was a community leader in the liberal party despite not holding office. -- PD8 ( talk ) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What sources in the article represent "important" criminal cases, exactly? Bearcat ( talk ) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In Men of Today and Tomorrow, it says, "He has been engaged during the last five years in all the important criminal cases here." In Two Local Barristers Appointed King's Counsel By Ontario Govt. it says, "Dr. Gordon Henderson for many years has been very prominent as a criminal lawyer and has had many notable cases." PD8 ( talk ) 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And which sources establish the individual "importance" or "notability" of any specific criminal case? It's not enough that one source asserts that his cases were important, if we can't find sufficient sourcing to validate the notability of any specific case — which case was he ever involved in that was significant or important or prominent enough that we could justifiably create and keep a Wikipedia article about the case and/or the defendant who was on trial ? Bearcat ( talk ) 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was senior counsel for Louis Auger , accused of rape. The court case was national news, with books being written about it: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442689510-003/html . As you asked, the defendant does have a Wikipedia article, and it is well-sourced that Gordon Henderson was his lawyer. PD8 ( talk ) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per PD8 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 03:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Gnewspapers in Canada shows many articles when he died, expanding upon his career and importance to the community [46] He was covered in Ottawa, Toronto and in French-language sources in Quebec. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : clearly the multiple obituaries make him notable. -- hroest 21:21, 3 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

Chinese threat theory: Amigao ( talk ) 03:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no sufficient policy-based argument has been made. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Politics , Economics , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article could use some work, but the first few sources cited suggest this is a subject that has broad recognition and thus passes WP:GNG . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Extensive independent, significant coverage from leading media outlets, including Reuters , New York Times , Al Jazeera , The Times , The Times of India , as well as a plethora of primary academic work on the topic. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It appears notable, doesn't look bad enough that deletion is the best option. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 00:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This seems to be a WikiEd article so pinging the prof: @ Piotrus : . Also seems to be at least partially a translated article from zh . Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is not exclusively a WP:NOTESSAY violation to warrent an AfD 𐩘 Data pass talk ⌇ contribs 08:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Thanks Jumpytoo for the ping. I am indeed the instructor supervising this. And yes, this is a translation from zh. While the article needs copyediting and whatsnot, I believe it meets WP:GNG and is ready for mainspace (I'd rate it as C-class, not B-class, but shrug). If the nom thinks there are some essay like part, I recommend they either fix them or list them on talk so that the student can do so (the assignment will be graded in mid to late December). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the only problem I could envision is if there already was an article on the topic. If that was the case, then the newer article should be merged into the older article. Abductive ( reasoning ) 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean delete. The article itself seems synthetic, relying on headline phraseology to create a topic where one does not readily exist: it admits it is not covering one specific 'theory', but rather collating every assorted way another polity has characterized China as a threat, without justifying why they are all part of one "thing". The subject seems to have vanishingly little substance outside of detailing China's foreign politics, which is contained in other articles. The article should either be deleted, or its scope defined much more narrowly about a specific 'theory', either self-professed or at least as the label China has begun applying in its rhetoric. Remsense 留 18:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of Latino superheroes: Many of the examples aren’t even notable anyway. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Ethnic groups , Lists , and Latin America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Again, notable topic in need of heavy cleanup. Deletion is, however, not cleanup, and is only for completely non-notable and unusable topics that are unfit for Wikipedia. There is no rule that states that articles cannot be deliberately about a certain country's ethnic group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is it notable? Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus : Here's an NPR article directly about the subject of Latino superheroes. Here's another from HuffPost. Here's yet another from NBC News. Here's another from NY Times. So yes, a full prose article on the topic of Latino superheroes is potentially possible, and a list is a shoo-in for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate . Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An IP responded to your boilerplate rationale at the AfD for List of Asian superheroes by pointing out that “representation is only a thing” if it deals with a America-slash-Eurocentric worldview. Latin American superheroes exist just like Asian (geographically speaking) superheroes and the vast majority of them are probably Latino. Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument falls flat, because there’s a whole world of fiction out there not made by non-Latino-white dominated countries like America. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your whole “non white superheroes are automatically notable because they’re rare” argument - that isn't the argument. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, “non white superheroes should have lists because they’re universally rare” Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per arguments above. Also, why would it not be "List of Latin superheroes"? Doesn't Latino mean male? Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The modern gender neutral term is “Latinx” but I think “Hispanic” might be okay too (though I think it might be Spanish-ancestry specific, idk) Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Notability of a general topic does not indicate the need for a standalone list of every single item that's an example of that topic. There are fundamental, unfixable WP:OR issues about what counts as Latino -- ethic identity is already a thorny issue for real people, let alone fictional characters. Hell, one of the very few references in this giant mass of WP:OR calls the character "Hispanic", not "Latina". I'm really dumbfounded by the calls for keeping here. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no original research issues - if a superhero is described by RS as "Latino", they are, regardless of what people may or may not claim. We go by the sources, not by people's opinions of what makes a Latino. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough links to their own articles about them, so its a valid list article. It is a logical grouping for the category so valid for a list as well. D r e a m Focus 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there seems to be a useful discussion going on. Being "America-centric" is a reason for additional editorial work not grounds for deletion. But both the Keeps and Delete arguments are weak on policy rationales. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Do we need a "policy rationale" to keep a useful arrangement of information about a notable aspect of human cultural history? BD2412 T 01:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, BD2412, a closer is supposed to weigh policy-based arguments higher than simply "I like it" votes. I mean, it's not mandatory of course, but the support of policy for your opinions is more convincing to other participating editors and to the discussion closer. For me, as a frequent closer, I am always thinking, "Can I defend this closure at Deletion Review?" because I've had to do that in the past. Having policy on your side can only add strength to your point-of-view. L iz Read! Talk! 02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NLIST , then. Clearly this is a topic of interest to sources . BD2412 T 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BD2412. Meets WP:NLIST per sources identified by Zxcvbnm above. Agree that list needs cleanup and possible re-scoping, but no basis for deletion here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 16:43, 25 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

Borderline (2002 film): Non-notable TV movie. The article doesn't cite any sources and I couldn't find any good ones. Baronet13 ( talk ) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, No reviews I can find, Rotten Tomatoes is bare [37] . Not sure why it was speedy kept twice, but I can't see notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The prior nominations did not provide a reason for nominating in the first place. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Furthermore, Geejayen ( talk · contribs ) submitted both a day apart from each other in late November 2017. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: A logline in this clipping (for its original HBO airing) is pretty much all PQ has on the subject (after typing in the title with the surname of the star Michael Biehn ); more detective work required for WP:NFILM 's sake. Otherwise, IMDb is our friend from this point on. "Late Night TV Highlights" . Newsday . 2002-11-21. p.  B29 . Retrieved 2023-06-27 – via ProQuest . -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 22:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lo and behold, a review! (No thanks to trying out the same strategy with lead actress Gina Gershon .) Can we get a couple more to save this topic? Hopton, Nick (2003-09-07). "Review: Borderline (Columbia TriStar, M15+)" . The Sunday Mail . Adelaide . p.  T.07 . Retrieved 2023-06-27 – via ProQuest . Title says it all ***...[A] competent psychological thriller. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 22:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources mentioned above, this review on FdB (in Czech) and this review on DVD Talk , among other things, attest notability. — MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) — 22:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC); adding: this review (German)(the film is a US-German-South African production) or this , the film was internationally distributed (versions in Czech, Turkish, Italian, Portuguese, etc.). Notability seems pretty clear. — MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) — 21:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comment: The Czech source is clearly a version of IMDB and probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source. The Newsday source appears to be a schedule of TV programs rather than coverage/a review. The Sunday Mail Adelaide is a local newspaper, which is not the best source to due lower standards for inclusion in local news compared to national news outlets. Baronet13 ( talk ) 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There is also a review in TV Guide here . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am satisfied with the sources provided. I have added a few. BD2412 T 15:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry: The only WP:SIGCOV source (#2) is from a Lubbock based outlet, which is WP:LOCAL . Per WP:NOPAGE , this can be covered at the articles for the respective teams. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , Arkansas , and Texas . Let'srun ( talk ) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with sources such as It’s about time: Texas Tech-Arkansas rivalry a casualty of this era , Rivalry’s nostalgia palpable and Game Recognizes Game: The Saga of Texas vs Arkansas Through the Decades . Please note that WP:LOCAL links to an essay (i.e. neither an official policy or guideline) called Wikipedia:Places of local interest . Alvaldi ( talk ) 18:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Struck the last source, my bad. Alvaldi ( talk ) 16:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per unsigned comments from User:Alvaldi . Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a note that the last source is about the Arkansas-Texas football rivalry . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources above. BUT I have to stress that WP:LOCAL should be hesitantly used for rivalry articles because of independence. These two teams are lucky to have sources outside the cities that they are based in. However, other teams should have more outside the realm of their city feud. If anything, it shows bias about a team that may not actually have a rivalry, but one city/area certainly thinks so. I am not saying don't use them to support GNG, but don't use them as the only sources. Conyo14 ( talk ) 06:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly disagree. As Alvaldi notes, WP:LOCAL is neither an official policy or guideline ... and on its face WP:LOCAL purports to cover places of local interest. See also WP:ITSLOCAL ("it's only notable locally", e.g. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the entire world, not just Woodsville", is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions). The one exception (not applicable here) is the WP:AUD limitation in WP:NCORP . A proposal in 2019 to extend WP:AUD more broadly to Wikipedia articles was rejected by the community. See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 64#Local sources, again . Cbl62 ( talk ) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources identified by Alvaldi (excluding the last one [now struck] that only mentions a rivalry between Arkansas and Texas Tech in passing and mainly focuses on Arkansas-Texas) describe a significant rivalry from the teams' days in the Southwestern Conference. While the rivarry has cooled considerably in the past few decades, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY . Frank Anchor 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Chrome Cranks: It is my understanding that even with this much coverage, the fact that it all comes from one source means it doesn't count as multiple sources. Or something like that. Regardless, I see no other signs of notability that aren't themselves unsourced. PROD was removed due to a >10-year-old PROD which was undone (still a silly rule but so be it), so now we're here. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , New York , and Ohio . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Just not enough coverage for an article; the musical group is discussed here [9] , but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some mention in Billboard from the link above for Gbooks [10] , and NJ.com [11] ... Are we at BASIC with many trivial mentions? Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NJ.com is good, the other is too brief. Still bare minimum at best. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Bob Bert , I guess, unless someone wants to add stuff. PQ shows 89 results (for me), but most appear to be concert listings and mentions of the band touring with Mudhoney , Jon Spencer , etc. There appear to be a few longer things-- Billboard , Melody Maker , St. Louis Post-Dispatch , and Toronto Star , among others, but I can't read full text for everything. Newspapers.com and Newsbank (which WP doesn't subscribe to) often pick up the non-PQ stuff for '90s newspapers. Caro7200 ( talk ) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there seems to be enough coverage for WP:GNG with Slug magazine, the sources named by Caro7200, the NJ.com and I also found a staff written bio at AllMusic here where there are also five staff written album reviews linked in the discography section, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ooh, there's something. Dunno how I missed the AllMusic page, but that should be plenty. I'm willing to withdraw for that. Thanks. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Caro7200 , @ Oaktree b , the nom wants to withdraw. Does Atlantic306's source change your minds? -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] yes, it's better now that we've uncovered those Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:38, 19 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

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2023: These lists exclusively rely on the primary source that is Billboard and does not include third-party sources to discuss their significance. I suggest deleting or merging all of the articles in the template {{ Hot 100 year-end charts }} into the article Billboard Year-End . Ippantekina ( talk ) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture . Ippantekina ( talk ) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Merging all of the "of (year)" pages into one existing article does not seem practical to me. Including the (100 singles/year * 50+ years =) 5,000+ lines of chart data, that would run counter to Wikipedia's SOP of splitting up overly long lists. And it looks to me like the remainder of these pages' contents rely too much on the chart data for context to be worth keeping without it. - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B5A6:42B4:CE4F:FEE0 ( talk ) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If merging is not a viable option then I believe deleting them altogether is fine, as per WP:NOTDATABASE . Readers can go directly to the Billboard website to retrieve this kind of information and not Wikipedia. Ippantekina ( talk ) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The website isn't much use, unfortunately. Most of the historical charts were never digitized, presumably, and in turn much of what was is now paywalled. The primary ref for the majority of the pages in question are scans of the corresponding print magazines, hosted at Google Books and other such archival sites. That, combined with the direct links to the articles about each artist and work, does make the "Wikipedia editions" of the charts much more user-friendly than any others I'm aware of. I don't know that that's greatly relevant to your case, though... - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:3044:FC82:C927:A607 ( talk ) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , falls under none of the four bullet points mentioned at WP:NOTDATABASE , not any "spririt of the rule" I can see. Mach61 ( talk ) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As a user who frequents this type of articles, this is the only place that keeps this information alive in a reliable way, since the Billboard website contains only the information of some more recent years and as already mentioned the rest is from archives of printed magazines. The idea of these lists to some extent is to summarize the best commercially performing songs for each year, so I see it as more valuable information than just a database. I am open to talk about on how to improve the only-primary sources issue. DiegoF 1996 ( talk ) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe something like this: List of Billboard number-one singles § Sources - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B140:3122:2709:15F2 ( talk ) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of the availability of independent source material about these subjects would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While this does look like directory, it is still encyclopaedic. NavjotSR ( talk ) 05:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is an interesting article, and the other year-end articles are not even candidates for deletion. Plankton5165 ( talk ) 04:39, 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

Asia'h Epperson: Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Missouri . Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The PROD was removed because this page has already been to AfD in the past and is therefore ineligible. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion process. pburka ( talk ) 22:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me, but this page did not show a previous AFD on the talk page when I checked prior to PROD'ing it. I am familiar with the deletion process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Sources published after season 7 of American Idol which began on January 15, 2008, and concluded on May 21, 2008: Jeanin, Sha'linda (2010-07-18). "American Idol Alum Asia'H Epperson Talks Def Jam Deal, Mixtape" . HipHopDX . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "What happens with you take a big time American Idol from small Joplin, Missouri add in a world famous maestro of R&B and sign her to Def Jam? The result is none other than Asia’h Epperson. ... Although middle America may have cast their vote, Asia’h’s Deal With It mixtape shows a harder side of things. Host/deejay Don Cannon holds things down as the Midwestern singer is able to prove herself once more. ... The Joplin native is not having to take a traditional freshmen approach either. She’s been fortunate enough to work with one of the best songwriters of our era, Babyface. ... With musical influences like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston and Toni Braxton, Asia’h admires the enduring songstress in the genre." "YRB Interview: Asia'H" . YRB Magazine . 2010-07-19. Archived from the original on 2010-07-19 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "At a young age, Asia’h Epperson has been exposed to the trials and tribulations of the music industry. At 14, she had signed her first artist development deal and at 16, she had unsuccessfully met with L.A. Reid. In her biggest performance to date, the Missouri native girl blew away the American Idols panel by performing LeAnn Rimes’ “How Do I Live” days after her losing her father. She got voted off, but everything happens for a reason—if she had stayed on one more week, it would've tied her into a contract with the show and working with Babyface might have never happened. Fast forward four years later and Reid’s “No” became a “Can you sign right now?!” Recently, the small town girl dropped her “Deal With It” (The Mixtape) and the accompanying street single “Out of Time” with DJ Don Cannon and is setting up her Island Def Jam debut through Face’s Sodapop imprint." "Meet 10 Joplin celebrities" . The Joplin Globe . 2023-05-22. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Asia'h Epperson: Launched by "American Idol," Asia'h Epperson's career has extended from music to acting. After reaching the semifinals of the show's seventh season, Epperson signed with DefJam. A serious car accident sidelined her music career, but gave her a chance to switch into acting, where she has been featured in 2015's "Straight Outta Compton" and the TV show "Greenleaf. "" Watrous, Monica (2008-08-13). "Ink chats with former 'Idol' contestant Asia'h Epperson" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Best known for: Sweet vocals, sweeter personality. She inspired perhaps the most tear-jerking moment of Season 7's auditions when she revealed that her father had died in a car wreck just days before. After she belted "How Do I Live" and snatched up a golden ticket to the next round of auditions in Hollywood, a sniffling Paula excused herself from the judges' table. ... What she's doing now: Living in Atlanta, ironing out a record deal and performing around the country for private parties and charity concerts, including a homeless benefit Saturday at Memorial Hall in Joplin. " "Emerging Artist: Asia'H Epperson" . ThisisRnB . 2010-06-01. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Grabbing the attention of Babyface, she soon after signed with his Soda Pop Entertainment. She has been working hard on her debut album, and upcoming Mixtape. Here is the first leak off the Mixtape, called “Outta Time,” produched by Adonis. " Biese, Alex (2022-02-01). "DeShon Hardy, once a NJ high school football star, now a movie and TV director on the rise" . Asbury Park Press . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Dear Best Friend" stars Asia'h Epperson as Dawn, a painter who receives a mysteriously familiar novel that prompts her to discover and unravel mysteries at the heart of her seemingly blissful domestic life. " Sources published during season 7 of American Idol which began on January 15, 2008, and concluded on May 21, 2008: Shipman, Dustin (2008-02-28). " 'All passion, all heart': Asia'h Epperson moves closer to "Idol" dream" . The Joplin Globe . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Asia’h Epperson caught the attention of “Idol” judges during her Atlanta audition, where she sang a tribute to her father, who died two days before in an auto accident. Donavan said that he was proud of his older sister for being able to perform under those circumstances, and that their father would be as well. ... Before Asia’h Epperson performed on Wednesday’s show, she talked briefly in a video segment about her involvement in cheerleading while attending school in Joplin and even performed a cheer that name-checked the Joplin Eagles. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Asia'h Epperson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: You'll find evidence of previous AFDs and PRODs in the article page history, not the talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the coverage isn't only about American Idol but also about her acting career including a four year recurring role in a notable tv show, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Per Eggers: The one External link is to IMDb that describes the actors accomplishments, but no indepth content about the actor. After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage. Created on 21 November 2005 JoeNMLC ( talk ) 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has a reference to establish notability. Thankyou for improving this one. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Swedish page is robust as an indication of notability and has 20 citations not from IMDb. Added one from the SV wiki, will continue to work on it further. Kazamzam ( talk ) 13:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Wp:GNG. Improvment done. BabbaQ ( talk ) 00:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

LNER: This is beacause London North Eastern Railway is usually referred to by its abbreviation. I am not sure if removing liquid neutral earthing resistor , which mentions LNER helps. This can be shown by the evidence for the new LNER - ~16,000 and the old one - ~5500 . However, the original Great Western Railway will always remain the primary topic over the modern GWR , as shown by many moves at Talk:Great_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Renaming . JuniperChill ( talk ) 18:12, 28 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 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems like a valid disambig. page. Both the railways under "LNER" are valid search terms. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, for me, if people are searching LNER, they likely mean the current operator, not the old one. I do not want to inconvience them by taking an extra step (just) to look for the modern LNER. I also said the modern LNER has 3x the amount of views compared to the old one so those looking for the old LNER will use the hatnote to do so, that is the purpose of it. JuniperChill ( talk ) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where on earth is your evidence for this? The historic company is far more famous. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : LNER is more likely to refer to the major company which was 1/4 of British railways for 24 years than to a modern company which has operated for the last six years but may be swept away next time the cards are shuffled. A dab page is the solution. Pam D 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Prefer disambiguation over redirect, this way the user can choose best what article they want to read. Killarnee ( talk ) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per PamD. Mjroots ( talk ) 16:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to LNER (disambiguation) . Should clearly actually primary redirect to the much better known London and North Eastern Railway , also almost always known by this abbreviation. Note that it was moved to the current setup without discussion in 2018. However, I should point out that at the end of the day this should have been a WP:RM discussion, not an AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The original proposal was to turn a dab page into a redirect. That is not an RM matter. -- Red rose64 🌹 ( talk ) 23:35, 5 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

Merc Fenn Wolfmoor: The article relies exclusively upon primary sources and sources that are connected to Wolfmoor (only sources independent of the subject of the article can be used to establish notability). All information in this article is sourced from Wolfmoor's Tweets, blog and 'About the Author'. The article is based entirely on statements made by Wolfmoor and Wolfmoor's publishers. I was unable to find any good independent sources, making meaningful improvement to this article impossible. Baronet13 ( talk ) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Raladic ( talk ) 04:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is plenty of articles supporting GNG. As the article mentions, the Author has changed their name in 2019 and most of their work from before then is attributed to their older name. [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] I believe the nomination may have missed in WP:BEFORE of the authors prior name under which most work is published, so the nomination may fall under WP:SNOWBALL . Raladic ( talk ) 05:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are significant coverage in a secondary source. The first one is an interview (which is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability). The fourth is already cited in the article and is just a list (not coverage). The third and fifth are also just lists and are not coverage. The second only has a sentence about Wolfmoor, and the sixth has only a short paragraph. Nothing here proves notability. Baronet13 ( talk ) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merc Fenn Wolfmoor is a well-known and significant science fiction and fantasy author who has been a finalist for both the Otherwise Award (formerly known as the James Tiptree, Jr. Award) and the Nebula Award . Under the "any biography" criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) , a person is considered to meet notability guidelines if they have received a well-known and significant award or honor, or "been nominated for such an award several times." Being a finalist for these awards qualifies Wolfmoor. But in addition there are plenty of other sources proving notability including a large number of reviews of their work, such as a starred review in Publishers Weekly of their short story collection So You Want to Be a Robot , a PW review of Friends for Robot , plus other PW reviews of their short stories in anthologies such as A People’s Future of the United States , Wilde Stories 2016: The Year’s Best Gay Speculative Fiction , and The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2018 . Other reviews proving notability can be found in Kirkus Reviews (see links 1 2 , and 3 ) and Booklist (accessible via Wikipedia Library). Add all of that with the NPR reviews/coverage and interviews shared above by Raladic plus having stories reprinted in multiple editions of The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy and Wolfmoor meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 'Several' means more than two, so two nominations do not meet the criteria for WP:ANYBIO . All of these reviews are quite short, not in depth, and some of them barely mention Wolfmoor. If these are the best sources in existence, it proves Wolfmoor does not meet notability requirements. Baronet13 ( talk ) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are standard reviews for Publishers Weekly and Kirkus and absolutely prove notability. In fact, reviews such as these are the gold standard for proving notability for author articles on Wikipedia. Wolfmoor has also been a multi-time nominee for the Locus Award , so there's the 3 award finalists spots you asked for. Plus there is also far more coverage of Wolfmoor and their work out there including in genre industry publications such as this spotlight interview in Lightspeed Magazine and reviews in Locus Magazine (see 1 , 2 , 3 but there are many more) and Tangent Online (see 1 , 2 , 3 but again there are many more). The sum total of all this is Wolfmoor meets notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 12:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interviews are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability. As for the others, most have only a single paragraph, many only a single sentence, referencing Wolfomoor's work. They are just general descriptions and impressions, not the sort of detailed and in-depth analysis that would qualify as significant coverage. These sources do not satisfy notability requirements. Baronet13 ( talk ) 06:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviews are can be used to determine the notability of creative professionals such as authors. Per WP:POET , notability can be established if a creative professional has "won significant critical attention," which these reviews establish. But on top of that Wolfmoor has been a finalist for three different major awards in their genre, meaning they also meet that notability criteria. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POET isn't relevant because Wolfmoor is not a poet. The issue isn't whether or not reviews can be used to determine notability, it's whether or not the particular sources you listed are 'significant coverage.' Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not clearly define 'significant coverage', describing it only as addressing 'the topic directly and in detail'. I don't think it's possible to cover a book (or anything else) in detail is a single paragraph or less, and as a result would not consider short reviews and brief overviews to be significant coverage. Baronet13 ( talk ) 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Baronet13 : As an FYI, WP:POET is merely a redirect pointing to the notability guidelines for creative professionals. If you click on it you'll see it applies to all types of creative professionals, including authors. As for your belief that it's not possible to cover a book in a single paragraph, that's merely your belief. I disagree, especially when the reviews are in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 20:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the links provided by SouthernNights I'd say a Weak Keep but would strongly suggest that someone who is familiar with the author actually improve the article as it stands. Because for a random Wikipedia editor scrolling through the page, as it stands, looks very non-notable. Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This author should easily pass WP:AUTHOR 3 or 1 based on their contributions to several periodicals and collections over many years, as well as the recognition they have received. For now, I've added one more source from NPR. — siro χ o 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sourcing identified by SouthernNights . Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:06, 17 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

Alejandro Jenkins: Article survived a PROD in 2017, but was not discussed further. Minor mentions in scientific info journals/blogs, but I do not see this as meeting WP:NPROF now or before. (He seems to be a serious scientist, but not notable.) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 20:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 20:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Costa Rica , California , Florida , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article was created by User:Joehubris (apparently no longer active) in 2010 because Jenkins was co-author of a cover story in Scientific American . This was covered by MIT News and FSU's news website . The same work was featured in a 2015 episode of the TV show Through the Wormhole , hosted by Morgan Freeman. Jenkins appeared in person in that show. Also, there are number of published books that cite Jenkins for this work (one can try a Google Books search of his name ). There's also a news story from 2020 in Physics World , based on different and later work. This seem to me to be a feature story and includes a picture of Jenkins and his collaborator Alicki. It seems to me that this reflects a significant amount of exposure in the media for a theoretical physicist. A number of physics pages, including Triboelectric effect and Self-oscillation , currently link to this bio based on the subject's work in those areas. - Eb.hoop2 ( talk ) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- member of the national academy of sciences for a country. Evidence from @Eb.hoop2 (which I think should be counted as a Keep vote) suggests other evidence of notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Is membership in the Costa Rica NAS enough? It's not clear to me that it operates as an extremely selective org recognizing significant impact in one's field the way the US NAS or UK RS do. I couldn't find anything about its election/nomination/application process on the website or even a description of what membership means. The executive director is someone with a master's in management, for example, and its Board of Directors includes people with only a master's and very recent PhDs. Jenkins has very low citation counts for this field, though the PhysicsWorld piece is promising, if rather routine, for C7/GNG. The MIT and FSU pieces are not independent and so do not count toward notability. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The ratio of National Science Academy membership to national population is about 1.6 times as high for Costa Rica (60/5,000,000) as for the US (2400/335,000,000), so the Costa Rican Academy is still rather selective. Jenkins's papers, though few, are well cited and unusually wide-ranging, including high energy physics, cosmology, quantum thermodynamics, and science pedagogy and history. Jenkins pointed out, in a paper on quark masses, that what is now called the anthropic principle was enunciated in 1844 by Arthur Schopenhauer, long before it was rediscovered and named in the 20th century. CharlesHBennett ( talk ) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I revised the above numbers for Costa Rica to 60/5,000,000 because I had erroneously included 20 deceased members yesterday. The US National Academy of Sciences has two Costa Rican members. Both are members of the Costa Rican National Academy of Sciences. I too could not find how the Costa Rican National Academy selects its members. The Royal Society, arguably the most prestigious learned society, is less selective relative to the population of its host country (1600/67,000,000) than either the NAS or the Costa Rican Academy, perhaps because it includes a significant number of members from other Commonwealth countries. CharlesHBennett ( talk ) 13:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The appearance on a television program to discuss his work (as well as cover story on same material in Scientific American) establish notability. Membership in Costa Rican National Academy of Sciences also independently establishes notability. A scientist’s h-index need not be high for them to be notable (Eg, Peter Higgs has an h-index of 7 or 8). Gsbsmith ( talk ) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of the first two items you mention contributes at all to notability... Thousands of non-notable researchers appear on TV or publish articles in pop science magazines. And without knowing what the qualifications are for membership in the Costa Rican NAS we don't know whether it actually is selective (it looks more likely to be a governmental advisory body than an org whose membership is restricted to the top scientists in their field). I also didn't mention h-index in my evaluation, I mentioned citations ; Higgs has three solo-authored research papers totaling 6800+ citations, that's clearly a C1 pass by itself. Jenkins has one review article with 245 citations and a co-authored paper with 97 citations. Is that really a high enough standard for theoretical physics? JoelleJay ( talk ) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm happy with the principle that membership in a nation's official national academy passes WP:PROF#C3 . It helps counter our anglocentric bias. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:50, 16 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

Offsiders: No information about the program’s segments. Redirect to the list of programs broadcast by the ABC , if no notability is found. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Connolly, Paul (2007-02-26). "The ABC of cheap" . The Age . Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 . Retrieved 2023-10-17 . The review notes: "The second show, Offsiders (Sunday 10.30am), follows the politically minded Insiders program so seamlessly that all the budget-conscious ABC has to do is to remind Barrie Cassidy, who hosts both shows, to think scores instead of scandals and swap armchair-reclining political "opinionators" such as Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman (known to some as the "axis of evil") with authors and sports journalists Gideon Haigh and John Harms. Again, like Head 2 Head, Offsiders has a pleasingly understated feel about it, not least because it forwards the radical idea (these days at least) that you don't have to be a big name former player to have something worthwhile to say about sport. If anything, it allows for opinion unfettered by allegiances which, in turn, allows for a few well-aimed barbs and not just a "sport's great, mate" attitude." Sinclair, Lara (2006-07-29). "Television Guide - Sunday July, 20" . The Australian . Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 . Retrieved 2023-10-17 . The review notes: "That small benefit doesn't always save Offsiders, which retains the same host, format and almost the same name as its 9am Sunday political stablemate, Insiders, from being just a pale imitation of a sports program. A recent episode looking at the Tour de France was a case in point: given that the ABC promises intelligent, insightful debate about sporting issues, it might have helped had one of the sporting scribes in residence had more than a nodding acquaintance with road cycling. ... Cassidy has a modest air of on-screen confidence that appears to engender a Parky-like level of relaxation from his media guests. But maybe by 10.30am, things need livening up. Offsiders purports to bring the same level of challenging discourse to the sporting arena but there's no doubt Insiders packs the heavier punch." Epstein, Jackie (2006-02-26). "A complete armchair sports guide - Barrie serves up a treat" . Sunday Mail . Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 . Retrieved 2023-10-17 . The review notes: "Offsiders is a show for anyone who's serious about their sport, providing challenging, insightful, humorous debate about the one topic that dominates weekends - sport. However the discussion will be driven by passionate spectators rather than participants. The show will include a dynamic mixture of sports results and intelligent and witty analysis from the punters' point of view." Epstein, Jackie (2007-11-04). "Offsiders takes a punt on Kathryn" . Herald Sun . Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 . Retrieved 2023-10-17 . The article notes: "Offsiders special preview will include detailed analysis of the Cup field, reviews of the key lead-up races, interviews with the leading trainers and jockeys and robust discussion. The team will also review Derby Day while looking ahead to the Melbourne Cup, Oaks Day and Stakes Day." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Offsiders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Great job by Cunard as usual, comfortably meets the WP:GNG . Jenks24 ( talk ) 09:17, 18 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

Any Given Sin: Jax 0677 ( talk ) 23:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Found two sources from WP:ALBUMSOURCES search engine: [1] [2] The rest of the sources are AllMusic reviews. Other sources (not in the list) include: [3] Brachy 08 (Talk) 02:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Also found [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , maybe this one as well [8] . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

OneConnect Financial Technology: Article was originally created by a now blocked sock puppet. Uhooep ( talk ) 19:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Please consider the Chinese-language references. Even if you do not read Chinese, you can use Google Translate to evaluate the Chinese-language material, and populate the trans-title field for those references with an English translation of the reference title. Ignoring the Chinese-language references seems very much like deliberately ignoring WP:BEFORE . I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange and that is a component of the FTSE Global Equity Index Series to probably be notable. Additional references might be found in the corresponding article in the Chiense Wikipedia at zh:金融壹账通 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Technology , and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have translated the Chinese references and believe they also constitute routine mentions - appointment of a director, application for a banking license, etc. Uhooep ( talk ) 06:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding): There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies , so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports . Analyst reports https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/OCFT/price-target/ Internet Archive contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall: Date Brokerage Analyst Name Action Rating Price Target Upside/Downside on Report Date Details 8/18/2022 Citigroup Lower Target $18.50 ➝ $15.90 +32.50% View Rating Details 8/18/2022 HSBC Reiterated Rating Hold View Rating Details 3/14/2022 JPMorgan Chase & Co. Downgrade Neutral ➝ Underweight View Rating Details 8/5/2021 KeyCorp Lower Target Overweight $240.00 ➝ $100.00 +84.50% View Rating Details 8/5/2021 CLSA Lower Target Buy $210.00 ➝ $110.00 +102.95% View Rating Details 8/4/2021 Morgan Stanley Downgrade Overweight ➝ Equal Weight $190.00 ➝ $75.00 +0.54% View Rating Details 11/5/2020 Smith Barney Citigroup Initiated Coverage Buy $280.00 +21.74% View Rating Details 2/21/2020 The Goldman Sachs Group Downgrade Buy ➝ Neutral $133.00 +2.47% View Rating Details 1/7/2020 Bank of America Initiated Coverage Buy $180.00 +65.75% View Rating Details Additional sources Shen, Anbei 沈安蓓 (2022-05-30). Wang, Qian 王茜 (ed.). "平安壹账通银行获评香港地区第一 全球数字银行第45位 科技赋能普惠金融发展" [Ping An OneConnect Bank Ranked No. 1 in Hong Kong and No. 45 in Global Digital Bank Technology Empowers the Development of Inclusive Finance]. Yicai Global [ zh ] (in Chinese). Shanghai Media Group . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, TAB Insights, a research arm of The Asian Banker, launched the world's first comprehensive assessment and ranking of global digital banks based on ... Among them, Ping An OneConnect Bank (PAOB) ranked 45th among global digital banks and ranked first in Hong Kong. In terms of specific ranking scores, Ping An OneConnect Bank scored a full 10 points in the two indicators of revenue growth (Revenue Growth) and loan base rate (LDR), representing professional institutions' recognition of the company's business model." Schulte, Paul; Sun, Dean; Shemakov, Roman (2021). Digital Transformation Of Property In Greater China, The: Finance, 5g, Ai, And Blockchain . Singapore: World Scientific . p. 135. ISBN 978-981-12-3379-1 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: "OneConnect is based on the same core technologies that ensures the success of Ping An's other subsidiaries: AI, blockchain, and big data analytics. This year that company has become one of the largest commercial blockchains in the world, operating 44,000 blockchain nodes for more than 3,000 financial institutions, running almost 50,000 transactions per second. It is this blockchain tech that is currently being used to "establish core port logistics data standards and platforms" in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area." Dollar, David; Huang, Yiping, eds. (2022). The Digital Financial Revolution in China . Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press . ISBN 978-0-81573-955-5 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: "For example, Ping An OneConnect developed a new business model to transfer Ping An Bank's technology capability, financial products, and operational expertise to other small and medium- size banks. OneConnect has helped forty-two small and medium-size banks develop direct banking and mobile banking. Helping small and medium-size banks establish direct banking is only the first step, as the relationship also includes subsequent product design, operation, and maintenance. OneConnect brings not only competitive financial products but also the marketing and product capabilities from Ping An Bank to these small banks. By the end of 2019, their clients covered 99 percent of city commercial banks in China. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OneConnect Financial Technology ( simplified Chinese : 金融壹账通 ; traditional Chinese : 金融壹賬通 ) 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 ) 07:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion could use evaluations of newly located sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, sufficient referencing coverage to establish notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:43, 27 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

Abdullah Syafi'i: Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth . // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ( WP:NPOSSIBLE ). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability ( WP:SUSTAINED ). -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources. [22] -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:07, 22 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! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here . This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 09:38, 29 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

Marie Marguerite, Duchess of Anjou: If I'm wrong and she is notable, then her only notability is through her husband. DrKay ( talk ) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , and Spain . DrKay ( talk ) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Venezuela . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Spanish version, as with other languages, offer Spanish references that would allow the subject to meet WP:GNG ( [31] [32] [33] ). While WP:INHERITED normally applies, the subject is a claimant to a royal lineage, and ancestry is precisely what it is all based on. I would normally lean towards a weak keep. However, I don't know enough of the subject to comment on this, WP:INHERITED must still be considered, and overall other editors probably have better feedback based on this. Best regards, -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . WP:INHERITED isn't a content guideline nor is it a policy. It's part of an essay about arguments to be avoided at AfD, so it needn't be considered at all. The subject's notability should be determined by coverage in reliable sources. That the coverage may be because of some antiquated title doesn't matter. pburka ( talk ) 03:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the Spanish sources she meets notability, and as was pointed out WP:INHERITED is merely an essay. Atchom ( talk ) 01:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Available sources meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified by NoonIcarus. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I cannot see how the sources meet WP:GNG. The sources mention her as the daughter of her fahter and the wife of her husband. Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 21:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Out of the five sources listed in the Spanish page of the subject, only three are accessible online and one the first article constitutes significant coverage, with the second only has trivial mention and the third is behind paywall. There are more sources in the French page , but I only see two suitable sources: one by El Mondo and another by purepeople . The rest are either inaccessible (offline publications or behind paywall), trivial mentions, or unsuitable sites like blogs, Youtube and facebook page. There seem to be a number of significant coverage enough to pass WP:GNG , but honestly the individual has very little accomplishments other than what being born into the nobility gave her access to. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 23:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing fundamentally wrong with offline sources, sources behind a paywall and even sources that are now a dead link. If the sources can be accessed by someone (e.g. paying for a subscription, visiting a library, using the Wayback Machine ), WP:V is satisfied. We should WP:AGF on the part of the editors that added these. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Meets WP:GNG . I'd ask to be careful of neutrality, though. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:01, 13 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

A Girl Sets Out: Nexovia ( talk ) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Nexovia ( talk ) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have not been able to verify them but it seems likely that Frey and Kelecsényi are reliable sources. Have you checked and confirmed they aren't? Skynxnex ( talk ) 05:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are inline citations to two references and a third is mentioned in the bibliography. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article can be improved but reliable secondary sources are presented. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as referenced to multiple reliable book sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:09, 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

Velicham: Kailash29792 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only links I find are to youtube and non-RS blog/listicle sites. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This has since been dealt with. Now I want to withdraw this, what is your new say? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography , where it is mentioned, and add some sources for verifiability. (NB I had redirected the page at some point, see page talk and history)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Edited: in light of the new sources added to the page by Srivin (the 1st one is page 3 and is a full article, although maybe much focused on legal matters), it looks like the page may be retained as a standalone article. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy notification to @ Donaldd23 : . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography . As the original PRODder, I support a redirect. Donald D23 talk to me 01:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Keep based on new citations added. Donald D23 talk to me 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sundar_K._Vijayan#Filmography . No evidence that the subject meets GNG. Please ping me if good sources are located. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Comment - I'm not familiar enough with the new sources to change to support, but thanks for adding sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw: I thank Srivin for helping find sources to help expand the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BennyOnTheLoose : . Pinging you at your request, although it's up to you to say if you find the new sources good enough. Also pinging @ Donaldd23 : and @ Oaktree b : out of courtesy, sorry if that was unwanted. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that BennyOnTheLoose has commented, and the nominator i.e. me says withdraw, can we call it a day? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not my call. But no, we can't, because, although you have withdrawn the nomination, not everyone who participated has agreed the page should be kept as a standalone article. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Coimbatore–Bengaluru Cantonment Vande Bharat Express: This is not done for other countries. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Delhi%E2%80%93Kalka_Shatabdi_Express for more info. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs) BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also WP:CITEBUNDLE BhandupAamche ( talk ) 12:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep :The nominator is using wrong notability guidelines. The article being a stub or having multiple issues are not proper reasons for AFD. The subject easily passes WP:GNG as it has multiple reliable sources. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] " Presumed " means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not , particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . [1] From WP:GNG . I believe it does violate WP:NOT . Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NOTTIMETABLE is an essay, not a guideline, and the subject is clearly notable as it meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple sources. – DreamRimmer ( talk ) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would advise you to withdraw this so that I can include it in the bundle and discussion can be kept at one place. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 14:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two things can be true - there can be elements of an article that need to be removed (the timetable bit) and the article can still be notable under the GNG. That is the case here. SportingFlyer T · C 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What part of the article that is worth keeping is not in Vande Bharat Express or Vande Bharat (trainset) ? Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter - it passes WP:GNG so is notable as a stand-alone topic. I've removed the most obviously WP:NOTTRAVEL sections. SportingFlyer T · C 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer , @ Thilsebatti , @ Arnav Bhate , If that's the case, then I'll remove those fields in all the "Soon to be deleted pages" and met the WP protocol. Is that fine? Sanjeev4125 ( talk ) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. I am removing anything related to coach composition, halts, timetable and speed except in the infoboxes. You can do the same. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 13:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Arnav Bhate , Ok I'll get those done. After that will that notice be removed?? Sanjeev4125 ( talk ) 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notice will be removed when the discussion is closed. This is usually done 7 days after it has been started. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK @ Arnav Bhate . The edits which I've performed, let me know if any other to be removed. Sanjeev4125 ( talk ) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Schedule = Timetable also has to be removed. I'll remove it now from all Vande Bharat articles so you don't have to edit them, but if you find it in any other article then you should remove it. Also, this page is on my watchlist so you don't have to ping me everytime. Arnav Bhate ( talk ) 10:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

FurAffinity: This article cites the subject's website and other self-published sources so there are essentially no references. I couldn't find any on a BEFORE search. This was deleted previously and never should have been re-created. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as what does seem to be (or to have been) the most prominent website for this subculture. I was able to find sources easily, although the more substantive ones tend to be doctoral theses rather than news articles. The site generated a bit of press due to a cybersecurity incident, and considerable mainstream press when it banned AI-generated art in 2022. It gets a lot of short mentions in the press, which I acknowledge don't count for much. I've put some citations into the article, perhaps someone with greater interest will be able to search out better cites. Oblivy ( talk ) 06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly Keep : Supporting the reasons with that user above. Along adding my case on that nearly all furries (even myself) use this the most popular furry-based art-based website to express ourselves. As well the previous (and successful) deletion of this page happened, ~17-18 years ago, when the art website is clearly then-creation. So, let other users (both furries and non-furries, including possibly me) to find news articles that are reliable in primary and secondary levels. Despite the several flaws in that website. Chad The Goatman ( talk ) 04:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Hello, I'm the creator of the article. First off, I 100% understand why the article hasn't existed in nearly my entire lifetime because of the shocking lack of sources for a site so well-known. However, I genuinely want this up due to the fact that: 1. This is, whether some people like it or not, still the largest used furry-centric site as of 2023. It has long been a staple of the furry community and is even recognized by many non-furs (again, for both good and bad unfortunately). 2. As the furry fandom becomes more... "mainstream"(?) , especially since the start of the decade, it is inevitable that there will be at least some more pages on furry-related and adjacent stuff here. So I simply thought "why not" for this. Again, I apologize for the lack of sources. While I do believe that posts from the sites own management do count as reliable sources, at least for events that happened, I do agree that that might not be enough for this. However, despite that, I hope that people build on the article and it remains up. - CanYouNotMyDude Ye9CYNMD ( talk ) 06:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely mainly on secondary sources, especially those subject to fact-checking (e.g., publications with editorial staff, or peer reviewed articles). The site's own words, and those of people connected to it, may be OK for some factual matters or for quotes about their mindset and intentions, but tend to be disregarded when looking at notability. We want to see that others regard the article subject as something worth talking about. Simply hoping other people will find sources is not a strong strategy - you need to go look (as I did, and I'm not even tangentially interested in this subculture). Oblivy ( talk ) 10:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting so that additions to the article since nomination can be assessed to see if they provide enough SIGCOV to establish notability. This discussion really isn't about the subject matter but whether adequate independent, secondary sources can be located over the next week. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fish and karate , Starblind , Tevildo , and Nihonjoe : from the prior deletion discussion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t think a deletion comment made 17 years ago is of any pertinence or relevance here. No opinion. Fish + Karate 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources ( Vice , Newsweek ) seem to be adequate. Tevildo ( talk ) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as demonstrated to be covered by two or more quality sources. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Joe Donnell: If there ever is more attention than this WP:ONEEVENT , I'm sure the Wikicritters will rush to restore the article. jps ( talk ) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota . jps ( talk ) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:NPOLITICIAN as an elected member of a state legislature. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP : satisfied WP:NPOL -- PARVAGE talk! 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that I am not aware of that elected members of state legislatures in the US are automatically notable? If so, this is horrifying. There are some 7,758 state legislators in the US with turnover rates between 20% and 30%. This means over the course of Wikipedia's 22 year existence that would mean, conservatively, a staggering 30,000 BLPs. I am highly suspect that this is something the community agreed to. jps ( talk ) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After some digging, is appears that people who monitor WP:NPOL really do seem to think that it confers automatic notability on any state(or equivalent political-level) legislator in the world . I am floored and started Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue to see if others are aware of this. jps ( talk ) 15:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is really horrifying. Once I wasn't agreed with this. But whatever, rules are rules. Happily passes for politicians. But things needed to be improved. PARVAGE talk! 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : A topic that is "presumed" to be notable under a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) is not a guaranteed "keep", contrary to what the two previous ! voters seem to think, because sourcing is still a central issue on Wikipedia. According to policy ( WP:SNG ): "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found," and here "significant coverage" means from independent, reliable secondary sources. This article lacks such sourcing. NightHeron ( talk ) 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree with NightHeron 's arguments. Paul H. ( talk ) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Calling a sitting legislator WP:ONEEVENT seems wrong. At the very least their notable for being elected and then the scandal. This is a currently sitting legislator that meets WP:NPOL . The presumption exists because state legislators are highly likely to have sources that cover their state legislative career (it's almost guaranteed they get significant coverage). I don't think the delete votes have rebutted that presumption at all. There is no proof that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found." I added more sources to the article and am sure more exist than what I've added. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as an American state legislator. NPOL is not the automatic conferral of notability per se, moreso it is the presumption that coverage exists. Because politicians always generate coverage (in national, regional, and local media) through their actions, we thus assume they are notable even if the coverage is not presently evident in the article or on Google (because many of these sources may be offline/non-digitized; this is especially important in countries where Internet access may be limited at best). Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, if you think this is a novel interpretation, see for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2015#WP:POLITICIAN Issue (Cullen's example at the end is a good one). By all means, if you don't like it and think it should be a different way, then write your ideas at the WP:Village Pump for consideration, but we should not be legislating what has been the SOP for 15 years at a random AfD. Curbon7 ( talk ) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have brought the discussion to BLPN. Have you guys actually thought about the implications of this SOP? I can't find any clear discussion of such. The example you cite is an exception to the rule which is rather bizarre. If I was a little more WP:POINTy , I would start a bot that would autogenerate BLPs for every single state legislator Neelix-style. I imagine then the policy would change right quick. Y'all aren't thinking this through. jps ( talk ) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per presumption of notability under WP:NPOL . RecycledPixels ( talk ) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets WP:NPOL as an elected state legislator. WP:N states that a subject is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis mine), so long as the article is not excluded under WP:NOT . In other words, meeting a subject-specific notability guideline is more than sufficient to meet our notability standards. What's more, he has been covered both while running for office ( [43] [44] ) as well as while in office ( [45] ), and he's not exactly a low-profile figure, so I don't see a plausible WP:BLP1E issue here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not only does he obviously meet NPOL as clearly demonstrated, but putting that aside for a moment the coverage of him is quite significant. I'm struggling to see policy grounds for this nomination. AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a duly elected member of a state legislature. Obviously such articles still have to be monitored for WP:BLP compliance, but there's no valid argument to be had that some state legislators are somehow less notable than other state legislators. I mean, seriously, if a state legislator who clearly has media coverage is still somehow non-notable anyway, then what else could possibly be the bar for making any other state legislator "more notable than the norm" at all? Bearcat ( talk ) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NPOL states "The following are presumed to be notable: The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. ". While I think the article should include things such as committee assignments, maybe some votes on key issues, in addition to what it includes now (yes even the lunatic podcast interview). It clearly qualifies under current guidelines AND is frankly better sourced and better written than most state legislator articles. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 03:58, 2 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

Angela Rawlings: None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Iceland , and Canada . Alvaldi ( talk ) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Language , and Poetry . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sources seem to support established notability, and she has a new area of notability as the nominated candidate for 2024 Icelandic presidential election on behalf of a glacier. Pam D 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD I might be missing something as I'm not seeing significant and independent sources in the article. Could you please link to what you beleive are the WP:THREE best significant sources about the subject? Note that being a candidate in itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added one scholarly paper for a start, 20 pages analysing her major poem. Works based on that same poem have appeared in various festivals. The 2012 Poet-in-Residence post is notability in itself: there will be extensive coverage, possibly in offline sources, in Australian media. Pam D 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And added a review in The Antigonish Review , not open-access but available online via Wikipedia Library. Pam D 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists . Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent: A mathematical treatise with only a couple of references to basic facts the rest are heavily mathematized proofs and reasonings. Some people in the previous discussion argue that counterexamples are OK. Referenced counter-examples are OK. References demonstrate both correctness and notability of the content. The reader does not have to trust a wikipedian that the nontrivial math is correct. - Altenmann >talk 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is not unsourced (though one body section is), and its contents are obviously not original research (except perhaps for that one section). -- JBL ( talk ) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didnt say it is unsourced. I said only a couple of references . And its content is obviously a wall of heavy original mathematical research. "Cranking through the math one finds that..." - sure thing, professor. Hold my beer. - Altenmann >talk 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow. -- JBL ( talk ) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Checking the references already in the article shows that it is not a wall of heavy original mathematical research . The only part that wasn't already backed up by sources explicitly discussing the specific examples given was the "Examples with support almost everywhere in R 2 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} " subsection. The "Cranking through the math" part was a tone problem, not a content problem, and that was easily fixed. Right now, the page is in deletion is not cleanup territory, I think. It might need further trimming and revising for proper encyclopedic tone, but the basic complaint of the nomination is unfounded. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No valid deletion rationale is offered. The article is adequately sourced, and obviously not OR. AFD is not for cleanup of minor tone problems. -- JBL ( talk ) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SYNTH - does it ring the bell? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If I were you I would be more worried about WP:CIR . -- JBL ( talk ) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Synthesis means drawing new conclusions from things that sources have said. This article takes a conclusion that sources have already said and illustrates it with examples that sources have already used. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: As I see XOR'easter tries to salvage the article by throwing in references to some math. Well, it will probably not help. No matter how many footnotes you add, the article will still be original research, only from unreferenced OR it will turn into WP:SYNTH -type OR. (Of course, there is no doubt one can find a ref to each and every "2+2=4".) For this article, you have to provide references to sources that discuss these or similar examples. We have quite a few discussions in WP to what extent math in articles is OR (especially in the issues related to statistics; somehow many people think that population counting is a trivial math). And all discussions inevitably boil down to allowing only 2+2=4 or such. And funny thing, heated battles were around basic logic: "A or B" vs. "A and B" -- who would have believe it? "He didnt drink or smoke" - true or false? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment 2: Heck, in this way I can print my 2-pages-long proof of the Fermat's Last Theorem , with every line footnoted, but still wrong. - Altenmann >talk 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One horse is of one coat color <ref| Base of mathematical induction /ref> Suppose k horses of one color <ref| Induction hypothesis /ref> Let us prove that then k+1 horses are of one color <ref| Induction step /ref> ... and so on. With each sentence footnoted, and you proved that all horses are the same color .- Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First, the rationale advanced in the deletion nomination was factually inaccurate to begin with. The sources already in the article at the time were enough to demonstrate that the examples weren't made up out of whole cloth and that the topic is a topic math people care about. Further searching only bolsters this conclusion. One could still have legitimate concerns: is the article title clear and informative? Would this work better as a section in another article? Is the tone still too textbook-like rather than encyclopedic? Such concerns, though worth discussing, are not a matter for AfD . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - to Independence (probability theory) , I would suggest. The article very much positions itself as WP:SYNTH ; starting off with This article demonstrates that [...] is something of a heavy giveaway. The premise here is "I will make an argument", not "I will document a topic". This can be carried within an existing article because we have more leeway there to shape the structure of how information is presented, but it is quite unsuitable for a separate article. Make it a subsection under (or after) Independence (probability theory)#Examples , and it should be okay. Sentences like "it is sometimes mistakenly thought that" still require sourcing/attribution. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The contents of this article would be totally undue at Independence (probability theory) , making it an inappropriate merge target. -- JBL ( talk ) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It might make more sense to turn this article into a section in a new article called something like Misconceptions about the normal distribution . The three different Counterexamples books, the Melnick and Tenenbein paper, etc., provide other topics that would fit under that heading. XOR'easter ( talk ) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I would support that. It would certainly be a better title than the current one IMO. I guess that would count as a keep and edit from me thne. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Poor phrasing does not WP:SYNTH make. It's not WP:SYNTH when the references (a) point out that students actually have this misconception and (b) provide examples illustrating why it is wrong. There is no conclusion here being advanced beyond what the literature already says. XOR'easter ( talk ) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I see very different, opposing views of this article. Let's see if one relisting can bring a clearer consensus or another possible Merge target emerges. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , although it needs work and possibly a re-naming. It's not so bad to rate WP:TNT , and not WP:OR because it has been cited at least twice. I have taken and passed four statistics classes from the 100 level to graduate school, and I have taught very basic probability as part of AP Biology, but I am not an expert, so I defer to other where this should go. Bearian ( talk ) 17:58, 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

Liu Shueh-shuan: A search turns up only social media — Iadmc ♫ talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Music . — Iadmc ♫ talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:17, 12 June 2024 (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 Huang, Xiaojun 黃筱筠 (2013-02-24). "前綠委兒子劉學軒打造女子國樂團　開拓大陸" [Liu Xuexuan, son of the former Green Committee member, creates a women's Chinese orchestra to explore the mainland]. China Review News Agency [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-13 . Retrieved 2024-06-13 . The article notes: "劉學軒1969年生，2008年創立“無双樂團”，創立樂團之前是作曲家，創作種類多元，包括管弦樂、室內樂、打擊樂、現代國樂乃至於電影、電視、動畫配樂、兒童音樂及數位音樂。應邀擔任國家國樂團“2006精緻系列”四場音樂會製作人及音樂指導。也曾幫母親翁金珠製作選舉歌曲。" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan was born in 1969. He founded the "Wushuang Orchestra" in 2008. Before founding the orchestra, he was a composer and created a variety of genres, including orchestral music, chamber music, percussion, modern Chinese music, and even film, TV, animation soundtracks, children's music and digital music. Invited to serve as the producer and music director of four concerts of the National Chinese Orchestra's "2006 Exquisite Series". He also helped his mother Weng Jinzhu compose election songs." Tang, Yawen 湯雅雯 (2009-02-23). "推手劉學軒 翁金珠的兒子" [Driving force Liu Xuexuan, son of Wong Chin-chu]. World Journal (in Chinese). p.  A10. The article notes: "文化大學助理教授劉學軒擅長將傳統音樂創新，融合交響樂與電子音樂，打造跨界音樂型態。 ... 如果不說，很少人知道劉學軒就是立委翁金珠的兒子，他從事音樂創作十多年，管弦樂、大型民族音樂、電子樂都擅長，甚至擔任樂團、劇場音樂企畫，頗受好評。" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, an assistant professor at the Chinese Culture University, is good at innovating traditional music, integrating symphony and electronic music, and creating cross-border music styles. ... If not mentioned, few people know that Liu Xuexuan is the son of legislator Wong Chin-chu . He has been engaged in music creation for more than ten years. He is good at orchestral music, large-scale ethnic music, and electronic music. He even serves as a music planner for orchestras and theaters, and is well received." Zhang, Qiongyue 張瓊月 (2011-09-15). "無雙樂團 13日驚艷匹茲堡" [Peerless Band Stuns Pittsburgh on the 13th]. World Journal (in Chinese). p.  C9. The article notes: "文建會金獎作曲大師劉學軒目前任職文化大學。2008年12月成立無雙樂團，從旗下十名團員開始，刻增至42名團員。由前台灣國家國樂團樂團首席王明華擔任無雙樂團藝術總監。" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, a master composer who won the Gold Award from the Council for Cultural Affairs, currently works at the Cultural University. Wushuang Band was established in December 2008. It started with ten members and quickly increased to 42 members. Wang Minghua, former concertmaster of the Taiwan National Chinese Orchestra, serves as the artistic director of the Wushuang Orchestra." The article notes: "劉學軒親自設計團員身穿的現代版旗袍與12公分的高跟鞋表演，更將她們所受的美儀訓練全新呈現給觀眾。... 劉學軒成功地重新包裝國樂，結合交響、流行與電子樂風，顛覆一般人對古典音樂的刻板印象，使無雙樂團所到之處大受歡迎。" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan personally designed the modern version of cheongsam and 12cm high heels worn by the members for the performance, and also presented their beauty training to the audience in a new way. ...Liu Xuexuan has successfully repackaged traditional Chinese music, combining symphonic, pop and electronic music styles, subverting the stereotypes of classical music that ordinary people have, making the Wushuang Orchestra very popular wherever it goes." Huang, Junming 黃俊銘 (2004-10-23). "瓦薩里 劉學軒 因石獅結緣" [Vasari and Liu Xuexuan became acquainted with stone lions]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p.  C6. The article notes: "瓦薩里二度訪台，除帶來波希米亞風的德弗乍克，重頭戲是演出劉學軒「三峽祖師廟的石獅」，這是他向畫家李梅樹致敬之作，紀念李主導重修祖師廟。曾修打擊樂的劉學軒加了舞獅、北管樂，曲子譜完，昨天得到瓦薩里的熱情相擁。" From Google Translate: "Vasari visited Taiwan for the second time. In addition to bringing the bohemian Dvorchak, the highlight was Liu Xuexuan's "Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple". This was his tribute to the painter Li Meishu and commemorated the reconstruction of the Ancestral Temple led by Li. Liu Xuexuan, who once studied percussion, added lion dance and northern wind instruments. After composing the music, he received a warm embrace from Vasari yesterday." Wu, Yuzhen 吳玉貞 (2004-10-20). "布達佩斯交響樂團 來台演出台灣作家作品 劉學軒創作獲肯定 母親翁金珠欣慰" [Budapest Symphony Orchestra comes to Taiwan to perform works by Taiwanese writers. Liu Xuexuan's creation was recognised and his mother Wong Chin-chu was delighted.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p.  CR2. The article notes: "現年卅五歲的劉學軒南門國中音樂班畢業後考上國立藝專音樂科，再到美國加州大學長堤分校專攻作曲，學成後回國一直致力音樂創作，劉學軒說，三峽祖師廟的石獅是他回國後在家當了七年超級奶爸的作品，在家創作也帶孩子，要把作曲當職業真的很辛苦，還好撐過來了，" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, now 35 years old, graduated from the music class of Nanmen Junior High School and was admitted to the music department of the National Art College. He then went to the University of California at Changdi to specialize in composition. After completing his studies, he returned to China and devoted himself to music creation. Liu Xuexuan said that the stone lions at the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple This is the work of him who worked as a super dad at home for seven years after returning to China. He was composing and taking care of his children at home. It was really hard to turn composition into a career, but luckily he managed to survive." Hei, Zhongliang (2004-09-17). "三峽祖師廟的石獅獲瓦薩里選為巡演曲目 劉學軒 曲融台灣情 布達佩斯樂團為新曲目添中國鑼鼓" [The Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Patriarch Temple were selected by Vasari as a tour piece. Liu Xuexuan. Qu Rong Taiwan. Love Budapest Orchestra adds Chinese gongs and drums to new repertoire]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p.  A12. The article notes: "今年35歲，出生於彰化的劉學軒，有一位著名的「縣長媽媽」翁金珠，但更有一位「影響自己更深」的父親劉峰松（現任台灣文獻館館長），從父親在文化界勇於任事的過程中，學習到尊重本身文化的重要性，使得擅吹中國笛的他，" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, 35 years old, was born in Changhua. He has a famous "county magistrate mother" Weng Jinzhu, but he also has a father Liu Fengsong (currently the director of the Taiwan Archives) who "affects him more deeply". In the process of working, he learned the importance of respecting his own culture, which made him, who is good at playing the Chinese flute, ..." The article notes: "劉學軒表示，媽媽在聽到自己作品將由布達佩斯交響樂團演出的消息時，幾幾乎是以「跳起來」的興奮心情，來祝福兒子的幸運，畢竟昔日母親以鋼琴啟蒙了如今的他，而後進入南門國中音樂班、前國立藝專音樂科就讀，退伍後曾考進實驗國樂團，再赴美國加州州立大學長堤分校專攻作曲，1999年才學成返國。" From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan said that when his mother heard the news that his work would be performed by the Budapest Symphony Orchestra, she almost jumped up with excitement to wish her son good luck. After all, his mother had inspired him with the piano in the past, and then entered the South He studied in the music class of a junior high school and the music department of the former National Academy of Arts. After being discharged from the army, he was admitted to the Experimental Chinese Orchestra, and then went to the California State University at Long Beach to major in composition. He returned to Taiwan after completing his studies in 1999." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Shueh-shuan ( traditional Chinese : 劉學軒 ; simplified Chinese : 刘学轩 ; pinyin : Liú Xuéxuān to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Cunard. Besides, the subject person has won once and been nominated twice for the Golden Melody Awards . [29] [30] Fulfills WP:ANYBIO #1. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep