text
stringlengths 40
160k
| label
stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|
Mao Zedong Flag: Everyone can publish their articles (without royalties) on the website and thus the website is subject to pervasive conspiracy theories and yellow journalism. Most importantly, the article lacks sufficient sources to support its independent notability. NZCAJD2 ( talk ) 09:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and China . NZCAJD2 ( talk ) 09:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are at least three sources sufficient to meet SIGCOV: [30] [31] [32] . As with Red Song Society, for which identical criticisms were offered, attacks on the article subject are misplaced at an AfD nomination. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:18, 25 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. | speedy keep |
New Ankara Stadium: I didn't find any sigcov in English, might be WP:TOOSOON , since the construction only started in July 2022. If someone can look into it in Turkish, it would be great. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 14:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator . Seems like TOOSOON is a bit of a weak argument here. News coverage is plenty in Turkish. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 02:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although it is not expected to open until the 25/26 season https://www.gazeteilksayfa.com/ankara-19-mayis-stadyumunun-acilisi-ertelendi-198487h.htm I doubt it is worth the bother of deleting and recreating. However someone in Ankara will likely know better than me Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are five sources in the tr.wiki article and a search for “Ankara yeni stadyum” shows plenty of news coverage. Mccapra ( talk ) 16:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Clearly notasble fotbal staidum in Turkey. Article needs improvement, not deeltion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. While maybe a tad WP:TOOSOON , notability will be clearly evident upon its completion, and I don’t believe it’s worth the hassle of deleting only to inevitably recreate when completed/opened. The Kip 19:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Dylan Fergus: Tkaras1 ( talk ) 21:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Role in the main cast of Passions and lead role in Hellbent, that are notable productions, (at least) have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
2023 Dadeville shooting: This appears to be a news story without any encyclopedic notability. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Alabama . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . With 32 victims, this is the largest mass shooting in the US in 2023. The incident has achieved WP:SIGCOV . WWGB ( talk ) 14:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Received and still receiving national coverage CNN NPR USA Today Washington Post , had a response by POTUS, seems to pass GNG and NEVENT. WikiVirus C (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don’t delete -Of course Alabama never matters, right? 2600:6C58:7300:569:5D03:AD2A:2C1A:4D8E ( talk ) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why? We don't really care where it takes place. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The largest shooting in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 . Coverage is significant and on-going since the shooting on the night of the 15th. It is not only front page news in the US, but also in the UK. For example BBC and Telegraph are on their main pages on the 17th as I'm writing this. With such in-depth international coverage, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (events) easily. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 14:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems we have enough coverage in both national and international press. Boy I wish we didn't have to keep having articles about mass shootings though... Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because its very high number of victims makes it easily notable enough. Jim Michael 2 ( talk ) 15:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I propose deleting this discussion, anyone who thinks the article should be deleted is objectively wrong. It's already one of the bloodiest shootings of 2023 24.80.7.130 ( talk ) 16:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Close as Keep , I reckon. BhamBoi ( talk ) 16:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Reminder that there is no "death toll" argument for notability, which is no more than an appeal to WP:INTERESTING . All arguments related to death toll should be disregarded when closing. Also remember that WP:SIGCOV requires sustained coverage . Single-news-cycle articles should be deleted. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't gonna be a single-news-cycle story buddy. It's part of a larger crisis in America around gun violence that's sadly evolving frequently. Take the L and end this interminable "debate". 24.80.7.130 ( talk ) 16:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the "larger crisis" should have an article. And it does. This is not that. Also, given your rather aggressive tone here and on my talk page, I'll remind you that Wikipedia has high standards about how to engage in discourse. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How much "sustained coverage" can you claim doesn't exist in the span of a few days? It's still on the front page of CNN.com and other news sites. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I nominated based on the discussion and close at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Closed) Dadeville shooting . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On that discussion it was deemed the article was not notable and not well written enough for WP's "front page". That is not to say it is not notable enough to have an article. WP has bazillions of articles that will never make it to the "front page", yet we don't delete those. I might agree that WP's bar for notability is sometimes too low, and that there are plenty of shootings, but this one gets wide coverage, including international coverage. It had a few articles on the newspaper I subscribe in Portugal. - Nabla ( talk ) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see how it doesn't pass NEVENT due to the existence of significant coverage and the greater context of gun violence in the U.S. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 18:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep . In-depth, significant coverage. National and international sourcing. Time will time if the coverage is sustained, but this is hardly routine. Can't see how this is "without any encyclopedic notability". gobonobo + c 19:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Verifiable current event with significant number of victims. Maribullah ( talk ) 20:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , per all above, this is clearly notable. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep If notability was a concern, nominator should have waited a week or two to see how much coverage this receives. To me there is plenty already to justify an article. Thriley ( talk ) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deadliest US shooting this year, so, sadly this must have an article. Essentially, per all above. TheBlueSkyClub ( talk ) 21:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has the most victims, but the 2023 Monterey Park shooting has the highest death toll. Jim Michael 2 ( talk ) 22:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 00:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge - As most users said above, there is a large number of casualties for both deceased and injured, and it also has had significant coverage from various agencies including ones outside the United States (i.e. BBC). I don't think a shooting of this scale should be wiped off the face of Wikipedia, however if for some reason it's deemed not "significant" Then might I suggest it being merged into the history section of the town itself. It's a relatively small place that isn't particularly well known for much else, so this event is undoubtedly important for this community and will likely be remembered by them more than the average american. YatesTucker00090 ( talk ) 04:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. - Nabla ( talk ) 12:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep . Disgusting this is even nominated. Don't Black lives matter in Amerika? This is covered all over the world, including Germany: [14] in Süddeutsche Zeitung and [15] in Deutsche Welle , [16] in ZDF , [17] in Bild , as well as many others. 2A02:3033:6D1:8F77:D9F4:7DFE:B335:B304 ( talk ) 06:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dont Delete Why is this even nominated? There are 32 victims, making it the worst mass shooting in 2023. Ridiculous. Keep. 194.193.130.52 ( talk ) 07:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep. FFS!!! Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 09:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep (slow, not snow) per my comment above. Let anyone thinking it should be deleted (or not) to make their point. Speedy keep : It's snowing in here, and for good reason. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per MVQR, this is a notable event. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep Agree with the points raised above, plus the fact that this deletion nom does not have any chance of succeeding Bremps! 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw as nominator. I maintain that there is a disconnect between WP:Notability (events) and the community, but this has clearly run its course. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 14:13, 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. | speedy keep |
Red Asphalt: Given the age of the Red Asphalt videos, sources may exist in print, but I cannot speak for certain on that. Either way, doesn't meet GNG as it stands right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to California Highway Patrol#Programs . BD2412 T 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The films have received quite a bit of newspaper coverage over the years. I just added information from three sources: " Asleep at the Wheel " (Los Angeles Times, Jan 1998), " Driver's Dread " (Sacramento Bee, July 2003), and " Gore or Emotion — What Moves Teen Drivers? " (Los Angeles Times, January 2003), along with the 2006 LA Times citation that was already present in the article. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police , Education , Transportation , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The lack of RS citation has now been remedied and WP:GNG is handily satisfied (I also just expanded the article a bit more with an additional RS citation - a chapter in a 2017 Rowman & Littlefield book; while it largely an updated version of the already cited 2006 LAT article with some additional information, this is good extra evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage). Regars, HaeB ( talk ) 05:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Willing to withdraw for now per sources found above. Still a stub that could do with improvement, but notability seems to be met for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 20:04, 17 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. | speedy keep |
Death of Li Keqiang: Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean ( talk ) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians . Coddlebean ( talk ) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coddlebean , which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale . Folly Mox ( talk ) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep I agree with @ Folly Mox your nominations need to provide a clear rationale. Saying x similar article exists or y similar article doesn't exist isn't a rationale for deletion. The article is both on its face impressively sourced and in need of cleanup, but I don't think there's any discernible policy-based rationale here. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3 – I don't see anything resembling a rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. The article looks fine at a quick glance. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : per Mx. Granger; WP:CSK #3, as the nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Also, I disagree with the example the nominator raised. Death of Hu Yaobang [ zh ] did exist in zhwiki, and it is clearly notable as well since it is literally the triggering point of the June 4th Incident with many in-depth analysis from academic or media sources. The fact that it does not have an article in enwiki is simply because no one had created it yet, and this argument is clearly a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:CSK #3 as no valid deletion rationale is provided. I also concur with Mx Granger and Prince of Erebor above. S5A-0043 Talk 16:35, 1 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. | speedy keep |
Oded Hod: [1] The article currently cites no independent sources . — Freoh 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the topics Academics and educators and Science . — Freoh 20:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ WP:PROF Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , faulty nomination. The article states that he holds a named chair, a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 . It is sourced to his university, but WP:PROF states "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." Secondary independent sourcing is not needed for this purpose. For that matter he also has many highly cited publications, likely to pass WP:PROF#C1 . The nomination makes a WP:VAGUEWAVE at PROF but makes no show of understanding it. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep for the reasons articulated in the ! vote above and the lack of a valid deletion rationale presented in the nomination in the first place . XOR'easter ( talk ) 20:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPROF. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . No valid reason to delete was brought forward. Nomination contradicts WP:NEXIST . gidonb ( talk ) 15:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . As the person who wrote the article in Hebrew, I will say that my decision to write about it resulted from watching his lecture on thermodynamics. I immediately contacted him and wrote to him that I would be happy to write an article about him. We spoke on a Zoom call and he gave me information about himself and scientific articles he had written, and even provided me with his CV. I wrote the entry without payment or compensation, but purely out of appreciation for him. Regarding any doubts about the reliability of the value, I can confirm that all the information about the value has been checked against it. Besides, there is no reason to delete the entry. ארז האורז ( talk ) 16:29, 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. | speedy keep |
Phyllis Mary Nicol: Additionally I would raise serious questions about the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable ( talk • contribs ) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. That is the national dictionary and that makes her automatically notable. As for cleanup, WP:AFD is not cleanup. scope_creep Talk 09:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Clearly notable based just on the sources already in the article. If nom dislikes the current version the solution is ordinary editing. As my colleague scope creep very rightly notes, AFD is not cleanup. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GNG / WP:BIO - any cleanup issues should be tagged rather then pushed to possible get forgotten in draft. KylieTastic ( talk ) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Women , Science , and Australia . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The prose is indeed awful , unencyclopedic, and at times nonsensical, but there is a presumption of notability afforded by ANYBIO so the solution here is to fix through editing rather than deletion. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I encourage @ RogerNotable to withdraw this nomination . Since you are a new editor, I encourage you to try improve the article. Working on content is important for getting a good grasp of when to make an AfD nomination or instead work on improving an article. As others have noted, AfD is only to discuss the notability of an article, not cleanup issues. If you do decide to work on this article, I'd be happy to review your work when you are done; just leave a note on my talk page. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 19:23, 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. | speedy keep |
A Mile in His Shoes: The only reviews I could find are from three Christian websites, which briefly describe the plot and note whether it is appropriate for children being raised in the Christian faith. Those reviews are at Movie Mom (which is no longer live), Common Sense Media , and Dove.org . Setting aside whether those sources are reliable, none of the reviews meet the standard for significant coverage as they are brief, highly context specific, and do not contain any additional relevant information about the film. voorts [2] 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . voorts [3] 17:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions . voorts [4] 17:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - user:Donaldd23 opposed the WP:PROD and tagged the article as needing citations for verification, which is a legitimate alternative to deletion ( WP:ATD ). That process needs to be allowed some time to work out rather than going immediately to AfD. I'd be more likely to support merging into Frank Nappi than outright deletion (although I think with a little time and effort, satisfactory sources could be turned up). Butler Blog ( talk ) 18:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , not sure why "Christian" sites are being dismissed in regards to this film. Common Sense Media is listed as a Reliable Source for Wikipedia: WP:RSPSOURCES . The Dove Foundation (Dove.org), while not specifically listed on the RS page, is respected American non-profit organization and has been used hundreds of times in deletion discussions are an arguement for keep. Therefore, these 2 reviews passes WP:NFO easily, as condition one of that guidelines says "film(s) (that are) widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." This deletion discussion should not be happening as I fully explained this in the summary when I removed the PROD. [7] Donald D23 talk to me 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are also reviews at Box Office Revolution [8] , and the Movie Mom one is listed as a Critic Review at Rotten Tomatoes [9] . The fact that it is no longer a live link is irrelevant. Donald D23 talk to me 19:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, I'm not arguing that the websites should be dismissed because they're Christian, but rather because they reviews are solely related to whether the films are suitable for viewing by Christian youths. The review on each of the three websites I noted are 2-3 paragraphs long; I wouldn't describe those as "full-length" or significant reviews. Moreover, WP:NFO says that the existence of two full-length reviews will " generally indicate" a film would meet the criterion for notability, not that it necessarily will. voorts [5] 20:42, 22 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. | speedy keep |
Tempo (film): I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : There is a review in DVD Talk. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 10:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete DVD Talk review is fine, but that's all there is. I can't find anything. Gnewpapers has some links to a film from 1986, but that's not this film. 13:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment found this review [8] Donald D23 talk to me 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent work to Somebodyidkfkdt and Donaldd23. I consider both DVD Talk and Contactmusic.com to be suitable and reliable sources/reviews. I therefore withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator ( talk ) 16:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would also like to add that Christopher Null , who wrote the Contactmusic.com review, is a notable film critic. The Film Creator ( talk ) 16:25, 17 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. | speedy keep |
Mahmoud Abdin: Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Egypt . Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This looks to have a really good chance of notability - I've found when Olympedia gives bios, especially decent-sized ones - they turn out to have enough coverage. The Olympedia piece alone could actually be considered SIGCOV in my opinion, as it has three decent-sized paragraphs. Also, the offline source in the article looks like likely sigcov, as his name is in the title (it seems to be titled "The Death of Mahmoud Abdin"). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to the obituary already cited on the page (which is not a paid obituary, but a feature in the sports page), whose title is translated as mentioned by User:BeanieFan11 , there are plenty of articles that satisfy WP:GNG in Al-Ahram . As an example, the main headline of the sports page on February 13, 1936 is "تكريم الاستاذ عابدين بطل مصر في لعب الشيش" (Honoring of Professor Abdin, Egyptian Champion in Fencing). The online database for Al-Ahram is subscription only, but I am happy to send PDFs if necessary to confirm (although they would be in Arabic). Canadian Paul 03:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It did pass WP:GNG . Agreed with Canadian Paul. CastJared ( talk ) 03:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as well. The Olympedia gave me a dead link, that's why I replaced it with what I found and nominated for deletion. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can withdraw the nomination and close it yourself with a non-admin closure if you've changed your mind. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 09:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't seem to be possible. I tried, but 7 days have not yet passed. Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 10:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the guidelines here . But I will do it for you as you have clearly withdrawn the nom, no worries. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 13:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Web Environment Integrity: The last significant coverage of this incident was in 2023 and the proposal was abandoned and failed to get significant traction. We are not a newspaper. Sohom ( talk ) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Sohom ( talk ) 21:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notability is not temporary. Kinopiko talk 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kinopiko Could you explain how the subject has received significant coverage over a "sufficiently significant period" (as required by WP:GNG )? To expand of my rationale, according to the sourcing in the article (and what I could find online) there are exactly three reliable sources that have covered this issue from a period starting at July 26 2023 when the proposal was announced till November 2023 when the proposal was withdrawn. I personally would not consider that level of coverage to be significant enough coverage over an extended period of time for the subject matter. There has been no RS coverage of the issue since, something that is expected of similar topics in web privacy (see for example Client Hints , or the Privacy Sandbox both of which had similar negative pushback but has had more sustained coverage due to the fact that they were implemented in Chrome). Sohom ( talk ) 04:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sustained coverage is not required. Subject simply does meet the WP:GNG . I would not be surprised if Google tries something like this again, we could then discuss merging it into some background section. But for now, I don't see a good merge target and think the article can stay as-is. The point of WP:SUSTAINED is that subjects that have gotten sustained coverage are more likely to be notable. But the lack of sustained coverage does not mean it is not notable. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PhotographyEdits (Thinking out loud here), maybe this belongs as a section to a hypothetical article on Private access tokens or as part of CAPTCHAs and Digital Rights Management ? The way I see it, the article is kinda in a perma-start state, with a majority of the sourcing being first-party documentation and position documents (atleast until Google goes and messes up shit again, which I agree they will probably do, but that is also WP:CRYSTAL . Sohom ( talk ) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Coverage from Ars Technica and The Register gives in-depth analysis of the proposal and the surrounding controversy, so this passes WP: GNG . The subject has received attention over the span of several months, as the nominator has stated themselves -- if that isn't sustained coverage, I don't know what is. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 00:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Based on the comments above, (and sleeping on it a bit, and considering the validity of my own arguments) it's clear I am in the minority . Please consider this AFD withdrawn. Sohom ( talk ) 00:21, 22 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. | speedy keep |
MLW M-640: The first, second and fourth citations do not refer to the MLW M-640 at all as far as I can tell. They reference the Canadian Pacific 4744 and then only in passing. Not sure about the third citation. If the third citation does go into any any depth, one in depth citation by itself by itself is not enough to establish notability. Given the track record of this IP user I highly doubt the third citation does reference the subject in an depth, if at all. This does not pass WP:GNG as it has no independent notability outside of the Canadian Railway Museum. Suggest a redirect to Canadian Railway Museum . TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation . TarnishedPath talk 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Also coverage in the CP Corporate history magazine here [10] and [11] , some discussion in an electrical engineering journal (paywalled) [12] . Here's a better link for the museum [13] . An "under the hood" look at the loco [14] Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anymore sources? Because I have added the current ones you mentioned into the further reading. Only for you to put them into their respective sentences that they are meant for. 118.210.56.198 ( talk ) 20:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 118.210.56.198 , why are you submitting articles through AfC and then expecting others to come along later and provide sources to establish notability that you haven't been able to add yourself? TarnishedPath talk 04:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably could cobble together a decent article with the new sources I've found Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] About three paragraphs here in Trains magazine [15] Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does that ever mention the MLW M-640? 118.210.56.198 ( talk ) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They mention how it was redone using AC propulsion while keeping the original ALCO. "...Development Corporation, Canadian Pacific led the way in 1984, extensively rebuilding Montreal Locomotive Works M640 4744, a conventional D.C. locomotive, into an A.C.-traction testbed. In November 1984, 4744 emerged from CP Rail's Angus Shop, still with its unique 18cylinder, 4000 h.p. Alco 251 engine, but with its electrical and control systems radically altered. Converted from..." Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll add it to the further reading section 118.210.56.198 ( talk ) 20:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with @ Oaktree b we could add the new sources he has found to the article. 118.210.56.198 ( talk ) 20:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets notability criteria per the sources found by Oaktree b . Netherzone ( talk ) 22:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Jody Armour: ( talk ) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators . Unknown-Tree🌲? ( talk ) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I somehow missed the first AfD—I'd like for this to just be speedily closed. Unknown-Tree🌲? ( talk ) 05:06, 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. | speedy keep |
My/Mochi Ice Cream: A lot of the info here is from the company itself. Does not pass WP:CORP , very little coverage about it in general. Additionally, the article reads like an advertisement. Something it would be prudent to consider is to simply merge the article into Mochi ice cream or Mikawaya , since the brand was created after a firm acquired Mikawaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmiumGuard ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 19 March 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 March 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: There was community consensus to keep this article at its original AfD three years ago ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream ). Left guide ( talk ) 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My official suggestion is that the article is merged. As it stands it shouldn't just be a standalone article. OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And why do you believe it shouldn't be a standalone article? Consensus is that the topic is notable enough to keep the article, so you'd need to address the many sources presented in that first AfD to make a compelling case to change that consensus towards a merge. It's imperative to remember that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article . Left guide ( talk ) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC) pinging users involved in the first AfD @ Praxidicae , Spiderone , Shellwood , Pi.1415926535 , Tagishsimon , Aymatth2 , Peter303x , Concertmusic , HighKing , Missvain , Cunard , and Spartaz : Left guide ( talk ) 00:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Originally I had believed the coverage to be trivial enough not to count towards anything and the sources themselves not to be worth anything, but upon closer inspection of the sources and Wikipedia's rules which I had misinterpreted at the time. I'll take this as a learning experience. ! vote changed to keep. OsmiumGuard ( talk ) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : this was already extensively litigated in an older AfD and closed as keep, the nominator acknowledges and agrees with that decision, essentially withdrawing the nomination, and there has been no substantial input from others. Other content-related objections can be resolved directly at the article/talk per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP . Left guide ( talk ) 00:53, 20 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. | speedy keep |
Galina Gebruk: Russian Wikipedia article deleted [22] . -- Анатолий Росдашин ( talk ) 03:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 23 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Judaism , and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1(b) and/or (3). Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In ru-wiki this article ru:Гебрук, Галина Михайловна was deleted. -- Khinkali ( talk ) 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
List of public signage typefaces: Fails WP:NLIST . Could not find a single realible source that discusses public signage typefaces in a group. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 20:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While this article clearly needs a lot more citations (books, governmental sources) the theory of someone trying to replicate a look / appearance of a road sign and wanting a single source of information is pretty sound. Are art resources trivial? In a perfect world, I think the model of this page would be something like the "Lists of Colors" pages. 69.124.168.78 ( talk ) 22:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No! This is a good list that adds value to Wikipedia. Zanahary ( talk ) 01:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A cursory search in Google Scholar and Books reveals numerous sources discussing signage typefaces as a group. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 02:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide those sources. Not saying they don't exist but I couldn't find them. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 06:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.google.com/search? q="signage+typeface"… https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q="signage+typeface"… Practically all first-page results are on topic. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 09:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This list serves a clear navigational purpose. Aaiqbal ( talk ) 05:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The whole topic of navigational signage and fonts is deep and extensive. Once upon a time there was Johnston (typeface) (London Underground) and then half a century later the huge influence of Transport (typeface) , Motorway (typeface) and Rail Alphabet drawn by Margaret Calvert ; with similar stories of regimented font use in other lands: DIN 1451 / SNV (typeface) / Trafikkalfabetet . The article/list could benefit from a solid proper introduction at the top, and adding of contextual dates throughout the table (allowing sorting by year). Perhaps the huge font samples swatches on the right could be slimmed down to single lines or actual real world photographs of horizontal signs to give better context to readers. TL;DR ; keep, and expand. — Sladen ( talk ) 10:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This list can be improved and serves an educational purpose. -- Vulcan ❯❯❯ Sphere! 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Typography for signage and wayfaring is a specialist discipline, that had demands that differ from typical typography in that they need to readable at distance and at speeds, and cover a much larger range of sizes. This has resulted in type faces designed specifically for this purpose. See: Typography Best Practices , some books on the subject, from Google Scholar: Signage and Wayfinding Design: A Complete Guide to Creating Environmental Graphic Design Systems , Signage Design Manual, Edo Smitshuijzen Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems Transport Design Manuals are prized by some and have been reprinted as collectors items eg British Rail Corporate Identity Manual Design Manual for the Swiss Federal Railways Tallus ( talk ) 16:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The above responses have established that 1) that the subject of this list has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and 2) that this list does serve an " informational " purpose, meaning that this page does not fail WP:NLIST . — Jamie Eilat ( talk ) 20:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pretty clear that sources exist, the article will need cleanup but this is one instance I think that deletion is not cleanup applies. Possible speedy keep? microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 21:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: this was posted on a tweet by Depths of Wikipedia so I immagine there are a lot of eyeballs on this quickly. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 21:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other way around. If you check the timestamps, the tweet happened first, and the nominator almost surely saw the Tweet. So this wasn't a case of canvassing support, but rather the nominator AFD'ing a page they themselves saw on Depths of Wiki, presumably. SnowFire ( talk ) 04:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A perfectly valid navigational list as well as a valid information list. D r e a m Focus 15:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. Perhaps a WP:SNOWBALL is going to start rolling? S5A-0043 Talk 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Jamal Harrison Bryant: He also runs a church. This is not a noteworthy encyclopedic subject. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:BASIC with significant coverage from (e.g.) the Baltimore Sun and Atlanta Journal-Constitution . Made the local news a handful of times is an incorrect characterization for a public figure whose words are noteworthy . Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 14:51, 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. | speedy keep |
Charlie the Tuna: Ryan barnes 1963 ( talk ) 01:39, 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. | speedy keep |
Kirk, Kentucky: It does not appear on a map and the only non-GNIS source talks about Kirk Germany, and seems to reveal that this was a railroad whistle-stop. Also: The coordinates in this article lead elsewhere Lightburst ( talk ) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kentucky . Lightburst ( talk ) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , considering someone has added more sources. Though there may not be much left of Kirk, it certainly existed. Generally we keep articles about populated places. Sionk ( talk ) 23:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Firsfron and Sionk : Have you gone through the sources? I am not seeing anything we can use to write an article - one source is The Attorneys List ? Another is a name drop, two others are offline. If I can see this was a notable place with one in depth source I will withdraw. My before has not uncovered what Firsfron has called, "significant coverage" and I did not find any information in newspapers. Lightburst ( talk ) 00:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, the sources don't support some content. I also searched The Attorneys List and found nothing. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 13:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This can be filled in, given a week or so. Kirk was an "important town", according to one 1908 source, and there is significant coverage of the community in a 1971 history of the county. I haven't really even begun to check sources, but there's a lot to go through, here. Newspapers.com is showing many results, some of which will have relevant info. Contrary to the nomination, the words "whistle stop" were not used in the sole source this article used; instead, "village" and "community" are. This one is easily sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Establishing notability requires proof this was a populated place (not just a commercial location), per WP:GEOLAND . This was not easy. However, here , on page 143, it lists Kirk's population at 25 in 1902. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 13:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw , I see this article from 1900 calling it a village/town. Still nothing in depth but based on WP:GEOLAND we can say this existed as a village. I am disappointed in the ref bombing - some of the references are carelessly added or say nothing about the village. For instance, two maps are used to show that Kirk exists but the village does not appear on the maps, like this one from the refs in which Kirk is a road "Kirk loop". Lightburst ( talk ) 18:54, 13 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. | speedy keep |
List of common misconceptions: My reasoning here is quite simple: this is not an appropriate topic for a list in the mainspace. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia which this page plainly is. Each one of the listings is, at most, appropriate for a single line on their respective pages. The sources cited on this page are often low-quality, including television (1) shows (2) , recipe aggregators like Allrecipes and Cookthink, Dotdash Meredith subsidiaries like Thoughtco ( deprecated ), random blogs including at least one Wordpress -hosted site, and mainly, blatant plagiarism from Snopes (actually, this whole article is practically Snopes Wikipedia-style.) Therefore I think this page should be deleted from the mainspace, and if it must be kept, then moved to the meta namespace ala Wikipedia:Unusual articles since it does serve an educational purpose. wound theology ◈ 19:10, 26 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 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I favor cleaning up and removing misconceptions with weak references like the ones mentioned, but I strongly oppose deletion or moving it off the mainspace. The list is clearly valuable to users, doesn't seem to obviously contradict WP:SALAT , WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC or WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seems well within the scope of WP:NLIST . agucova ( talk ) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I origianlly came to this article because I am a 40+ USAmerican and was linked from a tumblr post about incorrect "facts" about the world that we were taught as children. Most of these items on this list are indeed COMMON misconceptions in the US. Pre-internet (or even pre-google) it was NOT easy to find the truth about these misconceptions. they were considered common knowledge and encyclopedias did not have enough breadth of information to prove a negative. I have read through all 6 nominations and arguments for/against deletion of this article and it appears that the delete voters by and large have the opinion that this information is not important enough to be collected while keep voters tend to agree that the article needs to be edited but is a valuable resource. I agree with the KEEPers. Many of the items in the article i did not even KNOW were misconceptions (oil is made from dinosaurs, carrots are good for vision, and diamonds not being coal are 3 quick examples). If you feel it is too US-centric, maybe add that to the title? If you feel it should not be on the main space, they could be a sub-article under urban legends? The suggested unusual articles category is inappropriate because specifically states that the "material is not to be taken seriously". that is precisely how many of these misconceptions were started (as jokes or tall tales) and what the article is trying to clear up. NOTE: I have never commented on or edited a wiki article before so excuse me if my format of comment is incorrect. 71.182.139.42 ( talk ) 21:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP ^ vote obviously 71.182.139.42 ( talk ) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the wiki process, but these aren't arguments why we should keep the article. It's not that I don't think these are misconceptions -- although some are arguably pedantic -- but that the page itself (in my view) is not within the scope of Wikipedia. wound theology ◈ 06:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not know what you mean by the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that catalogues whatever reliable secondary sources say in their fields of expertise, and many entries on List of common misconceptions are attributed to such sources. I wonder if something can be done to control the quality of that article if it attracts a number of poor entries. Since I am not here to vote, I will just say that my opinion is Keep because I do not think the article is that bad, and there are already many misconceptions that have been debunked by sources that Wikipedia accepts (as mentioned above). Do you want the misconceptions to be catalogued differently? As a prose? As a bunch of subpages? I would like to see the development of the big discussion on this page. CarlFilip19 ( talk ) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia has guidelines about what articles should cover. Many of the things here would fit perfectly fine on their respective articles, but just because a collection of ostensibly collected statements is well-sourced does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia as an independent article. A page like List of reasons to visit Seattle, Washington might have many perfectly reliable secondary sources about popular attractions in the city, but Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. This list is functionally a collection of trivia which, put simply, is not encyclopedic. wound theology ◈ 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and add an entry for "This article is a plausible deletion candidate" . Seriously though, the problem with this article is keeping it free of cruft. Everything listed there needs to reliably referenced as both a misconception, as being common and also have a relevant article linked that has some non-trivial coverage of the the misconception. Anything that doesn't fit those criteria can be removed. There is no case to delete the whole article. Let's just clean out the crap and try to keep an eye on it for anybody adding any more crap. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At the risk of going off-topic here, agree that a big problem is preventing or eliminating cruft. Currently, the edit notice says "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." but this is not a requirement. I have advocated making it a requirement, but did not achieve a consensus on the talk page for that. Interesting that an editor who has added dozens of entries over the past few weeks that are arguably "cruft" is here arguing for deletion. I would invite participants in this discussion to review the recent activity on the page and it's associated talk page. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You remove things with bad references, you don't delete an entire article because of them. D r e a m Focus 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that's a mischaracterization of my argument here. Bad references aren't the main problem; the page itself (in its current format) is not within the scope of Wikipedia. wound theology ◈ 06:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, this article has it's problems and could stand improvement. As one of the active editors for this page it is a constant task to keep it cruft free and make sure all the assertions are reliably sourced. I would welcome help with that. Despite the flaws, it's a useful compendium of things that are commonly believed that are false. As someone once said, "It's not what you don't know that's the problem, it's the things you think you know that aren't true." It's a valuable resource that should remain, and was once a featured article featured list candidate . Seeing how this article has been nominated for deletion five times in the past without success I find it odd that it has been nominated a sixth time. It's time to drop the stick. Seems like a WP:SNOW keep. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 00:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Contrary to a common misconception, the page was never a featured article, with one of the issues cited as preventing it from being promoted being: ""common" needs to be defined clearly - i.e. what makes the list not wp:OR. " Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 01:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Earlier this year List of hobbies was deleted after a fourth nomination for many of the same reasons I nominated this page. wound theology ◈ 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The page requires OR to determine what is common, and what is a misconception, violating WP:LSC . The idea that RS could be deferred to is a common misconception for a few reasons: Misconceptions cannot be "common", they must be "common among X". X is undefined, and excluding an entry in a local newspaper for saying "it's a common misconception that "local landmark"" is defining common, and isn't deferring to RS. The edge cases are common among world, among America, among Jews, among historians of whipped cream etc. Line drawing is defining common. RS are not deferred to. The talk page is huge because editors want to exclude RS when they say something is a common misconception because they don't personally believe it's common. See literally two days ago . "Current" is said to be implied from the title (according to an apparent consensus of what "common" is defined as), but isn't defined how to establish this. Seen in a dispute a few days ago, where it was argued if it was common in 1967 it is common now because people are "still alive". RS will not always say "it's a common misconception that", "words to that effect" are used, which includes "contrary to popular belief", but also includes "many people believe" and " etymological urban legend ". Evaluating whether "words to that effect" are met requires comparing to definition of common and misconception, which is the problem that led to the idea of deferring to RS in the first place. An entry cannot be included as a misconception if it's not false, as it is not then a misconception. The way this is enforced is usually not something being factually wrong, but quibbling with definitions: that's not a misconception, it's... a misnomer (misnomers are a type of misconception), technical language vs common language dispute , abstraction of complex ideas and many many more . i.e., entries to "list of common misconceptions" which have RS saying they're a misconception, are being excluded because it doesn't fit editor's personal definitions of "misconception. " Some of these problems are fixable, others are not. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As an addendum, to support the position that the page is a list of trivia, the phrase "contrary to popular belief" has been identified in The Washington Post as a " journalism cliche... that we should avoid ". Contrary to popular belief is widely regarded in the talk page as the most acceptable "words to that effect" for "common misconception". Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of this is a good reason to delete the article. It reads as a list of complaints about how other editors on that page have disagreed with you. While some of these issues may provide a reasonable argument to review the inclusion criteria, deletion is not the right remedy. For instance, generally we (the editors on that page) avoid arguments over semantics, (the Earth is not round , it is an oblate spheroid") although that's not in the inclusion criteria. Perhaps it should be, but this is not the venue for that discussion, the talk page is. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We avoid arguments about semantics because we are essentially saying "even though it's described in RS as a misconception, according to our own personal definition of misconception, that's not a misconception, it's a .... dispute about linguistics." Inserting it into the inclusion criteria would be saying "it has to be in multiple RS as a common misconception, and also must meet our own personal definition of misconception." If you think that's not OR I would be interested in hearing your justification. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 23:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We've tried explaining this to you before , but I'll simply reiterate the gist of it by paraphrasing another editor and then I'm not going to argue about it any further. Wikipedia editors determine, through consensus, what reliably sourced material is WP:Notable and whether including it would be giving it undue weight . Also, sometimes the sources differ and we need to use our editorial judgment to decide which to "believe" or to document the dispute (which we don't do on the List of common misconceptions - disputed entries are simply not included). Ultimately, the consensus of the editors is the only method used to determine which material warrants inclusion for literally all material on Wikipedia. Taking issue with the fact that editors must determine the notability or weight of reliably sourced information through consensus is an objection to Wikipedia itself , not this page in particular. Your accusations of WP:OR because editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include is a misconception of what WP:OR is. There are no WP:OR assertions on the page. And even if there were, that's an argument to remove those assertions, not delete the article. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "That's more of a misnomer than a misconception." This isn't someone arguing the entry isn't notable, or that including it would be giving undue weight. They're arguing over the definition of misconception. "Editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include". Material can be excluded because it's not relevant to the topic. But it's not a question of relevance when "list of animals" has editors trying to input their own personal vibey definition of animal to exclude elephant, when there is a consensus of RS describing elephants as animals. "editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include" Again, the first line of LSC: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." I know it's possible to read this as me arguing against all editorial judgement, but I am very narrowly discussing inclusion criteria and the role of editorial judgement in defining terms against a consensus of RS. The simple fact is, if I'm an editor and I have an entry that meets the inclusion criteria, I don't know if it's going to be excluded because editors don't believe it's a "real" misconception. The current inclusion criteria is clearly insufficient, but trying to integrate editor's understanding of "real misconception" would clearly go into OR. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Common Misconceptions page does not require OR, indeed, no OR is allowed on the page. If reliable sources state that some notion is a common misconception (or some synonymous term), and that notion is included in the article as an entry, then the source for the entry is not derived from a Wikipedia editor's original research, and is, therefore, not OR. On occasions where editors have added entries without RS, all such entries have been swiftly removed. The act of editors interpreting and reiterating the content of reliable sources is not original research, and if it were, then everything on Wikipedia aside from items of WP:BLUE would need to be swiftly deleted. Joe ( talk ) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question is less what is included, but what is excluded. If RS say something is a common misconception, but an editor says "but I don't personally believe it's common" and removes it from the page, then that's a violation of LSC. That obviously wouldn't exclude everything on Wikipedia apart from BLUE. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's interesting, educational, and while it will never be perfect, it can be constructed so as to be well supported by sources. A net added value to Wikipedia, much more so than millions of other articles (individually I mean). W. P. Uzer ( talk ) 20:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Two reasons: 1. There was a 1994 book The Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions , thus supporting it as an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. 2. The list provides an additional research resource, for example, in the Scientific misconceptions article it is included in the See also links section. 5Q5 | ✉ 10:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neither of these are good reasons to Keep. The existence of an encyclopedia means very little to what we as an encyclopedia should cover -- there are many wikis and many published encyclopedias and their existence alone do not mean anything. Similarly, being linked on a "See also" section means nothing. If it did mean something, many pages that have been relegated to Wikipedia's dustbin could have been saved. wound theology ◈ 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entry for bonfires in the book: "Bonfires: To most people, especially youngsters, a bonfire is a calming, comforting experience, punctuated by fun and the crackle and smell of burning pine wood — a sort of wienie, marshmallowy fancy that warms the heart. But it wasn’t a pleasant experience for those in bygone days, because such fires were fueled by the burning bones of corpses — they were fires of immolation and funeral pyres. Christians and heretics especially hated “bone-fires”!" Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 04:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:NOTOR references the List of common misconceptions article and also links to it; this is evidence that there is (or was) a consensus that it is an appropriate article, at least among the editors who worked on that help page essay. It is also of interest to about two dozen project pages, two of which list it as being of High Importance. Neither of these may be a direct argument to keep, but the implication is that a fair number of editors across multiple projects have been satisfied that it meets the criteria for inclusion. Seems to me that deleting it would ignore this reasonably large body of editorial consensus. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 02:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a request at Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/List_of_common_misconceptions to modify the edit notice for this page. Currently the edit notice template and the inclusion criteria listed at the top of the talk page say different things. (Note that the edit notice is a template only editable by an an admin while any editor can edit the text at the top of the talk page.) This discrepancy will need to be rectified and I will start a thread on the talk page to address that if and when this AfD nomination fails. I invite any editor interested in improving the inclusion criteria to participate, not that anyone needs my invitation. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NLIST , specifically Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability . The link, WP:LISTPURP , says of the first, The list may be a valuable information source... [which] would include lists... grouped by theme, or annotated lists . The list, as of this comment, is grouped by academic discipline and is arguably annotated as each entry goes beyond a definition. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This whole list is very useful to have. -- ISometimesEatBananas ( talk ) 15:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If the sourcing is inadequate, then by all means, let's clean it up. But this is not a justification for deletion. The article is highly informative and useful. Wormcast ( talk ) 17:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and don't move to Unusual Articles . I find the claim that this page 'doesn't serve an educational purpose' to be, on its face, absurd. Phoneme for phoneme, this is one of the most educational pages on all of Wikipedia. Moreover, I disagree with the suggestion that the Common Misconceptions page doesn't meet the appropriate criteria for a Wikipedia list: it is not too broad to be useful, and if you know anything about the editors who frequent and maintain the page, harsh standards are applied to what can and cannot be included (harsher standards, indeed, than those applied to the vast majority of other Wikipedia pages). As other editors have attested above, this page is a net positive for Wikipedia. Joe ( talk ) 18:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Without a definition of "common misconception" within the article, I don't see how the list can have a knowable scope. Maybe the assumption that everyone knows what is meant by "common misconception" is a misconception. Also, how is "common" determined? The list would make much more sense to me if I could get some sense of what is IN and what is OUT. This latter seems to be essential for any list, if it isn't to be formless. Lamona ( talk ) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lamona It is undefined. People will claim that you defer to what RS say is common to avoid defining it . But they will believe you should exclude misconceptions believed by groups they think are too small to have it be common. And then call that "editorial judgement" instead of saying that they're defining common. Rollinginhisgrave ( talk ) 03:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It's a common misconception that a WP article which is an original research compendium of trivia and fluff will get the knife at AfD. Carrite ( talk ) 04:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Addressing the assertions in the nomination: Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia which this page plainly is. Agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, whether this article is is a matter of opinion. I and many other do not think it is. Each one of the listings is, at most, appropriate for a single line on their respective pages. Clearly false. Many of the entries are elaborated at length in their topic article. To cite just two examples: equal transit time and Cass Elliot didn't die fro eating ham sandwich . And even if this assertion was correct, it's irrelevant to AfD. The sources cited on this page are often low-quality... True to some extent, but irrelevant. From WP:ITSUNREFERENCED In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion . ...blatant plagiarism from Snopes... Citation needed. Agree that the scope of this article is rather open-ended and could possibly lead to it attracting a large quantity of low quality entries. As someone put it in the 4th AfD, it's a "magnet for POV and OR edits". Which is true. But it's also not a valid reason for deletion, as per WP:LIKELYVIOLATION . In the approximately 5 years since AfD-4 it's grown by about 100 entries to about 430, so the fear that it was going to grow out of control would seem to be unfounded. In sum, the arguments given in favor of deletion are either false, irrelevant, or just someone's opinion. Mr. Swordfish ( talk ) 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This article actually has a bunch of useful information, so it would be completely unnecessary to delete. If anything, we can just remove the info from sources considered to be unreliable while keeping the info from reliable sources. 128.235.85.35 ( talk ) 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Will Carl Rufus: Only thing that comes close to WP:GNG is a obituary in Popular Astronomy from 1948 . nf utvol ( talk ) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator . Discovery of book reviews make sufficient case for WP:AUTHOR and papers published brings bare minimum for WP:NPROF , especially considering pre-internet era. nf utvol ( talk ) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Astronomy , Canada , and Michigan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . As well as the two obituaries already listed in the article, I added six reviews of two books, making a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because one is an edited volume ). I think for an academic of his pre-internet time, that's enough. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and NASA ADS shows he has a fairly extensive list of papers published (~72), in most cases as sole author. Praemonitus ( talk ) 23:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Rana Muhammad Akram Khan: There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock [ reply ] He is elected representative of lawyers body since very long, some of the sources not traceable on the web, some in urdu language, but He is notable politician-advocate on the face of it as he is covered by international media and held a notable position as chairman executive punjab bar council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 ( talk ) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:AUTOBIO . HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 13:28, 8 February 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 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 21 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. | speedy keep |
Barnens adventskalender: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television , and Sweden . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The first installment in what would become a fairly important tradition in Swedish Christmas celebrations. As the radio advent calendar has been an annual tradition since 1957, I don't think it's a good idea to summarize each year in the main article. These are individual works, the content varying from year to year. / Julle ( talk ) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable precursor to the current calendar, more sources are available. Notability is not at issue here. If you feel that merging this as a "backgound" section makes more sense I suggest you withdraw this nomination and propose a merger on the talk page per our usual procedures. Cheers. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reflecting on this, it may be a better move to do that, given we would want to save the content. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing to think about is that Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar is mainly a list of the individual annual programs. There were more than 60 annual editions of this show, and for the most part, each of them has their own Wikipedia page. It's probably possible to merge all of them together into the core page (or create a long "list of programs" page) but it's a bigger undertaking than just merging this first program into the series page. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And for that reason among others I would probably ! vote-oppose should a merger be proposed. I'm just being a stickler on procedure here :P Draken Bowser ( talk ) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really think it works best as a separate article, to be honest, with the Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar as an article about the phenomenon rather than as a collection of the individual instances which make up the tradition. / Julle ( talk ) 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Barely qualifies as notable" is not a thing. If there's enough coverage to satisfy GNG, then it's notable. This nomination should provide some analysis of the existing sources in the article. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Toughpigs and Julle. This is a separate work from the yearly tradition itself and 'barely notable' is still notable. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per coverage. Per WP:GNG. Personally I find this nomination weird. BabbaQ ( talk ) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Barely notable still is notable. Killarnee ( talk ) 14:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep procedurally. If a merger is the ultimate goal, then AfD is the wrong place for it. Bearian ( talk ) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Hartmut Jürgens: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Mathematics , and Germany . Owen× ☎ 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning keep , as he appears to have authored significant books in his field, [23] and led significant institutes within his university, as well as having a large and well-regarded research output; [24] . I'm fairly convinced he meets the standards of WP:NPROF or possibly an author. There is a better source for his obituary at his old university. [25] Elemimele ( talk ) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . May pass WP:Prof#C1 . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . His books on fractals are well cited, as above, but they also have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for your input, Boleyn ( talk ) 16:45, 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. | speedy keep |
Ronaldo Córdoba: Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 02:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - Withdrawing nomination. Many references on the Spanish wikipedia page. Simione001 ( talk ) 03:02, 17 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. | speedy keep |
List of schools in Sejong City: The topic seems to be a violation of WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Also this policy discourages simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopaedic merit. List also fails WP:LISTN due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV about this group of schools as a group. The local government website for Sejong is not an acceptable source as it's clearly not independent of the subject. This article only seems to have two notable schools (to be honest, even those two schools might be non-notable) so the list is not a useful index. Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Riobamba among many others. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Lists , and South Korea . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools explains why we have such exhaustive lists: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to [...] the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." The local website of Sejong is an acceptable source to prove the school exists, and South Korean municipal websites document very well which schools exist in the country. Now does this mean the school has notability? No. The solution would be to redirect the school name to Sejong City. However this then requires the article "Sejong City" to carry the name of the school (so the redirect can exist). However if there are a large number of schools, a daughter article "List of schools in Sejong City" would be created to retain the information. Whether to keep this list or not depends on how many schools Sejong City has. Can the city article comfortably keep the list of schools, or does it need a separate article? I've listed schools for Japanese municipalities and found ways to compress the lists using "div col", so I think I might be able to compress the lists of schools in the article Sejong City WhisperToMe ( talk ) 16:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand the logic of those redirects being created as an alternative to an article although I do note that a lot of recent similar AfDs to this one have concluded in 'delete' which means that the consensus might be changing. My other concern is that I would still say that NOTDIR applies to a list of non-notable schools and I'm struggling to see why we find a directory list of schools acceptable, whether that be as part of the city article or as its own article, yet find directory lists of just about everything else to be unacceptable. I mean it wasn't that long ago that secondary schools were presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone article without exception so maybe this needs looking at from scratch as it seems contradictory. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One aspect is that many users wanted Wikipedia to function as a gazeteer of some sort noting major geographic sites, of which schools (especially government-operated schools) are one of them. As all incorporated municipalities are to have articles, there is an expectation of knowing about their respectively major functional sites like libraries, post offices, fire stations, and schools (especially government-run schools). Now, I notice in one of the AFDs the users wanted the schools being "discussed as a group or set in multiple, reliable secondary sources". I can check with South Korean editors if there are sources about the development of schools in Sejong City (which is a planned city set to be the administrative heart of South Korea). WhisperToMe ( talk ) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it would be good to see what South Korean editors think as I'm not from South Korea so wouldn't have any first-hand experience of this topic. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great news! User:*Youngjin found some stuff we can use: ko:사용자토론:*Youngjin WhisperToMe ( talk ) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Since there is material which does show that the schools are altogether discussed as a group/set in multiple, reliable secondary sources WhisperToMe ( talk ) 03:39, 11 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. | speedy keep |
The Miquon School: It largely consisted of promotional text since 2018(most of which I removed). It's been marked as needing sources since 2011. My search could find nothing other than profile listings of the school or other promotional pieces. 331dot ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools , and Pennsylvania . 331dot ( talk ) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : In general, we do not keep articles about elementary schools, and usually redirect to the local district. This topic may be the exception, being the subject of multiple articles in secondary, independent, reliable sources. I've left 14 sources on the article's talk page from newspapers.com. I have neither exhausted the sources on newspapers.com nor yet checked Proquest, but sourcing about the school's early and ongoing commitment to progressive education may qualify it for WP:GNG . ( WP:ORG exempts non-profit educational institutions: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams , and this school seems to meet WP:GNG ) — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Wiley B. Glass: A quick search on google scholar and google books shows that the biography cited here is more or less the only source that discusses Glass in detail, with a handful of later works referencing the biography. In my opinion, this clearly fails notability. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 05:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity , China , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Morgan, Robert (2000). Nelson's Complete Book of Stories, Illustrations & Quotes . Nashville: Thomas Nelson . p. 70. ISBN 0-7852-4479-4 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "The revival spread through the seminary, the schools, the hospital, and the area churches. Perhaps the deepest impact was made on Culpepper's friend, Wiley B. Glass, a much respected missionary. As Glass sat in the meetings, a man's face came before him and God seemed to be asking him about his attitude toward that man. Glass had hated the man for many years, and suddenly the Holy Spirit brought him under deep conviction." Martin, Catherine (2008). Set My Heart on Fire: Experience the Power of the Holy Spirit . Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House . pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-0-7369-2056-8 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "One day while in a revival meeting, a respected missionary in China, Wiley B. Glass ran to his missionary friend C.L. Culpepper and, in great anguish, asked his friend to pray for him. Both men went to their knees, but Glass pale as death and groaning in his anxiety, was unable to express his agony in words. Culpepper prayed with him, and for him, several times during that day and into the next. Finally, on the evening of the second day, Glass came running to Culpepper and threw his arms around him." Lian, Xi (2010). Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China . New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press . p. 86. ISBN 978-0-300-12339-5 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "In general, the revivals in Shandong were a spontaneous rural movement that Wiley B. Glass, who taught at a Baptist seminary in Huangxian in northeastern Shandong, compared to a "cattle stampede. " Yet Glass also found it to be a genuinely "indigenous" Christianity in contrast to the liberal religion envisioned by the Shanghai-based leaders of the NCC (which he dubbed "a type of foreign-inspired modernism that the Chinese did not readily accept")."" Hockin, Katharine B. (January 1980). "Book Review: Higher Ground: Biography of Wiley B. Glass, Missionary to China". International Bulletin of Mission Research . 4 (1). doi : 10.1177/239693938000400114 . The review notes: "In Higher Ground , Eloise Glass Cauthen presents the story of her missionary father, Wiley B. Glass, who served the Southern Baptist Mission in China for over forty years, ending his work there with the Japanese occupation of Hwanghsien in Shantung. Because of these circumstances his extensive diaries and all records were lost. When Mrs. Cauthen set out to write her father's life story she was dependent on her notes of conversations with her father, who lived into his nineties, clear of mind and always willing to recall details of past events and experiences. Mrs. Cauthen chose to use an autobiographical style to present her tribute to her great missionary father. This reviewer would have preferred a more straightforward narrative treatment instead of the use of the first person for the parental tale. " "Wiley Glass Dies; Former Missionary" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . 1967-11-16. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . There is a separate death notice in the same newspaper here . The obituary notes: "A missionary to China for 42 years, Dr. Glass worked in Shantung province throughout his overseas career. He taught in the North China Baptist Theological Seminary, Hwanghsien, 34 years and served as its principal for eighth years. Interned by the Japanese early in World War II, he was repatriated to the States in 1943. He retired in 1945. A native of Franklin County, Tex., Dr. Glass graduated from Baylor University, Waco, with a B.A. degree and from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky., with a Master of Theology degree. He was awarded the honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by Baylor University in 1919." "Dr Wiley B Glass Honored For 40 Years as Missionary" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . 1954-08-21. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "the man who with his wife brought up five children in China, where Dr. Glass served as a theological teacher. Although he will be 80 Sept. 4. Dr. Glass expects to continue working, using as his motto three verses (5-8) from the second chapter of Philippians. "Let the mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ..."" "Dr. W. B. Glass to Celebrate 80th Birthday With Reunion" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . 1954-08-01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Dr. and Mrs. Glass were missionaries in North China more than 40 years for the Southern Baptist Convention. They had lived in Fort Worth since their return 10 years ago from a Japanese internment camp in China. They have spoken throughout the South in interest of foreign missions. " "Chinese Missionary To Visit In Eagle Rock" . The Daily Review . 1937-04-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "She was married to Mr. Gless after starting her mission work in China where Mr. Glass is also doing church work. " "Dr. Wiley B. Glass" . Chattanooga Daily Times . 1945-08-08. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "A native of Texas, Dr. Glass was interned by the Japanese before his return to the States. He is a graduate of Baylor University and holds the Th.M. degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He served as president of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Hwanghsien, China, from 1924 to 1931." "Arkansan and Two Texans Aboard Jap Vessell Teia Maru" . The Times . 1943-10-15. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Wiley B. Glass and Jessie Pettigrew Glass, Mt. Pleasant, Texas, and Alice Barlow, Hope, Ark., are among the 1,236 American nationals aboard the Japanese ship Teia Maru to be exchanged at Mormugao, Portuguese India, for Japanese nationals from this country, according to an United Press story. " "School of Missions Planned By Baptist Churches of Area" . The Daily Iberian . 1949-09-01. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Tuesday night's speaker will be the Rev. Wiley B. Glass, who served many years as a missionary to China, having been appointed to that country in 1903. For several years he did evangelistic work in Laichow and was then transferred to teach in the seminary at Hwangshien. In 1916 he organized a church in Lungkow, China. He is now retired, living in this country. " "Ex-Baylor Man Makes Record In Missionary Work" . Waco Tribune-Herald . 1936-06-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "He graduated from Baylor in 1901, spent a few years in seminary study, and then sailed for China—an adventurous undertaking some 30 years ago. He has been rewarded with great success as a Christian missionary, though, ... He has sent two daughters and a son back to finish Baylor and other American schools. " "China Missionary Addresses Baptist Congregation Here" . Tyler Morning Telegraph . 1948-12-28. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "The pioneer missionary and Mrs. Glass were interned in a Jap concentration camp in 1942. Since their release from the camp in 1945, they have been making their home in Fort Worth. Although retired because of age, Dr. Glass stated he hope to be able to go back to China for further missionary work. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wiley B. Glass to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 12:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow, I'm surprised you were able to find all of those sources. In that case, withdrawn , and if you have the time it's be great if you'd improve the article with those sources. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 18:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (edit conflict)-- The accusation of WP:OR is clearly wrong since one of the sources is clearly a published biography. The leader of a revival is certainly likely to be notable. The fact that it is by his daughter might imply COI in that, but most missionary biographies are likely to be biased, since they tend to be eulogistic. Despite that, it is clear he was an important missionary. The article may be less than perfect, but that is not uncommon. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:38, 12 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. | speedy keep |
Kholova Fotima: The neutrality of the article is disputed and was created as clear first level advert, even with seeing this . The editor created many drafts with has redirected to here. The sources seems unclear and being questioned. But the article fails WP: GNG , WP: ANYBIO , WP: SPORTSPERSON . Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople . Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Martial arts , and Tajikistan . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Just saw links. Rewriting should be better. The article from my research is notable. Otuọcha ( talk ) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Cavity Search Records: Most notable press is the death of a co-founder. TLA (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per sources in last AfD . Mach61 ( talk ) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: On second thought, you're right. I think it barely meets notability. Don't want to clog up AfD discussions, so I will be withdrawing my nomination accordingly. TLA (talk) 02:03, 15 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. | speedy keep |
Argyll Street: The rest of the article is about the historical buildings on that street, which already have their own articles. Rs chen 7754 17:12, 17 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 17:12, 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. | speedy keep |
CalyxOS: Almost all references are primary. GoFOSS, AlternativeTo and the F-Droid forums are user generated. Kuketz is self-published, MakeUseOf is very borderline (barely above a group blog) and AndroidAuthority is purely a passing mention. That leaves three articles by Moritz Termmel. I searched, and found no suitable book sources, or significant coverage in other reliable publications. It could plausibly be "presumed" notable, but in practice, I really don't think we have enough for an article, since it would be hard to provide even a basic overview without needing to "fill the gaps" with primary sources. DFlhb ( talk ) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . DFlhb ( talk ) 17:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Please also see Talk:CalyxOS . CalyxOS is widely known in phone alternative "ROM" circles, and GrapheneOS supporters frequently criticize it. I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, but I've interacted with DFlhb before; They supported completely removing cited information on GrapheneOS involvement with the ANOM police sting. [6] IMO, the info' somewhat reflected badly on GrapheneOS and the primary developer. However, it is strange that XDA Developers does not include either in their 2023 "most popular custom roms" list. [7] In an article on the ANOM sting, XDA said "This is how the bootloader on a Pixel phone can be locked after flashing a security-hardened custom ROM like CalyxOS or GrapheneOS, and it's likely how the FBI also loaded ArcaneOS onto the Pixel phones they sold to criminals." [8] Alternative "ROMs" are a somewhat obscure topic for Wikipedia, and most of the articles have marginal sourcing, and a lot of COI editing, to be frank. There are more recent sources not included in CalyxOS . I can't get to the actual book, but the summary says: "There are actually a few of these, but the one I would recommend is CalyxOS ." [9] Billionaire Jack_Dorsey 's Start Small [10] is giving a million dollars to Calyx Institute and much of that will likely go to CalyxOS one of their primary projects. Almost any time GrapheneOS is discussed or sold, CalyxOS is mentioned, and sometimes criticized. [11] -- Yae4 ( talk ) 07:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've responded to the insinuations on talk page . I have access to that book, and that sentence is the only passing mention of CalyxOS in it (fails WP:SIGCOV ). It goes without saying that NitroPhone and Dorsey's sites are not reliable secondary sources. DFlhb ( talk ) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yae4 : BTW, that book is in the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library , which you should have access to. Check it out, it's a great resource — DFlhb ( talk ) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding: Note the 3 Tremmel reviews were in two different publications, Golem.de and Linux Magazin. At Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_1#Any_comments_on_new_golem.de_source? for a similar article, it was a single golem.de citation that pushed GrapheneOS over the notability hurdle, according to User:Newslinger now a wiki-admin. I've added a few more citations from the book and scholar searches; it's not clear to me what DFlhb is talking about re "suitable" books. Kuketz is considered expert in IT, and anyone actually reading the series of detailed reviews of independent alternative phone operating systems should see that. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as while the article's references suffered from a prevalence of primary sources, this distribution stands out among Android ROMs for various reasons, many of which are covered by the Linux Magazine (German edition) reference that I've added to the article, which is a lengthy (definitely not incidental) monographic review of CalyxOS. The article about Linux Magazine should, I believe, serve to establish notability of this publication. LjL ( talk ) 18:36, 13 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. | speedy keep |
Ingrid Halstensen: Edit.pdf ( talk ) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep , just because the sources aren’t in English doesn’t justify deleting the article, refer to WP:GLOBAL . There are 9 independent and reliable sources in the article for only two paragraphs, and every statement about her made in the article is supported by multiple references. It almost definitely passes WP:NBLP . Here’s an analysis of the sources that are used in the article: Verdens Gang , the most read online newspaper in Norway [1] Nettavisen , one of the most popular news websites in Norway, no reliability issues. [2] Aftenposten , is Norway's largest printed newspaper by circulation. [3] This feels like it’s going down the same path as the last nomination and I want an explanation from the nominator as to why Ingrid doesn’t pass notability with the amount of references in the article. It almost definitely passes WP:BEFORE (which the nominator should have checked before opening), as you can find way more sources about her by just performing a simple Google search than is actually used in the article (as that would be reference clutter ) . This should have just been reopened if you wanted a clearer consensus. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ http://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/253 ^ https://www.tnslistene.no/? list_id=6&week=22&year=2015&report=week&metric=uv ^ https://medienorge.uib.no/statistikk/medium/avis/190 Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Journalism , and Norway . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep due to the last nomination being closed on 29 May 2023. 89.11.168.122 ( talk ) 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. | speedy keep |
10-Pin Bowling (video game): I couldn't find any sources for it besides listings and the IGN review already in the article, and one review is not enough to satisfy notability. Negative MP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Negative MP1 17:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very generic game with a generic title in itself that could apply to hundreds of games and proof of concept class projects. Nate • ( chatter ) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Mobygames lists reviews from Video Games and Total!, but I was unable to find a scan of the Total! review. With these two reviews and the IGN review on the article, appears to meet GNG. Waxworker ( talk ) 18:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST . It's clear more reviews were found so I would urge the nom to withdraw the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:16, 21 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. | speedy keep |
Manfred K. Warmuth: since this article is more than 90 days old it can not be sent to draft unless it goes to AfD. I believe the article is notable but in its current state it needs work. Right now it has no references or content that would help it pass WP:ACADEMIC . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Sources have improved this article such that I withdraw this nomination. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Expanded now, easy pass of multiple WP:PROF criteria. Dr. vulpes is reminded that deletion is not for cleanup , that draftification is not for backdoor deletions, and that if they see a problem they are welcome to fix it themselves rather than trying to bury it in draftspace in the hope that nobody finds it there and it goes away after six months. Also their phrasing references or content that would help it pass WP:ACADEMIC makes no sense and indicates a failure to understand our notability criteria and to perform WP:BEFORE . It is article subjects that pass notability criteria, not articles themselves, and the academic criteria are not based on references. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fully aware of the rules @ David Eppstein thank you for the reminder. If I wanted to delete the article I would have stated as such, the topic clearly had merit but lacked all the things an article should have, such as content and sources. This attitude that sending articles to Draft is just a backdoor attempt to delete something undermines the purpose of even having drafts. As a polite reminder AfD is the only mechanism available for moving article off main space into draft after 90 days. I understand that this guy is in your field but your attitude and tone is not necessary. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:PROF . Warmuth is a member of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina . TJMSmith ( talk ) 05:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics , Computing , Germany , and California . TJMSmith ( talk ) 05:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
WSWF-LD: Let'srun ( talk ) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This one's surprising me. Turns out it went on air in March 1989, not 1997, and its initial format of tourist information resulted in a few articles in the Orlando press. The station also suffered from a legal dispute and bankruptcy projection. But in typical LPTV fashion, the station didn't use its then-call sign of W19AX; they were "WTTC". Added all this material. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 04:08, 16 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. | speedy keep |
Inshorts: Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India . Owen× ☎ 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Companies , Software , Websites , and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : [5] was closed four days before this AFD was opened with a suggestion that sources mentioned in that discussion should be added to the article. This nomination feels premature. ~ A412 talk! 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:SIGCOV , WP:NCORP , WP:NOTINHERITED , and WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST . I only see one reliable and independent source about this company ; that is not enough coverage. Also, much of the text is about one business person who helped to found it, rather than the company itself. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian ( talk ) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which one you think meets GNG/NCORP? HighKing ++ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* . "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's an entire 19-page-long chapter in an OUP book completely about this topic: doi : 10.1093/oso/9780198879657.003.0005 . -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP . Contributor892z ( talk ) 12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, a TROUT to the nominator for bringing this AfD 4 days after the prior one was closed as keep, and compounding the issue by not ensuring that the sources identified in that recent discussion (in which they participated) were either added to the article or listed here. It just creates more work for the limited group of editors who participate at AfD. It also makes closing more difficult because the closer has no easy way to determine if those sources were considered by delete ! voters. Aside from that, as Asilvering noted (and echoing AusLondonder, who identified the link in the previous discussion) there is an entire chapter about the company in an Oxford University Press publication, so presumably no self-publishing issues there. I cannot read the chapter, but the abstract strongly suggests WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH are met - It's even titled "Inshorts: A Success Story of Short-Form Journalism" and the TOC on the sidebar suggests thorough coverage. Two other links AusLondonder found and not mentioned yet here and again here , both of which appear superior to the existing sources in the article. I'm at weak keep because I can't read the Oxford Press chapter and I'm not certain whether the newspapers are among those known to accept paid content. But under the circumstance I can't get to delete without those answers. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Murder of Fawziyah Javed: Withdrawn. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i still working add for trail for wiki page by -- Sunuraju ( talk ) 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Exceptionally notable case, heavily covered in the media and subject of a two-part documentary on Channel 4, one of the major British TV channels, just a couple of weeks ago. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article needs some cleanup but being featured in a two-part documentary is pretty clear evidence of notability of a crime. The article should be centred on the case and not written as a bio. AusLondonder ( talk ) 11:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Exceptionally notable topic; is the subject of a documentary. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Media coverage is within WP:GNG. Sources looks ok as well. BabbaQ ( talk ) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn, Speedy Keep . microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 10:42, 20 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. | speedy keep |
Bernard Esterhuizen: All I found were results from a single race ( 1 , 2 ). A possible redirect target is Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cycling , Olympics , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some coverage: [22] (includes an Olympian calling him 'The Real Deal of South African cycling') [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : Thank you. I am happy to speedy close if you ! vote keep. JTtheOG ( talk ) 03:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think the coverage is probably enough. Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 03:17, 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. | speedy keep |
Lumber Yard Bar: (I have checked other well known bars and the ones on Wikipedia tend to have famous clientele or events associated with them). Newhaven lad ( talk ) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Business , Sexuality and gender , and Washington . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is clearly met. Article is well-referenced to RS. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep tons of local, regional, and national coverage in the 31 (!) sources provided by the article creator make this unquestionably notable. LGBTQ Nation , based in San Francisco, covered the impact of changes to Washington State regulatory body policy (WSLCB) directly connected to events at this particular bar; it is noted in several local "top establishment" lists and in-depth reviews, as well as being noted as a best-in-nation by the national publication Esquire ; coverage spans from well before the 2021 arson until the present time. When evaluating sources pls note KING-TV#Canadian and out-of-market coverage which states coverage extends well beyond the Puget Sound terrestrial broadcast area with 4 million+ potential viewers; it is carried in Eastern Washington, Canada, Alaska, and even the Bahamas. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy for this to be retained. I struggled to find any meaningful links to other Wiki pages. I know that isn't a reason for deletion, but it makes it harder to justify retention. Perhaps those in favour of retention could add some wikilinks. Newhaven lad ( talk ) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , per comment by nominator --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:47, 23 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. | speedy keep |
Buffseeds: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years ; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but they do have an AllMusic bio here and album review here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep moving to full keep as they pass criterion 2 of WP:NMUSIC with four singles charting on the UK Official Singles Chart and they also had an album place in a secondary chart the UK Independent Albums Chart as shown here . As well as the AllMusic sources linked above there is also coverage at PopMatters , and Exclaim here and here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after the commendable detective work carried out above by Atlantic306. Chubbles ( talk ) 22:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per above, thanks, Atlantic306 , I'm convinced. Boleyn ( talk ) 04:13, 22 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. | speedy keep |
Ankathatti: Does not appear on the 2011 census tables, found here: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/census-tables I am also unable to find any sources demonstrating notability. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Did find a mention of the village on one of the census tables. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
List of Indian Premier League records and statistics: And we also have most of the same stats for each team individually in separate articles such as List of Chennai Super Kings records , so there's literally no point duplicating this content with more additional random stats in a complete IPL stats mess article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , Lists , and India . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF , but there is a good precedent for this type of article. Premier League records and statistics , List of Cricket World Cup records (a Featured list), List of NHL records (individual) , List of Test cricket records (another Featured list). Sure, at the moment this article doesn't do it very well, but we judge the subject, not the content. A quick Google search for "IPL records" shows there there is plenty of notability of this subject. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "IPL team-wise records exist, so there's no need for this" isn't a valid rationale for deletion. There's even a featured list for this type of articles- List of Cricket World Cup records . With a simple google search, we can find many sources which discusses about IPL records (sometimes as a group). And often we see news/coverage like this- X player scored the fastest century in IPL . Y team records the highest total in an innings in IPL and so on. So, article clearly passes WP:NLIST . Since cricinfo is the best and most reliable source for stats, it's normal that the list will be copied or taken from Cricinfo. If the explanatory text in the lead can be a bit more expanded, it will also meet the requirements of WP:NOTSTATS . RoboCric ( talk ) 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that we can make encyclopedic content about the Cricket World Cup statistics doesn't mean that we can make encyclopedic content out of IPL stats. WP:OSE . Also, the team ones are relevant, because this is just duplication of them, we don't need both sets of duplicating statistics. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where did you get the idea that this is a duplication of team stats. Suppose, KKR have recorded the highest ever team total (by any team) in IPL. Then, can a random reader find this record or know about the highest total in IPL match by going to the stats page of CSK or any other team. Team records stay within the team. While this list is a collection of full IPL tournament stats, who is the overall highest run-scorer, highest wicket-taker etc.. . And as said, IPL records have plenty of coverage in news articles or other websites. RoboCric ( talk ) 02:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. Article subject is notable enough, and passes WP:NLIST . Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per the above. It is not unreasonable to have the overall records and statistics for a competition. Perhaps in places it needs to be tidied, and any team statistics perhaps redirected here. StickyWicket ( talk ) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm not sure if the nominator understands how cricket statistics work. St Anselm ( talk ) 01:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPA . Yes, I understand how cricket stats work, you can disagree with me without questioning my competency. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If anybody wants to see ipl records, they get all the records on this page. Also, most people use Wikipedia for information purposes, so why do they want to waste time by scrolling random websites? In international cricket there are also different pages for overall international records and team records, but I don't think you understand that both are different. That's why you consider articles for deletion. Bhargavkc0089 ( talk ) 04:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'd say this list is worthy of keeping from the number of IPL lists there are as it more easily condenses information for the reader, having this in the main IPL page would make it of undue length. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:11, 22 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. | speedy keep |
Battle of Sangrana: From what I can tell, this event was the casus belli for a larger battle which is described here- [13] and per Surjit Singh Gandhi's book- [14] . This event is far better suited being accosted as the casus belli of the next battle wich actually seems to be consequential. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 12:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator: Best suited for a redirect as per Moriwen. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Battle of Amritsar (1634) , after merging any well-sourced content. The term "Battle of Sangrana" appears in a few books, so it doesn't seem like an implausible search term. — Moriwen ( talk ) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right. I will go ahead and relist this an article for redirect. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk ) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:55, 12 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. | speedy keep |
Chicago Strangler: As arrests have been made in this case, it's been a number of people committing two or three of the crimes attributed to this theoretical person. It is much more likely that, instead of there being one Chicago Strangler, the violence perpetrated on these women is instead a reflection of the way in which we do not value the lives of women of color, especially women of color who engage in sex work. Mhuertaschicago ( talk ) 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mhuertaschicago , nothing you're writing constitutes a reason for deletion. We have lots of articles about theoreticized concepts. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Agreeing with Geschichte. Regarding your last sentence, see WP:OR and WP:RGW Atubofsilverware ( talk ) 03:35, 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. | speedy keep |
Australia's Most Wanted: Only refs are from IMDb, tv.com and ovguide.com. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Crime , and Australia . Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found two independent reviews from Australian newspapers. " This crime show's more wanted than ever " in Melbourne's The Age (April 24, 1997), and " Murder, cops, and stand-up corpses " in The Sydney Morning Herald (March 8, 1989). Furthermore, the article " Bryan's arresting success " in the Morning Herald (June 11, 1989) says " Australia's Most Wanted has been a hit right around Australia in the toughest spot on prime time TV." Another article in the Morning Herald (Aug 10, 1989) backs up the article's claim that children were frightened by the program: " Australia's Most Wanted is murder for some children ". Hit TV show, definitely notable. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per the sources @ Toughpigs provided Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 02:50, 21 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. | speedy keep |
Folkestone Vikings: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not my subject area and I'm not about to go digging for this stuff, but note that neither of the statements given in the nomination are deletion reasons - for any type of article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Or redirect to a page on their league, though I am not sure such a page exists. The current iteration of their league, BAFA National Leagues does not describe the league in the 1980s and 1990s, and only lists defunct teams from 2000 and later, so that is not an ideal target. Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree with Aydoh8's assessment of the nomination statement, and that being an WP:ORPHAN and the article not containing much useful information are not valid reasons. I am okay if the AFD is procedurally closed for this reason despite my delete vote on other grounds. Frank Anchor 13:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per criteria 1. There is no deletion rationale being proposed here. Let'srun ( talk ) 00:33, 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. | speedy keep |
Audi DTM V8 engine: I've first proposed to merge this to Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine as they are the same as the production engines. Well, the numbers suggest that they are, not as 'prototype' as the article creator claimed. Since it sat unaddressed, I made the decision to merge, this got reverted because I forgot to add the editing summary. I redid this, which again got reverted. These articles are nothing but written stats without asserting notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : @ SpacedFarmer : when you place a maintenance tag on an article, including proposing a merge with a {{merge}} tag, you are expected to start the discussion, and no evidence of that being done exists before you, yet again, rush to deletion. A basic WP:BEFORE check also should have landed coverage in Top Gear [11] and Jalopnik . [12] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no comment on the substantive issue here, but must point out that SpacedFarmer did start a discussion , but nobody replied. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Phil Bridger : thanks for the correction. I only checked Audi DTM V8 engine and not Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine . My bad. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:N , plenty of sources. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Only one article here is nominated. This is not how a bundled nomination is formatted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Article referenced and standardized with other articles about engines. If there is a better explanation for the alleged "low quality", I will change my vote, but in principle, nothing justifies a WP:TNT . Svartner ( talk ) 08:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Without prejudice on the merger. gidonb ( talk ) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Request to withdraw – I never got rerespond as I had been locked out of my account for the last few weeks. Whilst I still believe this should be merged as they are the same, I think it is appropriate to continue any conversation into WP:CARS . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
D. C. Douglas: Trivial mentioned sources like this [19] aren't helpful for GNG. Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He seems to pass the subject-specific notability guideline of WP:NACTOR due to his numerous roles in notable works of media, and prolific acting career. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . I suggest the nominator familiarize themselves with WP:NACTOR which is on the generous side. Douglas easily has enough roles in significant productions to qualify. The borderline cases for NACTOR are like "one moderately successful role, no sources at all on personal life, some minor stuff nobody cares about," which this topic is light-years ahead of. SnowFire ( talk ) 07:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Even NACTOR aside, multiple sources write about things that Douglas posts, like this . As for COI and OWN issues, the former is easily rectified by any one other editor verifying whether there's NPOV issues or not; the latter, I don't see anything suggesting Douglas is edit warring, at least not recently. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NACTOR. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , even if the article is messy it meets WP:NACTOR , and possibly GNG (albeit weakly) per Cukie. The conflict of interest is better off bringing up at the associated noticeboard . λ Negative MP1 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I apologize for not being familiar with WP:NACTOR. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 08:54, 29 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. | speedy keep |
Leander Rising: Only notable for reality show participation. Pottyantós WC ( talk ) 09:05, 23 September 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 September 23 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - nom made by indefinitely blocked editor. Covers NSONG per charting songs anyway. WP:GNG as well. BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Tibai family: Shaws username . talk . 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Per nom. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I will expand the article in days. I don't know why you have to nominate an article for deletion after an hour (!) instead of using the talkpage. -- Norden1990 ( talk ) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I see Norden1990 already did hundred of well sourced Hungarian medieval articles, just recently: Kaplon_(genus) , John Tibai , Urgesta , I think it is just matter of time, and he will finish it properly. OrionNimrod ( talk ) 17:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing ! vote to keep per Norden1990 and OrionNimrod: I didn't check to see when this article was created before not voting, but we shouldn't be quick to AfD a just-created page that is being worked on by an active editor. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as nom, although I would add @ Norden1990 : that this could be avoided by using the sandbox or draft space instead of placing in progress articles in the mainspace. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:45, 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. | speedy keep |
Ma Chu Ka: Only things found were film database sites, promotional material and articles about the actresses appearance in the film but nothing about the film itself. Deleted in PROD, but restored. Nothing new added except a "nowrunning" review, but per this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_118#Nowrunning , that does not appear notable. Donald D23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Donald D23 talk to me 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala and Tamil Nadu . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . There is also a review by Santhosh Aechikkanam . The film only has 2 characters, so I don't see any problem with sources talking about one of them. DareshMohan ( talk ) 01:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Two reviews exist, passes WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article has been improved by DareshMohan since nomination. Even if Nowrunning is not the best of sites, coverage of the production and of the film's particularities in reliable sources seem to make it notable enough. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per concensus. Donald D23 talk to me 14:21, 29 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. | speedy keep |
Sandeep Kshirsagar: Maliner ( talk ) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , India , and Maharashtra . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: They meet WP:NPOL as an elected member of a state/province legislature in Indian. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 01:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Indian state legislators pass WP:NPOL . Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 06:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as legislators pass WP:NPOL 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 09:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️ Let's Talk ! 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state legislature. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Mansi Sharma: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:BLP1E as model. Fails notability . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellore Aarathi ( talk • contribs ) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – fails notability and no prominent roles in shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellore Aarathi ( talk • contribs ) 16:35, 27 March 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 March 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Surely WP:NACTOR is the relevant standard? — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Uttar Pradesh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The actress doesn't play any crucial role in shows, she only received slight attention in Mahabharat however she also played a small role in that. Overall fails WP:NACTOR . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 ( talk ) 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very minor roles which is not recognisable. Fails WP:NACTOR . (nominator voting several times here and might be the IP editor L iz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Looks like WP:BEFORE search was not done. The subject passes WP:NACTOR as she has had significant roles in Choti Sarrdaarni and Acha Dhin . Also passes WP:NBASIC as these are not from trivial coverage . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I want to see if there is more support for a Keep. Though why the nominator is citing WP:NPOL is beyond me. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete : No sources of her in recent times, truely unaware if she is even in the entertainment industry anymore. Delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isha.Narain ( talk • contribs ) 05:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. PhilKnight ( talk ) 11:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have blocked the nominator for sock puppetry. PhilKnight ( talk ) 11:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - the only delete is from an IP which doesn't count, and the nom is void, so this should be kept. PhilKnight ( talk ) 14:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Epeli Saukuru: I was able to find this and this , which doesn't seem to be enough. JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Oceania . JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - refs added. There are plenty of refs on the Fiji Sun ; I've added a few, and its just a matter of picking out the good ones from the usual coverage. -- IdiotSavant ( talk ) 03:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Lucy Elliott: Streaming work is not notable. A WP:BEFORE found nothing better. The creator removed the PROD nomination but did not add any useful content or references. Annh07 ( talk ) 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' - This emerging actor does not meet notability criteria for WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG . An online search reveals user-submitted content, primary sources and social media, but I was unable to find SIGCOV. Netherzone ( talk ) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my ! vote to Keep - altho it is a weak K**p. This change is based on Chocmilk03 's improvements per WP:HEY . It's a weak keep because she does not meet NACTOR, however with the improvements she does meet GNG, altho the sources seem more like human interest stories and some are primary sources (interviews) rather than serious analyses of her work itself. Netherzone ( talk ) 13:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More than enough coverage in NZ media [30] , [31] which is probably the best, then [32] and this for fun [33] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your help in finding additional sources. I have not found any sources that write in-depth about her work or roles in the movies she has participated in. The sources you have provided are just side stories about life, I think that's not enough. She is described as an actress but there are no articles about her acting work. In addition, she has only participated in 2-3 movies. Annh07 ( talk ) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi @ Oaktree b , I respect your work on AfDs very much, and thanks for finding those sources. Is Stuff considered a reliable source? It seems a bit tabloid-like, but I'm not really familiar with it. Netherzone ( talk ) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's the New Zealand Stuff, I think it is, but I don't see it in the RS list [34] . Seems to be unrelated to the Maxim one we used to see here in North America, almost like a People magazine. I'll keep looking for sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ungh, I wondered when I'd run into this "Some results may have been delisted consistent with local laws." Canada and it seems New Zealand have fought with media aggregators over hosting news, so some have pulled coverage here (facebook doesn't allow Canadian news to be displayed, I guess Google has gotten in on the fun now). This was in NZ Woman's Day [35] . Should at at least be a weak keep with the two newspapers and these other sources. The Woman's Day piece doesn't seem sensational and has a by-line, it's a rather frank talk about her fight with depression. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone and @ Oaktree b , for what it's worth, and very much despite the name, Stuff is one of New Zealand's two major well-established news websites (the other being The New Zealand Herald ; I would consider them equally reliable). It is absolutely a reliable source, but subject to the guidance at WP:RSEDITORIAL about checking individual articles on a case-by-case basis (e.g. it reprints content from news agencies without checking accuracy, and human interest reporting isn't as reliable). Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 20:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, good to know! Netherzone ( talk ) 21:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : IMDB says she was in 57 episodes of Shortland Street, which is a soap opera, that would probably pass the notability requirements for actors, I think. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked the Shortland Street cast list , there are 7 people who have acted in more than 1000 episodes and more than 100 people who have acted in more than 100 episodes, which is a huge difference compared to Lucy Elliott's role. In addition, IMDB is not a reliable source ( WP:IMDB ), we cannot rely entirely on it. Annh07 ( talk ) 19:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's more just the fact that it confirms she's an actress, we already have confirmation of her role in the articles above, that just adds colour to it. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm doubtful if that is enough to meet WP:NACTOR , the criteria states: Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. It would be helpful if we knew whether her role in Shortland Street was major or minor. If it was a major role, then that would count towards criteria #1, however the requirement is multiple notable productions. Netherzone ( talk ) 21:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've worked through the sources as part of expanding the article, and though it's borderline, I think I'd err on the side of keep. Shortland Street is probably New Zealand's most notable television show and the amount of coverage demonstrates that her role was significant. She doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR (which requires significant roles in multiple notable productions), but failure to meet this criteria is not conclusive. She does meet WP:GNG . Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:41, 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. | speedy keep |
Radhika Rao: References are clickbait, interviews, PR and profiles. No secondary sourcing. scope_creep Talk 10:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and India . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I reviewed some film reviews in linked articles for films she has directed, e.g. for Sanam Teri Kasam The Hindu , IANS in the Hindustan Times , in this article, there is also The Indian Express ; for Lucky: No Time for Love , BBC , India Today ; for I Love New Year , Filmfare , NDTV ; for Yaariyan 2 , Firstpost , TimesNow . I think with multiple reviews for multiple films, WP:DIRECTOR notability has support, and this article could be updated to include secondary coverage, and to remove the unreliable sources and promotional content. Beccaynr ( talk ) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you considered WP:NEWSORGINDIA Looks like The Indian Express is problematic, especially when we're talking about establishing notability. Graywalls ( talk ) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am aware of these concerns generally, but for the Indian Express review in this article, this is bylined, not "Brand Solutions" content, and it is a 1-star review. I also removed many sources from this article that appeared to be promotional press-release style coverage, and have not considered them as support for notability. Also, the Firstpost review was not glowing, to say the least, but did speak to Rao's other work in addition to the reviewed film. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Comment The article seems to have some merit. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep Talk 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] you sure? Graywalls ( talk ) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'm prettty confident in Beccaynr's ability to analyse an article for notability. scope_creep Talk 11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - While I think there is more work that can be done, I have made updates to the article to incorporate reviews, including with an assist from WP:ICTFSOURCES , and to remove non-RS and what appears to be promotional content. I think keep is supported per WP:DIRECTOR #3 per multiple notable works with multiple reviews, including secondary coverage of her collective body of work. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:41, 14 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. | speedy keep |
List of films featuring space stations: Fictional depictions of space stations is a notable topic, hence our existing article on the subject, but a list simply recording movies that have space stations appearing in them runs afoul of WP:NOT . Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn - Per the discussion with Jclemens below, I feel like I did not nominate this article with a valid reason, so I am Withdrawing the nomination. Rorshacma ( talk ) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Film , and Spaceflight . Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How many others of Category:Lists of films by topic or Category:Lists of films by common content are you planning on deleting next? Andy Dingley ( talk ) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I haven't looked through those, I will say that in many cases a list of things categorized by a topic is different then a list of things categorized by something specific that appeared in them , which is what this list is. This one happened to stick out to me because I know that our Space stations and habitats in fiction article was completely rewritten due to an AFD prompted by it initially being nothing but a list of things with space stations in them. Rorshacma ( talk ) 22:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I created this article based on WP:NOTESAL , which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." These were the core list reliable sources that justify the nature of this list in the first place: "Space Stations in Movies" . Rocket City Space Pioneers . Dynetics . Archived from the original on December 17, 2013 . Retrieved July 26, 2013 . Kramer, Miriam (August 8, 2013). "Our 10 Favorite Sci-Fi Space Stations of All Time" . Space.com . TechMediaNetwork, Inc. Westfahl, Gary (2009). Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature . Borgo Press. ISBN 978-1-4344-0356-8 . Looking now, I am not seeing more than the above that I found at the time (2013). It feels on the threshold of notability for me, so I'll let others decide. If the consensus is that there should not be a standalone list, let's at least have a film and/or TV section at Space stations and habitats in fiction highlighting what the above list sources name. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] EDIT: Actually, this indicates that the book Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space seems to have a "Space Stations in the Movies and on TV" chapter or section. If we can find more, that would be great. Erik ( talk | contrib ) ( ping me ) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Science fiction is a specific genre of movie, a subset of which involve a space station, and that subset has been discussed in RS as shown above. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, I don't think that argument really counters the text at WP:CROSSCAT , since it could be plugged in to argue for the examples specifically cited there as things to avoid. The issue is that this is not a list or article on "Space Station Films" (which even if that could be considered a genre, would still likely be better off covered at Space stations and habitats in fiction ), but simply a list of movies in which the same object appears at some point (in this case, a space station). As I mentioned above, there's a difference between a list covering films of the same genre or topic (i.e. List of films about horse racing ) and one just listing films in which a certain "thing" happens to appear (i.e., List of Films With Horses ). Rorshacma ( talk ) 23:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that everything in WP:CROSSCAT has two entirely unrelated items. Affinity and employment, or cuisine and city, are entirely orthogonal, and naturally do not routinely show up in RS'es because of that lack of association. As Erik pointed out above, this cross-categorization does, much like a book on the best Bagel shops in New York City would render a list of those no longer a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization despite the example in CROSSCAT. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Heung Shing: The Chinese article seems a bit better, but it translates poorly and I am not sure if it does or if it sources are good. BEFORE in English failed to find much, but maybe sources to rescue this exist in Chinese? Confusing content doesn't help with our article (it's a fictional city but it has a history section that suggests it has real archeological history? Ditto for geography). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Education , China , and Hong Kong . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to the zh.wp article, it's just a fictional city, and the History and Archaeology subheadings here appear to be written in in-universe tone. I'll make time to check the sources after work. Folly Mox ( talk ) 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, that didn't work. I did look for sources just now. This source does verify it's a fictional city used in exam questions for Hong Kong highschoolers, and goes on at some length about different fictional elements of the city and which years they were made up. It might not be an independent source; I have no idea how their academic system works, but I feel like the host for that source is involved with the administration of the test in which "Heung Hsing" appears. This source indicates it also lends its name to some sort of educational programming; unclear if the topic is the same or if it's just using the same words. Chinese sources indicate that "Heung Shing"s native name is also shared by: a historical toponym mentioned in the Shuijing , near modern Yongcheng ; a chain of hotels in Taiwan; a botanical garden in Suzhou . At least. It's not super clear to me whether this topic is an educational conceit with something of a broader currency, like Alice and Bob , Foobar , or Spherical cow ; or something super niche, only of interest to highschoolers, highschool educators, and test designers. I was low key thinking initially that a merge into Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education might be appropriate, but I'm not sure where in the article would be a good spot for it. It has a lot of incoming mainspace links, but all of them seem to be via transclusion of Template:Education in Hong Kong (I definitely may have missed some; I'm pretty sleepy). Folly Mox ( talk ) 04:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the sources provided by Folly Mox. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard ( talk ) 12:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Wonderful job. I am ready to withdraw unless anyone else sees some problems? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:10, 12 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. | speedy keep |
Download The True Story of the Internet: Tagged for notability since 2020. Only 1 review found Donald D23 talk to me 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Science , Internet , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "Unravelling the Web" . Foxtel . July 2008. p. 38 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "The four-part series Download: The True Story of the Internet , hosted by award-winning journalist and author John Heilemann, has unprecedented access to the men and women who have become synonymous with the Internet ... The final episode looks at the current trend of Web 2.0 —- a revolution that’s shifting the focus away from the big companies to the Internet users themselves, who are uploading content and creating the online communities shaping the Net's future and building its power." "Discovering the intricacies of the web" . The Hindu . 2008-08-30. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "The story, called 'Download: The true story of the internet', is hosted by technology journalist John Heileman. The series tries to capture the changing phases of the internet through the boom and bust of dotcom, Bill Gates' journey into a brave new world and the expanse of You Tube and My Space. It also dwells on the browser war, the search war and the e-commerce revolution." Weintraub, Joanne (2008-03-02). "Television - Immortal life is less happy than it seems" . Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "At first, "Download: The True Story of the Internet" (8 and 9 p.m. Monday and Tuesday, Science Channel) comes on way too strong with some excruciatingly obvious points: The music industry runs on greed! Newspapers are threatened by Craigslist! Information-sharing rules!This two-night, four-hour miniseries starts getting interesting only when hyperactive host John Heilemann pipes down and lets the founders of Google, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, Yahoo, Amazon, et al., do the talking, making it a must to record and watch with a trigger finger on fast-forward." Watson, Frank (2008-03-05). "Discovery's Science Channel Has Good New Series On Internet" . Search Engine Watch . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "“Download: The True Story of the Internet is about a revolution — the technological, cultural, commercial and social revolution that has radically changed our lives,” is how the Discovery describes it. It makes for a great history lesson for people new to the industry and answers some of the urban myths surrounding our industry as well. Put the time aside and watch them, you will be glad you did." McDonough, Kevin (2008-03-03). "TV Guy: Tracey Gold mines moms' secret lives" . Times Herald-Record . United Media . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: ""Download" begins with "Browser Wars," an entertaining look back at the mid-1990s, when a group of upstart engineers and a company named Netscape threatened the supremacy of industry leader Microsoft. "Wars" covers the meteoric rise of Netscape and Microsoft's tenacious response with Explorer, a browser that rapidly became the industry standard. The war would culminate in a prolonged antitrust case that, Heilemann argues, humiliated and chastened Microsoft chairman Bill Gates. A second hour of "Search" (10 p.m.) follows. Two more installments of "Download" will air next Tuesday. " Bronson, Diane (2010-08-08). "Celebrating Web's 20 Years" . Savannah Morning News . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: ""Download: The True Story of the Internet": The four DVDs in this series look at the development of Web browsers, the founding of Amazon.com and eBay, the impact of Google Search and Adwords, and the rise of Web 2.0 and social networking - all of which were nonexistent 20 years ago, and have radically changed the world. " "Best in Show" . mX . 2008-07-18. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "As the title suggests, this intriguing documentary is the story behind the development of the internet and the battle over control of the web's search engines. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, right, is the corporate heavyweight determined to cash in the dotcom boom. His nemesis: a group of university students who want to make the fledgling world wide web more user friendly. " "TV Guide" . Sunday Mail . 2008-08-10. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The review notes: "Edgy, combative reporter John Heilemann revels in the craziness of this journey into Silicon Valley and the internet revolution. Tonight's ep reveals how Google became a vast corporation. First-hand testimony from the computer geeks who have changed the way we live and do business makes the story-telling personal, dramatic and surprisingly humorous. " "TV Guide" . The Courier-Mail . 2008-07-06 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "Discover how the geeks inherited the Earth, in this fascinating four-part series that traces the evolution of the internet. It meets the technological visionaries who have changed the way we live and made untold billions along the way. Interviews with the founders of eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, Netscape, Google and more reveal the amazing stories behind a decade of astonishing change. " Johns, Ian (2008-08-10). "The Observer: Otv: Wednesday 13 August: Digital: Pick of the Day: Download: The True Story of the Internet Discovery Science, 9PM" . The Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The review notes: "An entertainingly told three-part series begins with how 'a bunch of twentysomething, code-crunching, burger-guzzling kids' came up with a web browser in 1993 that would challenge the dominant 'geek nirvana' of Microsoft and ultimately open the way for the Google era. " "Spinning a web" . The Statesman . 2008-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "Beginning with the browser war between Netscape and Internet Explorer, the series progresses to tell the tale about how in a high-tech world, even the most powerful empires can disappear in one click. In The Search War, we look at Google. Welcome to a world where you can find anything. Just three years ago there was no Google and five years before that there was no way at all to search the Internet. The companies that took a stab at search engines included iconic names like Yahoo! and Excite, before Google came in. " Oliver, Robin (2008-07-07). "Pay TV - Tuesday 8th July" . The Sydney Morning Herald . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "The founders of Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, eBay and Netscape tell how in less than 10 years the internet took over our lives and how they made fortunes along the way. These geeky, computer-obsessed nerds became turn-of-the-century visionaries in less time than it takes most people to gain their first promotion. " Briggs, Stacy (2008-03-03). "3-3 TV" . The Intelligencer . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "This special, hosted by John Heilemann, a journalist who has covered Silicon Valley for decades, begins with "Browser Wars," an entertaining look back at the mid-1990s, when a group of upstart engineers and a company named Netscape threatened the supremacy of industry leader Microsoft. "Wars" covers the meteoric rise of Netscape and Microsoft's tenacious response with Explorer, a browser that rapidly became the industry standard. " Johns, Ian (2008-08-31). "OTV: Wednesday September 3rd: Digital: Pick of the Day" . The Observer . Archived from the original on 2023-10-28 . Retrieved 2023-10-28 . The article notes: "This sprightly history concludes with the web-enabled people power begun by Napster, the music downloading site that pioneered the concept of sharing files, and the phenomenon of YouTube, online social networking and the interactivity of the Web 2.0 revolution. And it shows that figures such as Rupert Murdoch can no longer enjoy an unchallenged dominance: he may have bought MySpace but there are always new rivals such as Facebook emerging to tangle for supremacy. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Download: The True Story of the Internet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn due to the sources provided by Cunard. Donald D23 talk to me 18:43, 29 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. | speedy keep |
Ahmad Irandoost: No WP:SIGCOV . Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Wrestling , and Iran . UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Liverpolitan identity: The wording of the lede has also been changed to support the sourcing. A further explanation can be made within the lede for any further clarification. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 19:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to withdraw my assumption that the author was affiliated to the blog. As it is pretty much the only result on the first page of Google I thought it was worth flagging. This further supports my argument that this is article does not meet notability guidelines. Unfortunately the author has removed the WP:N template I added. Orange sticker ( talk ) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep This AfD does not begin with a clearly articulated deletion rationale and it is unclear who the nominator is. There are no bolded Keep or Delete comments. This should be withdrawn by the nominator because it is such a mess. Cullen328 ( talk ) 01:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, as I was typing my original post the author had already posted a comment which created a conflict and my post was lost. I agree it should be closed and reopened in the correct format. Orange sticker ( talk ) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep - Agree; perhaps suggesting would have been a better approach than my tidying up of another editor's nomination. Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Unfortunately, I think the nominator has chosen to take this article far too personally. I have clear evidence on social media that the editor is politically motivated to undermine this work because she personally hates the subject and identifies as a Scouser . She has called the Liverpolitan demonym an attempt by a bunch of snobs to encourage stigma against the city of Liverpool. This is simply not a good enough reason to delete well written, well researched work which has taken many hours to carefully interpret and elucidate. The editor clearly has also not read the citations. Everything written in the article is supported by them. To suggest there are few results on the term is also disingenuous. There are clear results for Liverpolitan as an historic term dating back to the Victorian age. Amongst:
scholars https://scholar.google.com/scholar? q=%22Liverpolitan%22 JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch? Query=liverpolitan&so=rel Books https://www.google.com/search? tbs=bks:1&q=%22Liverpolitan%22+-wikipedia Furthermore, there are articles on Wiki regarding tribes and languages that most of the world has never heard of and probably never will. Should we go around deleting them all because they are not popular. Wiki is not a popularity contest between identities. The editor above should withdraw the nomination. She has also been accommodated through improvements to the article. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A few thoughts here: The AfD should be closed, and the article renominated properly. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary . "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word " Liverpudlian " is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The WP:COMMONNAME for people and things related to Liverpool is 'Liverpudlian'. Setting up an article about the identity of people from Liverpool and calling it 'Liverpolitan' was clearly going to be controversial. The common sense resolution here would be for the article title to be changed to 'Liverpudlian', the content to be completely rewritten to be about the identity itself, not about the history of the words used to describe that identity, and a small section on 'Liverpolitan' included somewhere near the end of the article. Anything else is just someone pushing a fringe point of view and creating an article to lead opinion. Axad12 ( talk ) 12:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think you have misused the WP:COMMONNAME policy here. That policy simply means that an article should be allocated the appropriate name to reflect its content. In this case Liverpolitan is the correct title for the page as it is the most dominant subject within the article. As for "Liverpudlian" that topic has already been discussed within the article. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy, nor does it shy away from noncomformist identities, however, some people like to demean them, ignore them or pretend they are of little worth or significance. The article has taken great pains to simplify the fact that Scouse is the most popular demonym. It does not pretend otherwise so that must allay any confusion. Therefore, the article displays sufficient Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you say, as the author. There is clearly an argument that Wikipedia is not the place for an article which would more accurately be titled 'Use of the term Liverpolitan'. If you can't see that then you're too invested in the subject. Also your inference that I'm trying to demean nonconformist identities is completely out of order. Surely an editor can express a genuine good faith opinion about an article without having to put up with an unsubstantiated borderline personal attack of that nature. It is perfectly clear that my comment related to what I considered the common name for people from Liverpool to be. Nothing else. Axad12 ( talk ) 14:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Article name change I apologise if you have been offended. But this should not be about pushing a fringe point of view and not about pushing the view that Liverpool only has one identity and one history either. It obviously does not. Completely re-writing the article or re-naming it to something which is not the most prominent subject is not common sense. The article has already been acknowledged as well researched. Therefore, let's not misunderstand the common sense policy. I like your common sense idea to re-name the article to 'Use of the term Liverpolitan' as the title of the page - it is a perfectly acceptable compromise. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: 'I apologise if you have been offended'. Thank you for the classic non-apology. Would you like to try again with that, or do you consider it okay for editors to make broad-sweeping allegations about the political beliefs of all the editors who disagree with them on interpretations of Wikipedia admin policy? Your general interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to be that any policy has sufficient leeway to enable you to do whatever you please and that simply claiming that something is 'common sense' trumps all other considerations. It's also interesting to see (below) that you felt it was appropriate for an article's author to try to sum up the result of the deletion conversation and say what should happen next. The purpose of these sorts of conversations is primarily for uninterested editors to express their opinions, not for the article's author to dominate the discussion by taking immediate issue with every opinion that they disagree with and trying to falsely discredit other good faith editors expressing reasonable concerns. Axad12 ( talk ) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My apology was made with good faith. As for 'what happens next'. Of course I am part of that conversation. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is well known that 'I apologise if you have been offended' is a specific formula widely used to make intentionally bad faith non-apologies. You may have had an unpleasant experience with another user off-Wiki, and I deplore that as much as you do, but that is no reason to imply that a 3rd party who also happens to disagree with you is motivated by the same aims. It is regrettable that you don't seem able to acknowledge that. Okay, I'm done here. Axad12 ( talk ) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:COMMON The common sense thing to do would be to leave things as they are and to allow the article to develop. Contributors are of course free to add independent, reliable, English-language sources of their own or to make additions to the article itself. To take a sledgehammer to the whole thing is, in and of itself, pushing a view that Liverpool has one identity. Enough leeway is already given for contributors to embelish on the Scouse article, even to add the Liverpudlian identity on there. There is enough room to expand that article since it says very little about the fact that the Scouse identity did not come in to being until the mid-20th century. Editors are disingenuous to leave that fact out. The person who started this whole discussion has been caught out on social media pushing a political argument against any references to Liverpolitan. This is beyond impartial judgement and started out this whole discussion with the accusation that I was affiliated to the magazine. In that time, improvements and changes have been made to the article to better reflect the comments made and to ensure a neutral point of view. To recap - the common sense policy recommends not getting too caught up in rules, rather at times that it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. The common goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. The article exudes common sense as it is and it could not be made any clearer that this is not the dominant identity. The controversy suits those with a political goal - not the other way around. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The term still needs supporting with reliable sources that are specific to the term to support an article. Ignoring a basic building block isn't going to work. To discuss the "Liverpolitan identity" there needs to be actual articles discussing the "Liverpolitan identity" specifically to give it actual context, and articles that are not about the "Liverpolitan identity" but instead about Liverpool, Liverpudlians or Scousers are not relevant and blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to try and lend weight to the topic by giving Liverpolitan a primacy that it doesn't have. Liverpolitan could be summed up in about three sentences. Liverpolitan is a demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool. Liverpolitan has been proposed as a demonym for the Liverpool City Region. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage. The idea of a "Liverpolitan identity" is therefore incredibly niche. Koncorde ( talk ) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have attempted to change the article page name to Liverpolitan to allow it more time to develop. An admin has changed the name back to Liverpolitan identity but I would be happy for there to be a name change and allow more time. Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Requires much better sources if it's to be kept. Of the ones I could check, 1 mentions Liverpolitan and several of the others don't even mention Liverpool. Red Fiona ( talk ) 00:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What references are you checking? Are you checking these? Liverpolitan_identity#References Liverpolitan1980 ( talk ) 00:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] | speedy keep |
Basic Shape: Boleyn ( talk ) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NBAND. I've added content and references. Subject had album reviews, they toured Australia and their music was played on national radio. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 06:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , is now properly referenced and satisfies the requirements of WP:NBAND . Dan arndt ( talk ) 08:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination I am happy to be proved wrong, and have removed the notability tag too. Thanks for your hard work. Boleyn ( talk ) 09:48, 15 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. | speedy keep |
Spirit Lost: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I was able to find where one scholar covered this film twice in her works, but unfortunately wasn't able to find much more. I was hoping I could save this one, as I remember seeing this on the shelves of my local video stores all the time and it made me a bit nostalgic for those days. Ah well. If someone can find more, I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the excellent work by Cunard ! Well done! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nancy Thayer - No clue why the current source for 1944 movie is in article, but in Thayer's article I found a mention of a source that mentions the book being adapted to this movie (Contemporary authors. Volume 155 p.400) . There is more on next page about the book and it mentions and quotes specifically a review of book in Kirkus Reviews [31] . If we can find more reliable sources, could perhaps be an article for both the book and/or movie. Noticed the two book sources added as I was writing this, but as mention same author. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noticed a review in Neema Barnette 's article, from Indianapolis Recorder - "`Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller" June 10, 1995 [32] . Saw other articles that mention film, mostly in context of Tim Reid producing it, a fact which never seemed to make into this or his article. A few described it as erotic film although these were before or while it was in production. [33] Without additional reviews I'll still lean redirect. WikiVirus C (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - With the additional sources and reviews found by Cunard, I will switch over from redirect. WikiVirus C (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources added to the page or mentioned above by ReaderofthePack and WikiVirusC attest a certain notability. — MY, OH, MY ! 08:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "Spirit Lost Reviews" . TV Guide . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The film review provides 439 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "Pokily directed, the script is so talky that viewers will feel as if they've been possessed by the spirit of a flock of magpies. Instead of a sexy ghost saga, viewers get characters who do nothing but moan, surmise, and postulate endlessly; the scenes of supernatural copulation are a bust, mainly because leading man Leon brings little to this ghost-fete except a solid physique. Amateurishly acted by a cast defeated by a flimsy script and zombie-esque direction, Spirit Lost delivers the zing of an infomercial about the best way to rid your home of pesky poltergeists." Books authored or co-authored by Robin R. Means Coleman: Means Coleman, Robin R. (2011). Horror Noire: Blacks in American Horror Films from the 1890s to Present . New York: Routledge . pp. 182 – 183 . ISBN 978-0-415-88019-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The book notes: " Spirit Lost (1997), like Embalmer , was no blockbuster. However, it was the rare horror film that was nearly an all-female affair. Spirit Lost is based on a book of the same title by Nancy Thayer. ... The screenplay was written by Joyce Lewis, who changed the New England location to Catch Hook Island, presumably much farther south. The independent straight-to-video "Black horror" film was directed by Neema Barnette, the rare (Black) female horror film director, who has an extensive television-directing portfolio. Spirit is interesting in that it moves "Black horror" out of the urban to the seaside while recuperating out-of-the-Caribbean Voodoo myths." Means Coleman, Robin R. ; Harris, Mark H. (2023). The Black Guy Dies First: Black Horror Cinema from Fodder to Oscar . New York: Saga Press . pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-1-9821-8653-1 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "With a significantly smaller budget and a greater reliance on soft-focus lenses, Neema Barnette’s Spirit Lost (1996) likewise is a supernatural drama in which the protagonist becomes entwined in a codependent relationship with a ghostly presence. In this instance, the victim is an aspiring painter named John (Leon. Just Leon.) who moves with his wife, Willy (Regina Taylor), to a small coastal town to focus on his art. What he ends up focusing on, though, is the thirsty, oft-naked woman in his attic. Turns out she’s the lovelorn spirit of a slave woman named Arabella (Cynda Williams), who was spurned by her White owner/lover in favor of a “proper English woman?” She died of a broken heart—or possibly rickets, since vitamin D supplements were hard to come by in the eighteenth century." "Spirit Lost (Live, 96) D Neema Barnette, S Joyce Renee Lewis, P Tim Reid" . Psychotronic Video . No. 25. 1997. p. 11 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive . The film review provides 128 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "John (Leon), a painter, and his wife (Regina Taylor) move into an old house on an island. The seductive widow ghost of Arabella (Cynda Williams) shows up in mirrors, windows and in John's dreams and nightmares. She eventually lures him into moving into his attic studio while she tries to scare his now unhappy and pregnant wife away. Williams has nude scenes, but the sex is mostly undercover. The Black Entertainment Network Production (based on a novel) is more concerned with black women supporting each other, so don't expect the usual exploitation. With Juanita Jennings as a Jamaican nurse and James Avery. It was made in Virginia. The producer was Venus Flytrap on WKRP. " " 'Spirit Lost' to be shot in Neck: Errotic horror movie set in White Stone" . Richmond Times-Dispatch . 1995-04-16. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Spirit Lost," an erotic horror film, is scheduled to begin filming in White Stone on May 1, said film publicist Kenneth Reynolds. No cast has been announced yet. ... The story involves an art dealer and his wife who move to a new house -- shot in White Stone, though the town will be fictional. A beautiful ghost inhabits the attic studio and initiates an affair with the man, which leads to dire consequences. " "Video Review: 'Spirit Lost' " . Entertainment Weekly . 1997-04-04. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The film review provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The film review notes: "hough Spirit attempts to satiate — combining a beautiful black couple, an exotic island locale, obsession, African-American folklore, and even the requisite spirit-meets-human sex scene — blah acting by Leon and Cynda Williams and a contrived ending prevent this gumbo from bubbling beyond a simmer. C-" Mustazza, Leonard (2006). The Literary Filmography: 6,200 Adaptations of Books, Short Stories and Other Nondramatic Works . Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 521. ISBN 0-7864-2471-0 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "4221. (Nancy Thayer, 1988). A painter and his pregnant wife move from an apartment in Boston to an old house on Nantucket island, where the ghost of a beautiful woman tries to lure him from his wife. Adaptation: Spirit Lost (Live Entertainment, 1996). Dir: Neema Barnette. Scr: Joyce Renee Lewis. Cast: Regina Taylor (Willy), J. Michael Hunter (Harrison), Cynda Williams (Arabella). DVD, VHS. " Nowlan, Robert A.; Nolan, Gwendolyn L. (2001). The Films of the Nineties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography of Over 3000 Feature-length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-only, Released Between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999 . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 510. ISBN 0-7864-0974-6 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Robinson quits his job and moves with his wife Taylor to a remote seaside house where he can pursue a career as a painter. After discovering she is pregnant, Taylor begins to see apparitions of Williams, a 200-year-old spirit. The latter entices Robinson into a sexual relationship and seeks to get rid of Taylor. " " 'Spirit Lost' a low-down psychological thriller" . Indianapolis Recorder . 1995-06-10. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via Hoosier State Chronicles . The article notes: ""Spirit Lost" is the third feature film to be produced by veteran actor Tim Reid, his United Entertainment and BET Films. ... "Spirit Lost" is the story of a "brother" who is caught between two women, one of whom happens to be a ghost. Directed by Neema Barnette, the film stars Regina Taylor of "I'll Fly Away" and Leon from "The Five Heartbeats." It is based on a novel by Nancy Thayer. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spirit Lost to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I therefore withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 20:58, 29 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. | speedy keep |
Al-Shifa Hospital siege: Article was previously merged into the siege of Gaza City article, with nearly the whole article (all 242 words) merged into the article. This merge was rapidly challenged by a user saying it is independently notable. My argument for merging was CONTENTFORK as well as how the siege of Azovstal steel plant during last year's Siege of Mariupol doesn't have a split article, why should a small siege amid the larger parent ( consensus confirmed ) notable topic of the Siege of Gaza City . Again, a CONTENTFORK of 242 words is what this siege article is. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Israel , and Palestine . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd be inclined to 'Keep' the article but rename it. There doesn't seem a lot at the moment to warrant describing it as a siege within a siege, but the hospital is clearly a key focus of the IDF during this war. The Siege of Gaza City article seems to be in the form of a timeline, with spin-off articles about key events, of which Al-Shifa Hospital is becoming a major part. Sionk ( talk ) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep To clarify, the blockade on Al-Shifa Hospital is distinct from the one imposed on the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip blockade entails restricting the entry of food, beverages, diesel, and petroleum derivatives throughout the military operation, while the blockade on Al-Shifa Hospital occurred after ground forces entered. It's essential to highlight that the siege on Al-Shifa Hospital commenced specifically on November 10, making it a singular and distinct event from the Gaza Strip blockade. --— Osama Eid ( talk ) 22:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there isn't an issue with having a military operation within a military operation as an article, the hospital is very notable, and the content is well sourced and independently notable. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 23:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn AfD - Initial AfD reasoning resolved as it is no longer a direct copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK . The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:43, 13 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. | speedy keep |
Boudewijn de Geer: BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Netherlands . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - once again (see also the AfD about his son ), this is a poor nomination where there has clearly been no attempt to search for sources. A very quick Google search brings up so many sources, see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 (I could go on and on). Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It feels a little disingenuous to claim notability is clearly established based on a number of references which primarily relate to his recent death, rather than asserting a notable playing career. I suspect you would have been more challenged to find that quantity quickly prior to the last day or so. That said, multiple posthumous coverage may point to someone who was notable, otherwise why would multiple outlets report it, although I'm not quite as comfortable searching historic non-English media to know this confidently. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His recent death is making it hard to find other sources, but his death has been covered in seemingly every major Dutch newspaper, there were sources present before his death, and this is somebody who was a professional player in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Australia, who later also became a coach. As I said - clearly notable, and this and the simultaneous AFD about his son (another notable sports figure) shows a lack of knowledge or effort from the nominator. WP:BEFORE was obviously not followed. Giant Snowman 13:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not suggesting you're wrong about notability, I just felt you could have offered some context when declaring that "google search brings up so many sources", as there is a very obvious reason that's now the case. But like I said before, usually multiple media outlets reporting the death of a sportsperson would indicate that person is notable. In my opinion, you can't reasonably assert this as being clear or obvious, as you did, just from death news reports within 48hrs of said passing. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also found and added multiple pre-death sources. As I said - the nominator patently did not attempt any form of search before rushing to AFD. Giant Snowman 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb ( talk ) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are articles for every other minor, forgettable sports thick. Why not this one? Kelisi ( talk ) 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . This is not a reason to keep an article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ GiantSnowman . Svartner ( talk ) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 17:55, 28 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. | speedy keep |
Mazhar Ali Khan (journalist): Just one source refers to the subject in detail. The other two are about his wife and only mention him in passing. Codenamewolf ( talk ) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator as another book reference has now added to article. Codenamewolf ( talk ) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan . GSS 💬 15:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Mazhar Ali Khan (1917 - 1993) was and still is known to be a pioneering journalist in Pakistan. He had a long distinguished career in journalism. There should be no doubt and none exists about his notability in Pakistan among the people who know history of journalism in Pakistan. He was a long-time editor of a major English-language newspaper, Pakistan Times in the 1950s. Dawn newspaper reference, as the above nominator himself says has in-depth significant coverage about his career and life. So in my view, this article meets WP:SIGCOV on that basis alone... The second reference is from the UK newspaper The Independent that talks about both his wife and him. It's very relevant because she was a liberated lady for those old days and highly active in his day-to-day affairs including his jounalistic career. I will soon replace the third newspaper reference from the The Friday Times . That newspaper apparently has developed some business problems very recently and possibly will change only to be an on-line newspaper. As we all know, these things sometimes happen in the business world. That's why I will be replacing that reference soon. Please allow me some time... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article meets WP:SIGCOV based on one good quality source, but multiple such sources (atleast 3) are expected to meet WP:GNG standards per WP:SIRS , and based on a quick Google search, I'm not able to find them. Codenamewolf ( talk ) 18:29, 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. | speedy keep |
Sittwe (film): The only claim of notability is winning an award at a film festival, but the award alone isn't sufficiently significant or widely recognized to automatically confer notability. GSS 💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . GSS 💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Passes GNG. I added a few sources. Furthermore, nominated for deletion a mere 48 minutes after creation. this is extremely bad form IMO. Give the process a chance. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You've referenced some offline sources that may not be readily accessible. Could you please elaborate on how these sources satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG? Additionally, could you provide further details regarding these sources? GSS 💬 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not your research assistant. These are RS and they support the facts cited to them. They're online although paywalled and I don't know how to link to them effectively or I would have. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh come on, there's no need to be rude. I didn't ask you to be my 'research assistant'. You cited offline sources without direct links to them, and I just wanted to understand how these sources satisfy the criteria of GNG. I've attempted to search for the titles of these sources but couldn't find anything online, let alone access their content. Hopefully, someone else can locate them and ascertain if they provide the independent and in-depth coverage required by GNG. GSS 💬 17:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I found an article in The Boston Globe : " When nationalism goes awry ". It's got two paragraphs on the documentary. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Islam . Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Irrawaddy source discussing its banning, backed with the sources already in the article, seem to meet both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG (and it seems to have been heavily shown at universities and otherwise discussed by academics which would support notability using the same sort of argument in WP:TEXTBOOKS ). In addition to the sources originally in/added to the article/mentioned there's Rakhine Conflict Primarily Political, Not Religious, Seminar Told has coverage of both the release and the documentary and it's used as an example/reference point in The Rohingya Crisis . As a procedural note, I think waiting longer before AfD'ing this would have been preferable. And if this was done as part of NPP, the NPP guidelines are pretty clear to wait at least an hour before nominating for deletion in most cases WP:NPPHOUR . If there's any particular source the nom (or anyone) wants help accessing, saying which one(s) is helpful. Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems I've been waiting for nearly an hour, just short by 10 minutes. There hasn't been any activity on the page since it was posted. While I'm somewhat convinced by the sources, I would appreciate it if someone could provide more detailed articles. The current ones only offer brief paragraphs and lack the depth required for the documentary. Thank you. GSS 💬 18:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Irrawaddy article definitely meets WP:GNG as the primary topic of the article and discuss it beyond routine coverage, though I know WP:NFILM is a bit stricter and not in my area of expertise. From my cursory glance, the award (backed up by the Irrawaddy source) is one of the conditions for NFILM and I think i can meet the rest too with some of the following Another source I found that I don't personally have access to from the Economist that discusses in some detail.There is this Stanford university screening with a panel discussion which may satisfy the university condition. There is also this VoA newscast about the film that I will add relevant info from to the article in about an hour when I can listen to the audio to translate (letting yall know since there seems to be some sort of time budget going on in this AfD) I agree it would be nice for the author to be more specific with the sources cited like the two Mizzima articles I can't locate either. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] EmeraldRange: regarding the time budget — this AfD discussion will be open for 7 days, unless the nominator withdraws it. You've got some time to improve the article, and thank you for doing that. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I added some information now, but half of the cast is interviews with the directors, so I don't think it counts as significant secondary coverage for GNG, but the other sources already shows that it meets GNG. EmeraldRange ( talk / contribs ) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Here's the archived version of the Economist article that EmeraldRange pointed out. It's eight paragraphs specifically about Sittwe and another documentary, evaluating them in context with contemporary events. This clearly meets GNG. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In light of the newly cited sources, I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Thank you for including these additional sources. GSS 💬 04:20, 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. | speedy keep |
Control-\: I don't think so. Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
National Lampoon's Golf Punks: I found no reviews in Rotten Tomatoes and only listings in Newspapers.com . I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 11:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The film is analysed/reviewed at least in: The Video Movie Guide The Buzz on Golf TV Guide FIlm-Dienst International distribution. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not going to withdraw yet, but I will accept the TV Guide review as one of the suitable and reliable reviews. The Film Creator ( talk ) 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The sources listed by Mushy Yank ( talk · contribs ). "Tom Arnold takes to the links in this movie premiere" . Sunday News . 1998-09-06. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17 . Retrieved 2023-10-17 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Tom Arnold stars as a hapless, ex-golf pro hired to teach the sport to a gawky group of kids in Fox Family Channel's world premiere movie "National Lampoon's Golf Punks. " The family comedy premiere tonight (Sept. 6) at 8 p.m. Down-on-his-luck, Al Oliver (Arnold) is out of work and constantly harassed by two thugs who are sent to collect on a betting debt. Desperate to find a solution to his financial problems, he reluctantly agrees to take a job his brother finds for him at a public golf course, teaching a misfit group of kids how to play the game. Bitter about an incident that cost him a professional golf career, Al hasn't played in years. His work is cut out for him when he meets the unruly and uncoordinated kids he is assigned to teach." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Golf Punks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 06:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:19, 17 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. | speedy keep |
The Sinbadventurers: No hits on ProQuest , which is always a bad sign for the notability of a contemporary western subject. Mach61 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, I created this entry about this opera because there is very little information on it in English. Although one could make the case that there is insufficient source material in English to warrant a wikipedia entry, I'd like to make the argument that a lot of readers would appreciate having a well-written entry in English as opposed to a computer-generated translation of the German entry. Google the opera under its German title "sindbadauken" and I think you'll see why I wanted to fill this void. Cheers! Cosmomontoya ( talk ) 13:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cosmomontoya There's no requirement sources be in English, but I did searches under both the German and English titles. If you can find reliable sources covering this play in depth in any language, please link them here, and I may withdraw this AfD. Mach61 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are links to some of the publications that I compiled information from when creating the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=BtRIX_hN3PU&ab_channel=operapiccola https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/magazin/article205169549/Die-Hamburger-Sindbadauken.html https://www.boosey.com/downloads/NB_Spezial_Kinderoper_web.pdf https://www.francis-huesers.de/ver%C3%B6ffentlichungen/ https://www.francis-huesers.de/biographie/ https://www.theaterhagen.de/ueber-uns/schauspielermitarbeiter/? tx_theatre_actor%5Baction%5D=show&tx_theatre_actor%5Bactor%5D=1539&cHash=56264df84a11e77fc977e0753dc05562 https://issuu.com/staatsoper_hamburg/docs/oper_journal_3-14-15_b9c9088ff9088c When I wrote the article, there was also a page on the composer's website which listed all of the cast members in English, however I'm not finding that anymore. This information looks like it is all on the YouTube page. Cosmomontoya ( talk ) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cosmomontoya The Abendblatt source is the only relevant one mentioned for establishing compliance with the general notability guideline . While I suppose it counts, it's not very long, and much of its content is quotes by other people. Two relatively short reviews isn't enough to make a play notable IMO Mach61 22:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to be sure that we're talking about the same thing: the work is not a play but rather an opera. Moreover, it's an opera performed by children. These are quite rare, and this particular one is worth inclusion because it is a through-composed work, meaning the work starts and ends without interruption, as opposed to a musical, which is a mixture of dialogue (like a play) and music numbers. Hope this helps to clarify the "genre." Cosmomontoya ( talk ) 11:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cosmomontoya as there is no specialized notability guideline for operas, they fall under the aforementioned general notability guideline (GNG); the nature of the opera isn't really relevant to notability. If a third GNG-meeting source can be located, I will withdraw this deletion discussion. Mach61 11:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mach61 : What do you think of this source ? I'm not sure what to make of it. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toughpigs Though its the description entry for a recording of Sinbadventures, it mostly covers the opera piccola format without discussing this specific work in detail. Mach61 21:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's interesting that this page is in English and not in German: https://archiv.mimecentrum.de/videos/MCB-TV-8973 I missed it when I created the article, however it's interesting because it's written by the librettist. He gives insight into the creative process for the work. I didn't reference this publication when I wrote the article, however here's a third source: https://onlinemerker.com/hamburg-staatsoperopera-piccola-die-hamburger-sindbadauken-jugendoper/ Cosmomontoya ( talk ) 05:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cosmomontoya Alright, withdrawn Mach61 12:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Manouche: Source 1 provides a lot of coverage in the context of jazz; more on that below. Source 2 doesn't mention the term "Manouche", and source 3 provides only passing mentions. There are two plausible redirect targets here, Gypsy jazz and Romani people in France , though I lean toward the latter. I would blank and redirect , but the recent creation of this article indicates that this would be contentious. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 12:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and France . Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand. There are sources in French [44] an ethnological review, [45] disease history in the population and [46] study of the grammar/language syntax used. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Shipping discourse: Americanfreedom ( talk ) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as this article is currently on the main page ( WP:SKCRIT#6 ). Elli ( talk | contribs ) 04:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . This nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT , no actual reason for deletion has been provided. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 04:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . There are no issues with the quality or notability of this article and WP:SIGCOV is clearly satisfied here despite the topic being a relatively new internet phenomenon. "it's strange/frivolous" is not a valid deletion rationale. This AfD and Americanfreedom 's repeated (ab)use of the prod tag is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT . (Disclaimer: I have discussed this article off-wiki with its creator, Generalissima , on several occasions, however, she did not in any way prompt me to participate in this AfD and the opinion expressed here is my own.) Ethmostigmus ( talk ) 04:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . <signature> Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . <signature> The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Stocker Fontelieu: The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perhaps the nominator may have considered this individual as a film actor rather than a stage actor, and a withdrawal may be in order. Clearly meets GNG, meets BASIC, almost certainly meets WP:NACTOR .2 for contributions to New Orleans stage acting. The New Orleans Times-Picayune has literally dozens (hundreds?) of articles on the subject. Other sources have coverage too. Here are just thew first few though clicking through others there's no shortage of coverage. 78+ words about the individuals acting in (David Cuthbert, T. w. (2000, Sep 15). Simon's 'sunshine' peeks through a few clouds at carlone's. Times - Picayune Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/simons-sunshine-peeks-through-few-clouds-at/docview/415388250/se-2 ) 80+ words about collaborating on the authorized biography and living situation (Cuthbert, D. (2006, Apr 20). The unsinkable stocker fontelieu ; theater legend lost his house, but the show goes on. Times - Picayune Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/unsinkable-stocker-fontelieu-theater-legend-lost/docview/416050036/se-2 ) 85 word obit giving overview of career in national magazine (IN MEMORIAM: Stocker fontelieu. (2010). American Theatre, 27(2), 18. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/memoriam-stocker-fontelieu/docview/220582493/se-2 ) — siro χ o 03:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG . In addition to the links above, I found more coverage in The Times-Picayune ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), New Orleans Magazine , Monroe Morning World , Hattiesburg American , and AFTRA . There's also a book written about him. APK whisper in my ear 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the consensus and significant coverage mentioned above, I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator ( talk ) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Jonathan Apphus: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Very clear keep of this important historical figure. AfD is not for cleanup of the sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Royalty and nobility , Israel , and Palestine . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject is clearly notable; if the article needs secondary sources, feel free to add them. There is nothing wrong with citing to primary sources on historical topics; the need to add modern sources is not an argument for deletion, nor is there a deadline for improving articles. Deletion is not cleanup; you don't improve an article in need of improvement by deleting it. P Aculeius ( talk ) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Very obviously notable and meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs , this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons ( talk ) 14:06, 19 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. | speedy keep |
Marylyn D. Ritchie: I cannot find any independent sources on the subject. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits ) Feel free to ping me! 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Professors/Academics generally have slightly different requirements about notability requirements than other biographies—see WP:NPROF . AriTheHorse 18:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Pennsylvania , and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:SK3 , no valid deletion rationale supplied. Subject passes WP:PROF#C1 (massive citations to her publications) and #C8 (editor-in-chief of a notable journal). Our academic notability guidelines are not based on the existence of popular-press puff pieces about their subjects, unlike for other types of subject, so the deletion rationale does not apply. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very well. I had no idea about the academic notability guidelines. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits ) Feel free to ping me! 19:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CopperyMarrow15 , should this be interpreted as a withdrawal of the nomination? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits ) Feel free to ping me! 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Skibidi Toilet: CPounds57 ( talk ) 00:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, I see good results. https://news.yahoo.com/skibidi-toilet-creepy-youtube-series-180500777.html and https://www.newsweek.com/what-skibidi-toilet-inside-eerie-videos-taking-over-internet-1813590 and of course plenty of referencesin the article. Reliable sources give it significant coverage, so it meets the general notability guidelines. D r e a m Focus 00:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as one of the main contributor of the article. There is plenty of independent sources reporting and giving commentary on this series. It have been used to show that a new generation, Alpha, is gaining prominence on the internet. You should explain how the currently references in the article does not demonstrate significant coverage. Ca talk to me! 00:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Dream Focus . Additionally, "semi popular" is debatable. B3251 ( talk ) 00:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep many reliable and independent sources give significant coverage to the subject. Skyshifter talk 02:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Georgia (country) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep : Poorly formed deletion rationale. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 08:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The notability concerns on the nomination are not sufficiently substantiated. It's not as self-evidently notable as others state, and the article does have issues and struggles to distinguish trivia from substance. But there's clearly a few mainstream articles from reliable news sources describing it and providing commentary on it as a fixture of online humor for younger generations. That's enough for GNG. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reasoning is flawed. Ryme071 ( talk ) 18:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The series has half a billion views on the official playlist alone, isn't that notable enough? Finxx ( talk ) 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow Keep ; bad deletion rationale and probably WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Internet memes can warrant articles in their own right, take " Press F to pay respects " for example. Negative MP1 21:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Many of these keep arguments aren't the best and the article is not great either. However, as silly as it is, "Skibidi Toilet" is notable. I feel old just typing that out. There are a few good sources on the topic that are already in the article and its an ongoing popular series that will probably continue to get that coverage. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 01:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Lisa Henson: The sources utilized all lack independence from the subject. 4meter4 ( talk ) 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America . CptViraj ( talk ) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Television , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to The Jim Henson Company - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have added a number of news articles covering Henson. These include coverage of her being named president of The Harvard Lampoon , work at Warner Bros. , and Columbia Pictures . [1] [2] [3] The articles date back to 1982, and are an indication of significant coverage that spans multiple years, well before she became CEO of the Jim Henson Company. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The three New York Times sources added by DaffodilOcean clearly provided enough SIGCOV on the subject person and satisfied GNG, not to mention her numerous executive producer roles which should fulfill WP:CREATIVE . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clear meets SIGCOV. pburka ( talk ) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I would withdraw but we have a vote for a redirect. I support keeping the article based on the excellent sourcing improvements made to the article. Thanks to all who worked on it. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Klemesrud, Judy (1982-05-16). "AT HARVARD, SHE RULES LAMPOONLAND" . The New York Times . ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2024-07-19 . ^ Sims, Calvin (1993-08-10). "COMPANY NEWS; Columbia Pictures Selects A President for Production" . The New York Times . ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2024-07-19 . ^ Weinraub, Bernard (1994-04-04). "She's Young and Smart, But Not Too Smart to Lead" . The New York Times . ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2024-07-19 . Keep : Since nomination, many reliable sources have been added to the article. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong ) 17:02, 19 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. | speedy keep |
Salsta Castle: Only really seems to be mentioned on tourism bureau type promotion sites Gugrak ( talk ) 10:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Gugrak ( talk ) 10:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator see below Gugrak ( talk ) 11:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I have added entries from Nordisk familjebok , Statens fastighetsverk , and Bedoire's Svenska slott och herrgårdar ( Swedish Castles and Manors ), all substantial coverage in impeccably reliable sources. None of these are tourist bureaus. Further, anything that's notable in Sweden is notable "in English". Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Jason Kane (Doctor Who): As it stands, this article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:20, 30 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. | speedy keep |
Pat Gillis: Existing sources are not significant and I was not able to find any indepth articles on him. Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians . Upper Deck Guy ( talk ) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He was a member of the Oregon House of Representatives. From what I understand, serving as a state legislator automatically makes one meet notability guidelines. Thriley ( talk ) 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Adrian Schrinner: Mayors/councillors of city councils are rarely notable for doing mayor/councillor things alone. Tar nis hed Path talk 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Politics , and Australia . Tar nis hed Path talk 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article has problems, and I agree that holding a local government position does not necessarily confer notability. However, subject has been substantially covered in media, and not merely as a medium for policy. Just recently, you could point to the broad coverage regarding his position on the 2032 Olympics forum and relationship with state government, or the commentary on his substantial budget cuts. Even outside of those larger events, he is regularly covered and quoted in media. The fact that he is the mayor of a major (capital) city , and indeed heads the largest council in the country is also persuasive . gompk 04:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (edit conflict) Keep NPOL/POLITICAN is a positive test for presumed notability, not meeting NPOL is not grounds for deletion. Subject is lord mayor of an urban conglomoration of 1 million+ people; it is the single largest local government area by population in Australia. NB WP:POLOUTCOMES : "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD"...". That aside, the article contains a plethora of reliable sourcing that demonstrates the subject passes WP:GNG / WP:BIO . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per | speedy keep |
Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz: The result was no-consensus with paltry participation. In my opinion, article clearly fails wp:GNG and wp:NORG . There are only three sources provided two of which are about particular incidents and do not constitute SigCov, and only one of which that might count as SigCov about some new exhibits that were added while the museum was under a different name. The Spanish-language article also lacks sources and after conducting a search I think that it will not be possible to find multiple sources to demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged in CAT:NN for 14 years and I believe it is not notable, and should be deleted. Lenny Marks ( talk ) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Lenny Marks ( talk ) 21:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage in news sources here: [14] , [15] , [16] (and more. A google news search for: [museo interactivo Xalapa] catches the various different names of this institution). It also appears as an attraction of the city in guide books: [17] . Furius ( talk ) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Furius has identified enough sources to show notability. The Mexican Government entry gives information that could be used to expand the article. A search on images confirms that this is a substantial museum discussed by many sources. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Furius @ Aymatth2 , thank you for collecting additional sources for the article. The problem I found was that the news sources are generally lacking wp:sigcov (One mentions that protesters were outside the museum but doesn't discuss the institution itself at all, another's entire reference is that a minister discusses money in the budget for the museum and the last is almost an exact copy of a source that is already in the article [18] about workers being fired.) The guide book entry, though, might count. Unless you disagree with my analysis of the sources individually, I guess the question becomes whether the several non-significant mentions collectively constitute SigCov here. Thoughts? -- Lenny Marks ( talk ) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The museum is run by the State of Veracruz. The Mexico Government entry would count as reliable, independent and in-depth. I have not read the many news articles, but yes, 25 separate sources giving a paragraph each on some aspect or event of the museum would cumulatively count as significant in-depth coverage. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aymatth2 thanks, I had missed that link in your previous comment. I will add a reflist to the article and withdraw the nomination. Lenny Marks ( talk ) 22:44, 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. | speedy keep |
The Wiki Way: A few things citing this book, but none talking about it. Both authors are notable so IDK if a redirect target would work. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added a review from Mute magazine. Worthington, Simon (2001-10-12). "The Wiki Way (Quick Collaboration on the Web, Bo Leuf, Ward Cunningham)" . Mute . ISSN 1356-7748 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 . Someone with access to the book review sources that libraries use to make buying decisions might want to check those sources for reviews of the book. I also saw a reference to Ward Cunningham and the book in The New York Times here , but the reference isn't long enough to count as significant. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Kim, Eugene Eric (September 2001). "The Wiki Way: Quick collaboration on the Web". Web Techniques . Vol. 6, no. 9. p. 62. ProQuest 275002380 . The review notes: "The Wiki Way will hopefully change that. Written by Bo Leuf and coauthored by Cunningham, The Wiki Way is a cultural and technical guide to the wonderful world of the WikiWikiWeb. ... Leuf and Cunningham do a good job of explaining what a Wiki is, and when it's appropriate to use one. They begin with a survey of collaborative tools, and outline Wiki's strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, they explain the cultural values that make Wiki work. ... The authors answer these questions by providing much commentary on social structure and the Wiki culture-The Wiki Way-and by presenting several case studies." The review notes: "Leuf and Cunningham devote a good portion of the book to the Wiki's inner workings, and in particular, a version of Wiki called QuickiWiki. Those interested in installing and even hacking a Wiki will find these chapters straightforward and informative. The book would have been far stronger, however, if the authors had inserted the case studies before describing the software's technical details. I imagine that many people reading this book will want to be persuaded of the Wiki's utility before pouring over software innards.The Wiki Way is certainly a technical book. Wiki, after all, is simply another type of collaboration software. underlying the technology, however, is a fascinating insight into community and the nature of collaboration. In a sense, The Wiki Way is about the way we work, and that makes it a worthwhile read." Mattison, David (April 2003). "Quickiwiki, Swiki, Twiki, Zwiki, and the Plone Wars: Wiki as PJM and collaborative content tool" . Searcher . Vol. 11, no. 4. pp. 32+. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 – via Gale . The article notes: "In The Wiki Way (2001), the one and only book devoted solely to wild, Bo Leuf and Ward Cunningham define wild as ... Wikis are easy to learn and use. There are no complicated syntax or text formatting rules. Some wild clones permit the inclusion of HTML, but The Wiki Way authors recommend, with some exceptions, against this practice. ... The Wiki Way authors recommend never deleting a wild page, but deleting the content instead, leaving a note explaining why, and creating another page instead. ... The first wild product I tried to install myself was the QuickiWiki script that comes on CD-ROM with The Wiki Way. ... The scripts that came on the CD-ROM were damaged, but you can find corrected scripts on the book's support site at http://wild.org . QuickiWiki runs as advertised with or without a server. The script simulates the required server activity through an MS-DOS window, or you can set up a free server such as Apache (not recommended for the nontechnical) to run the QuickiWiki. Since I did not want t o be bothered with trying out all the useful "hacks" described in part two of The Wiki Way (2001), I moved onto other products." Worthington, Simon (2001-12-10). "The Wiki Way (Quick Collaboration on the Web, Bo Leuf, Ward Cunningham)" . Mute . Vol. 1, no. 22. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26 . Retrieved 2024-06-26 . The review notes: "The Wiki Way book is a manifesto and a software manual in one, with the essentials for Wiki installation attached on CD. The authors have written this book with an almost mystical sense of wonderment at the achievements and ideals embodied in the Wiki concept, a web site where anyone can edit anything. ... The attached CD allows you to install a Wiki on most Os’s, even Windows, and then you too will be able to keep the flame burning for those early ideals of the WWW: empowerment, learning and collaboration." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Wiki Way to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This looks good, I'll withdraw. Surprised I couldn't find the one on ProQuest at least. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 11:54, 26 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. | speedy keep |
Gazpromavia Flight 9608 : Also barely any news coverage online. SehbasC ( talk ) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions . SehbasC ( talk ) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nominating this for deletion within hours of this breaking out seems too ludicrous. Borgenland ( talk ) 16:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh c'mon, this accident clearly isn't notable. We had an article similar to this a few months ago and it got deleted. And Rosbif73 nomimates everything for deletion every article he sees. 2605:8D80:400:9392:88B5:190D:C2DE:8990 ( talk ) 16:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That you downplay a major hull loss with loss of life and make utterly ridiculous comparisons with incidents of less gravity on another talk page is further proof of how ludicrous this IP’s argument already is, which consists of nothing more than WP:BLUDGEON , WP:BATTLEGROUND and POV pushing as seen by your uncivil comment further down this discussion. Borgenland ( talk ) 17:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With that logic, we should have an article for every plane that consisted with a fatality. Alaska air fuel crash that occured a few months ago occured with only a few deaths aswell and was instantly deleted. 2605:8D80:400:9392:F5B0:2D40:2DEC:EBB8 ( talk ) 17:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DailyMailUK is literally banned from Wikipedia. A source mentioned by GalaxyBits 2605:8D80:400:9392:F5B0:2D40:2DEC:EBB8 ( talk ) 17:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As mentioned above, please make note of WP:RAPID and since this is a commercial airliner crash with fatalities and a net hull-loss, all adds up to keeping this article per WP:AIRCRASH . Also, what exactly do you mean by "no continued coverage"? As I write this, the accident occurred only hours ago, how is sustained coverage even supposed to be determined here? GalacticOrbits ( talk ) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the "barely any news coverage online" is factually untrue: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] and so on. GalacticOrbits ( talk ) 16:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources are reliable meaning they look like they were made by my dog. 2605:8D80:400:9392:855B:DB8E:9387:1805 ( talk ) 17:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For anyone who wants other sources here is the russian version of this arcticle https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B0_SSJ_100_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9#cite_note-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini ( talk • contribs ) 17:12, 12 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. | speedy keep |
Lucky 7 (film) : Donald D23 talk to me 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 02:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; You also have at least this review on the Moviescene , and this article/interview for the 15th ann. of the film on IBT . With the review currently quoted by the article, that seems to show notability is there. — MY, OH, MY ! 10:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Hughes, Mike (2003-07-19). " 'Lucky 7' actress finds that opposites attract" . Public Opinion . Gannett News Service . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . THe article notes: "Sure, people learn that lesson on reality shows and in TV movies like "Lucky 7," airing 8 p.m. Sunday, July 20 on ABC Family. It stars Kimberly Williams-Paisley and Patrick Dempsey. But Williams-Paisley also has learned those realities in real life. ... That plot is a stretch. Viewers might agree with the character who tells Amy, "this is beyond stupid. "However, you'll be glued because of the appeal of romance and of Williams-Paisley." McDonough, Kevin (2003-07-20). "Die-hard romantics may be put off by 'Lucky 7' " . The Morning Call . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Fans of predictable tearjerkers might enjoy "Lucky 7" (ABC Family at 8, TV-PG, D). Gail O'Grady appears as a dying mother whose parting gifts to her 7-year-old daughter include a "timeline" of advice that instructs her to run for school office, hit the books at college, travel abroad for interesting experiences and have six boyfriends before settling down with Mr. Right. ... A rickety subplot about a faked romance may be one contrivance too many for even the most die-hard romantics. Brief scenes of casual sex may also put off parents who like to watch such fare with their children. " Butler, Ruth (2003-07-18). " 'The Restaurant' has intriguing ingredients" . The Grand Rapids Press . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: ""Lucky 7" is a frothy original movie starring Kimberly Williams-Paisley (newly married star of "Father of the Bride" and (cringe) "According to Jim") and Patrick Dempsey airing at 8 p.m. Sunday on ABC Family. She's following Mom's dictate: that she marry boyfriend number 7, whomever he may be. But what if she falls in love with No. 6? Cute. " Holschbach, Amy (2003-07-20). "When sparks fly: Manitowoc native gets creative in TV movie, 'Lucky 7'" (pages 1 and 2 ). The Herald Times Reporter . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 2023-05-14. Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: " "Lucky 7" opens in Amy's childhood home which Wanek described as "understated, cozy and yet locked in time." The beachfront property is where the premise of the movie unfolds. The main character's mother, who is ill, leaves her 7- year-old daughter with a life timeline that plots Amy's career and the advice that reveals she is destined to marry boyfriend No. 7." Bobbin, Jay (2003-07-19). "Lucky in love? Williams-Paisley courts wedded bliss in new movie" . St. Joseph News-Press . Zap2it . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Kimberly Williams-Paisley stars as the heroine of the romantic comedy "Lucky 7" Sunday, July 20, on ABC Family. Her character, Amy, follows a life plan mapped out for her in childhood by her late mother (Gail O'Grady) that includes becoming a lawyer and marrying her seventh boyfriend. The dilemma occurs when No. 6 (Brad Rowe) appears to be "the one," so she maneuvers someone else (Patrick Dempsey) into the mix to shift the sixth man to No. 7." Keller, Louise (2009-01-22). "Lucky 7: DVD" . Urban Cinefile . Archived from the original on 2009-10-09 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The review notes: "It's predictable but nicely so, this engaging romantic comedy with compelling leads that reminds us of the value of spontaneity. Kimberly Williams-Paisley and Patrick Dempsey are unlikely lovers who become the perfect match in Lucky 7, a made for television rom-com in which a make-believe weekend becomes the basis for a credible future. " Terrace, Vincent (2021). Television Movies of the 21st Century . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 196. ISBN 978-1-4766-8412-3 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Seattle-based attorney Amy Myer lives by a detailed time line her late mother gave to her when she was seven years old. In that timeline, Amy could date but it would be the seventh man with whom she would find true love. Despite advice from friends and family that she abandons the list, Amy refuses to do so. Amy has already dated five men but has not found a true connection to any of them. She is currently dating boyfriend number six (Daniel) and believes he should be boyfriend number seven. The situation that develops when Amy asks a friend (Connor) to accompany her to a family wedding and pretend to be her fake fiancée (thus making him number 6) and change her mind afterward (making Daniel number 7) is depicted. " Sanders, Eveliene. "Lucky 7 (2003)" . Cinemagazine (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "‘Lucky 7′ is van het type standaard romantische comedy maar dan wel écht erg leuk. Met mooie, charmante hoofdrolspelers, met veel chemie tussen de acteurs en een mooi verhaal wat, zelfs al is het eigenlijk erg voorspelbaar, toch spannend blijft tot het eind. Een leuke film voor een lekker filmavondje op de bank. " From Google Translate: "'Lucky 7' is of the standard romantic comedy type, but really fun. With beautiful, charming protagonists, with a lot of chemistry between the actors and a beautiful story that, even if it is actually very predictable, remains exciting until the end. A nice film for a nice movie night on the couch. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lucky 7 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 01:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , sources identified above are sufficient for notability. Donald D23 talk to me 18:04, 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. | speedy keep |
Czech Republic men's national water polo team : A few clues: According to European Water Polo Championship , a men's team from Czechia hasn't been fielded since ~1993 when competition was in the name of Czechoslovakia. The sole source on the page links to the women's team . The men's team link is blank going back to 1993. The name of the team on the page, "Český svaz vodního póla," is actually the name of the Czech Water Polo Federation , which organizes domestic competition. The only international competition it references is junior/U16 men , not a senior men's national team. No other reliable sources that I can find, in Czech or English, refer to any variant of a men's national water polo team that actually competes internationally. Open to other sources that editors may find, but until they appear I cannot even confirm that this subject exists. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , and Czech Republic . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , if the only question is whether the team exists. Per this article on the Czech Water Polo Federation website, the Czech Republic competed in December 2023 against Moldova, Lithunia and Moravia (second Czech team). This article from 2017 writes about the former Czech national team member Martin Faměra and about the low chance of the Czech team to participate in the Olympics. It's true that the Czech national team maybe stopped working for a short time, but it's working at the moment, and with the U19 team that made it to the European Championship, the future looks promising. FromCzech ( talk ) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is unclear to me whether the first article is discussing the U19 team or the national team. However, searching on some different terms I found this source from 2011, in which Czech polo player Marek Fugner says (via machine translation): "The Czech national team is a long way from the Olympic Games. We are trying to somehow keep the men's national team at all. Three years ago, we managed to put together six teams that are roughly at the same level as us. The Six Nations tournament was organized. It takes place every year at one of these six. The year before last we were in Denmark, last year in Sweden, this year we will go to Portugal, next year we will prepare the tournament. The national team will play at international level, it's a huge plus." There are also Youtube videos from the CSVP showing Czech participation in the EU Nations competition they hosted. I do think editors need to add third-party sources, and I am not sure there are enough out there to clear GNG. However, since I opened this AfD on the question of whether the team exists, and seeing evidence for the existence of this team, I'll withdraw my nomination and call for procedural keep . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:50, 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. | speedy keep |
The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go : I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . Nothing suitable or reliable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE . If it helps, here’s what I found in Newspapers.com . The Film Creator ( talk ) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 20:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seeing as Burgess Meredith is a known actor, this is the first and only film he has directed...which I think qualifies the film under WP:NFIC , "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Donald D23 talk to me 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Donaldd23 If what I’m about to tell you is considered WP:NPA , I truly apologize because that is not my intent (my only intent for sending this article to AfD is out of good faith ). I must disagree per WP:NOTINHERITED . Yes, the film was directed by Meredith, and it starred notable actors like James Mason and Jeff Bridges. But like I said, I view that as WP:INHERITED. The Film Creator ( talk ) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not believe that your statement was NPA, so no offense taken. I understand your position, but I am not saying that the film should be kept because notable actors are in it. I am saying that a notable actor who had an important role in their career (1st and only directorial feature) is the reason for inclusion. Therefore, INHERITED is not applicable. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Donald D23 talk to me 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Other than the above, it was also one of the earliest films for composer Robert O. Ragland and actor Jeff Bridges . I would suggest that makes the film fall in Wikipedia:NFIC#Inclusionary_criteria and "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." @The Film Creator: Thank you for doing WP:BEFORE . It seems this film may suffer from "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films." -- Bensin ( talk ) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" . Psychotronic Video . No. 40. 2004. pp. 63 – 64 . EBSCO host 19292964 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: "Nero Finnegan (Jeff Bridges), a writer who is AWOL from the Army, lives off cynical bar girl Tah Ling (Irene Tsu) in Hong Kong. To raise some money he goes to work for the Fu Manchu type Mr. Go (James Mason), "the embodiment of evil. " Go blackmails bi-sexual American Professor Bannister (Peter Lind Hayes), by secretly filming him having sex with Nero, who complains of "rough trading faggots!" Agent Leo Zimmerman (Jack MacGowran from Fearless Vampire Killers ), a James Joyce scholar, is sent to befriend and deceive Nero. They bar hop, get smashed, talk literature, and party with three Chinese hookers. Tah Ling is kidnapped, drugged, and nearly raped by Nazi like dyke Zelda (Clarissa Kaye). The Dolphin (Meredith) is Go's eccentric double dealing acupuncturist. A ray from the third eye of a large Buddah statue changes Go's personality and he fakes his own death. It ends with Go and Tah Ling making out inside the Buddah during his big street funeral while a Star Wars type laser defense system is demonstrated. Did I mention that Buddah narrates!? Tsu, who looks great, has several topless scenes. Also with big brawls, chases, a Chinese giant, a monkey, and a (white) drag singer. The light pop songs are by Robert O. Ragland. This odd comedy was shot on location except for CIA boardroom scenes with Broderick Crawford." "Cameramen walk off film set". South China Morning Post . 1970-01-08. p. 6. ProQuest 1510073522 . The article notes: "The Director of Photography on Burgess Meredith's picture "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," Mr Bob Wyckoff, leaves Hongkong today after quitting yesterday afternoon. Mr Wyckoff walked off the set in a Hilton Hotel room at lunchtime yesterday, together with his operator, Mr. Grady Martin, after only ten days' shooting of the film, which stars James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ... However, filming will continue without the American camera team, as Mr Cranston has engaged a local freelance cameraman, Mr Ray Woodbury, to work on the production until Mr Stephens arrives. Black, Ian (1970-01-27). "Mr Go takes on fresh air of enthusiasm". South China Morning Post . p. 9. ProQuest 1510080766 . The article notes: "Anyone who saw John Frankenheimer's film Grand Prix in Cinerama ... They were probably the most exciting shots ever set up for a movie anywhere, and the man responsible for them — cameraman John Stephens — is in Hongkong this week. In fact, Stephens will be here for some time, as he is working on Burgess Meredith's new production, The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go , which is currently being made in the Colony. He replaced cameraman Bob Wyckoff, who walked off the set after a series of disputes with director Meredith, and Stephens' arrival has brought a fresh air of enthusiasm to everyone involved in the picture. ... Already, director and cameraman have established the kind of rapport necessary to achieve any kind of success in filming a motion picture. And this obviously has a good effect on the actors — James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Jack MacGowran and Irene. Tsu. "" "Actor has a haircut". South China Morning Post . 1969-12-31. p. 8. The article notes: "Champagne bottles were popping together with photographers' bulbs when Burgess Meredith had his head shaven at the Hongkong Hilton last night. The occasion was part of the preparations for Meredith's cameo role as The Dolphin in the picture, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," which Meredith is making here with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. Meredith and makeup man, Marvin Westmore, spent more than an hour completing the transformation from Meredith's long-haired Hollywood appearance to create that of a short-haired Mandarin-moustached aging Oriental. Meredith plays the role of a Hongkong acpuncturist in the film. " Sweeney, Kevin (1999). James Mason: A Bio-Bibliography . Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press . p. 34. ISBN 0-313-28496-2 . ISSN 0892-5550 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Mason then went to Hong Kong for an honest-to-God disaster that couldn't have looked good even on paper. The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1969–70) was written and directed by actor Burgess Meredith, going behind the camera for the first time since The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949). Mason is an Asian arms dealer who gets involved with a young American (Jeff Bridges). This international mishmash ran out of money and was officially never completed, though it may have been later patched together and released in Southeast Asia under the title The Third Eye . It can now be found on video under its original name, with obviously fake new scenes featuring Broderick Crawford. " Less significant coverage: Jerry Roberts articles: Roberts, Jerry (1988-08-12). "Oddball movies his bridge to success" . Daily Breeze . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The article notes: "ven in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), Bridges' talent, which in those days fed on his unveiled enthusiasm, was undeniable. ... If you want to mix in a doozy of a change of pace, rent "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," of which there is no record in almost all of the major film source books. It was directed by Burgess Meredith in Hong Kong, co-stars Meredith, James Mason and Broderick Crawford, and mixes espionage with a travelogue of the city, strange sexual behavior and cracked Eastern mysticism, all adorned with a loopy bubblegum-pop score. " Roberts, Jerry (1991-09-21). "Bridges can't pass up a challenge" . Daily Breeze . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The article notes: "His least-known film is undoubtedly "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), a Hong Kong travelogue holding up an espionage and acupuncture plot, written and directed by Burgess Meredith, co-starring James Mason and Meredith. " Roberts, Jerry (1989-07-21). "A portrait of the actor as director" . Daily Breeze . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The article notes: "You may or may not want to recall several jaw-dropping experiences, the foremost of which might be Burgess Meredith's incredibly ridiculous "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), with Jeff Bridges as a hippie in a bubble-gum Hong Kong travelogue about acupuncture, spies and strange sexual proclivities. This one has to be seen to be believed. James Mason and Broderick Crawford are in it, too. " Roberts, Jerry (1993-10-15). "Fearless Jeff Bridges - His bold career eclipses those with more star power" . Daily Breeze . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The article notes: "In his earliest roles, at age 20, Bridges' talent was undeniable, even in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, in which he played a Ken Kesey-style social dropout driving a flower-power bus, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), in which he was caught up in Hong Kong intrigue. " "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go". Film Index International . British Film Institute . 1971. ProQuest 1745270154 . The entry notes: "Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go. Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go. " The entry notes: "Hong Kong: Concerned with a half-English, half-Malaysian entrepreneur, who suddenly becomes involved in the legend, whereby once every seven years Buddha changes a person and this enables other people to change accordingly. " Sheehan, Ed (1970-05-17). "in Hong Kong the unusual is commonplace" . Honolulu Star-Bulletin . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com . The article said of James Mason , "He is making a film here, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," with Australian actress Clarissa Kay, Jeff Bridges and Irene Tseu. He describes it as "A sort of "Terry and the Pirates' with sociological and religious overtones. " One gathers that the picture goes well, though progress and spirits rise and fall with fluctuations of its financing. There is a lavish buffet at noon daily in the Espresso Room of the hotel. It costs less than two U.S. dollars. Barometer of the movie's current condition is the behavior of one of its entrepreneurs. If he eats three heaping plates, making it his single meal of the day, it means things are shaky. Director Burgess Meredith is unperturbed and unquenchable. A highly charged, intense man, he has high hopes for the film. "And give my best regards to Buck Buchwach and Eddie Sherman. " Leach, John (1970-04-17). "Meredith Has No Time for Yesterdays" . The Palm Beach Post . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "But it's still today and tomorrow that count with Meredith. "I'm in the middle of cutting my latest film. It has been shot and I'm just cutting. I wrote, produced and directed it and I'm also acting in it with James Mason. We rescued a pretty little Chinese girl, Inez Tsu, from Frank Sinatra and she's in it too." The film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," was shot in Hong Kong and takes its title from a bit of Zen Buddhism. According to Zen, the yin and the yang represent the duality of nature or "the sweet and sour of life," as Meredith puts it. ..." McHarry, Charles (1970-02-09). "On the Town" . New York Daily News . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Dong Kingman writes from Hong Kong that Burgess Meredith, directing "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," had his head shaved and his eyes slenderized to play a Chinese acupuncturist in the movie" Campbell, Mary (1974-01-05). "Jeff Bridges is hopeful despite many setbacks" . Berkeley Gazette . Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Then there was "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go," a four-month Hong Kong project Bridges greatly enjoyed and for which he got paid, though it was never released. "Burgess Meredith wrote it and acted in it. The story was beautiful."" Blowen, Michael (1984-03-01). "Jeff Bridges Chooses Roles With Three Factors in Mind: Director, Story and Money" . The Boston Globe . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "But Bridges can describe how he feels about the second film he made. "This is hard to believe but I played an AWOL Vietnam soldier who was writing a Joycean rock opera in Hong Kong," he said. "The movie was written and directed by Burgess Meredith and it was called 'The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go.' James Mason starred as a Chinese-Mexican guy. That's about all I can remember about it except I think it's better than it sounds." "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go" was never released. " Schlossheimer, Michael (2002). Gunmen and Gangsters: Profiles of Nine Actors Who Portrayed Memorable Screen Tough Guys . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . ISBN 978-1-4766-3546-0 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books . The book notes: "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go. Ross International 1971. Burgess Meredith. James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Irene Tsu, Alec McCowen, Peter Lind Hayes. Confused tale of international arms trading. BC narrates sequences that were added without director Meredith's participation. " Craig, Rob (2019). American International Pictures: A Comprehensive Filmography . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 169. ISBN 978-1-4766-6631-0 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Top-billed Jim Kelly makes only the briefest appearance, but Burgess Meredith—whose own film The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go (1970) shares some similarities with Golden Needles —gives a bravura performance. " "Attacked while shooting film". South China Morning Post . 1970-01-10. p. 5. ProQuest 1510075234 . The article notes: "A former radio personality was wounded yesterday when three youths attacked him during location shooting of an American film in Wongneichong Road, Happy Valley. Mr Bill Furnival, a 22-year-old former Commercial Road reporter, was assisting in the production of the film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," when he was assaulted by the youths, one armed with a knife and the others others with broom handles. " "The artist and the professional". South China Morning Post . 1970-01-03. p. 9. ProQuest 1510066621 . The article notes: "Now Jack MacGowran is hard at work preparing for his role in The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ..." "35 years ago this month" . Playboy . January 2006. p. 71 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "At the time of her pictorial in January 1971 Liv Lindeland was developing an acting career for both the screen and age. ... Still, she would appear in popcorn fare such as The Yin and Yang of Mr Go , ..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:37, 20 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. | speedy keep |
Nelo : It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Sports , and Portugal . Owen× ☎ 14:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This company appears to be notable. I understand this is not a nom's fault. It is just hard to search in local languages, but I managed to do that with Google CSE. Here's some reliable coverage: [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] . There is a lot more out there. Use search terms: "Nelo" AND "caiaque". Geeraarts ( talk ) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination thanks, Geeraarts , that's much appreciated. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:44, 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. | speedy keep |
Vasily and Andrey Shchelkalov : The page should be split or deleted. Changeworld1984 ( talk ) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If you're saying that it should be deleted or split solely because it is a biography of two brothers, then that is not a valid reason for deletion. It is perfectly acceptable to have a biography on two closely connected people in the same article. I will note, however, that it is an unsourced biography. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Per WP:SK3 . Nomination is flawed in innumerous ways. No WP:BEFORE search was conducted; if even a perfunctory one was, the nominator would have found the corresponding articles in ru.wp ( ru:Щелкалов, Андрей Яковлевич and ru:Щелкалов, Василий Яковлевич ), which list a number of sources providing WP:SIGCOV , including entries in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary ( [27] ) and the Russian Biographical Dictionary ( [28] and [29] ), among many others. Additionally, split proposals occur at the article's talk page, not at AfD. Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, a biographical article can have multiple subjects if they are strongly interlinked; examples include Sacco and Vanzetti and Mildred and Richard Loving . Curbon7 ( talk ) 10:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bilateral relations . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Curbon7. No objection to splitting as there is clearly enough material to make this possible. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a quick search returns a few sources that bundle the brothers together. On the other hand, the French and Russian Wikipedia currently have separate articles for each of them, so there may be some good reason for that as well. But more importantly, as pointed out by others, this is not a matter of deletion. Aintabli ( talk ) 15:10, 12 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. | speedy keep |
List of Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations : iMahesh ( talk ) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . iMahesh ( talk ) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: There are Multiple articles with the same lists on the Wikipedia, should I go ahead and include them on this AfD discussion? Or if any consensus is arrived at this discussion We can proceed for CSD#G4 . -- iMahesh ( talk ) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason given for deletion is flawed - this is not a recreation of the deleted article "List of TUI fly Netherlands destinations" as claimed - it is concerned with an entirely different airline and has been in existence since 2005. While many similar articles have been deleted recently, lets frame the discussion properly - this article does seem to be better sourced than many of these destinations lists, so there is probably more that warrants preserving. Nigel Ish ( talk ) 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The rationale here is flawed as stated by Nigel Ish, so that should not be a reason considered in this case. As for the airline destinations itself, I checked through Google, and did find a few articles that discuss some destinations ARG serve [4] [5] [6] [7] , so it seems to pass WP:NLIST . While there is a "needs updating" tag on the list section (dating back to 2021), WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . There are some well-maintained lists of airline destinations that exist ( List of Singapore Airlines destinations is an example), and I believe this article has the potential to be well-maintained as well (provided someone does it). Since the above-mentioned AFD lists a particular discussion on WP:VPP , personally I think this is a limited consensus as the discussion is not particularly active (only around 20-25 users participated in a period of 1 month) and the relevant Wikiprojects (eg WP:AIRLINES ) were not informed properly, thus I'd personally not be convinced that the VPP is a good rationale. There was also a DRV that came after another AFD involving the SIA article, which eventually closed as keep. I also don't think this fails WP:NOTTRAVEL which was also mentioned in the discussion above. Lists of destinations are not the same as travel guides, because they only provide the destinations without the flights between each one of them. Taking the first few airports on the list as examples, is there a flight between Bahia Blanca and Catamarca? Is there a flight between Cordoba and El Calafate? A travel guide would tell me a definitive answer as to yes or no. This list, however, does not, and without the exact flights it is practically useless for travel information. This probably would be more of a concern if the airline operates flights out of only 1 hub (such as the SIA one which flies out of Singapore only), but with 2 hubs and domestic flights I don't think this is the case. S5A-0043 Talk 11:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists , and Argentina . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as the nomination rationale is entirely incorrect, this article has never been subject of a deletion discussion in the past. Jumpytoo Talk 20:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn Per S5A-0043 . -- iMahesh ( talk ) 00:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Marcus Cromartie : I don’t see how he is notable. The only news was about his signing, in other meaning, fails to meet WP:GNG . The bunch of source on the article 95% was just singing and profile, nothing else. Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , Sports , American football , and Handball . Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . Unquestionably notable as a four-season modern NFL player with extensive coverage (as anyone with his credentials would have): [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. Clearly notable. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana , Texas , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 16:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's very clearly enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG , per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 18:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources provided by BeanieFan easily meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG .-- Mooon FR ( talk ) 20:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Biota, Cinco Villas : Got DEPRODed PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Spanish article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biota_(Zaragoza) has plenty of content and sources, I've added Template:Expand Spanish . Reywas92 Talk 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will translate the article PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep municipalities clearly pass GEOLAND and the status of the article isn't normally relevant as long as sources do exist, see WP:RUBBISH . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 06:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep a stub with room for improvement is no valid rationale for deletion in its own right. --Asqueladd ( talk ) 08:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND . Obviously. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : the subject clearly passes WP:GEOLANDm and sources can be added to improve the article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ◆ NOM WITHDRAWN PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Lego pneumatics : I couldn't find any independent sources that provide significant coverage of Lego pneumatics in general outside of hobby blogs. A few magazines reported on a Lego pneumatic V8 engine (e.g. [18] ) but they do not discuss the pneumatics in detail. This should be redirected to Lego Technic#Pneumatics . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 05:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions . Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 05:31, 12 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. | speedy keep |
Judas (manga) : I have attempted AtD's and all have been reverted with no further changes. The present article objectively fails all notability standards, but it appears the community insists on a full AfD, so here we go. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR --As another editor has noted, there has been a Heymann rewrite on this article which establishes notability and brings it up to WP standard. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; this article meets WP:NBOOK with the three reviews listed in the external links section ( Comic Book Bin , Sequential Tart , Mania ), all of which are from reliable sources per WP:ANIME/RS . The article is poor but deletion is not cleanup . Link20XX ( talk ) 01:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, a review exists in Jason Thompson 's Manga: The Complete Guide (page 598 in my digital version), thus giving it four good sources. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How many of those meet WP:RS ? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of them. Their reliability was all discussed just for them to be listed at ANIME/RS. Not to mention Manga: The Complete Guide is a published work that has been widely used throughout other articles; its author is also well-noted for his work in the industry. Link20XX ( talk ) 01:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just completely re-wrote the entire article with sources and a shorter plot summary. Link20XX ( talk ) 03:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided by Link are sufficient to meet NBOOK. Jumpytoo Talk 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to reasons above, WP:HEY is achieved, the article is in a much better state thanks to Link20XX and likely would not be nominated at this point. — siro χ o 04:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Alan Hampson : Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per consensus Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 23:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 08:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - fatally flawed nomination by somebody who, respectfully, does not have a clue, as shown by their attempt to CSD A7 the article prior to this AFD. This is a professional player (over 120 appearances) active in the 1950s with sufficient sources to show notability. Giant Snowman 19:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Over a hundred caps for Halifax in the football league, one for Everton and a few for Bradford City. I will have faith there is more in a newspaper source and WP:OFFLINESOURCES , the online ones are not so great, mainly databases from what I see. However there is certainly confirmation of the players career like [24] , what makes me want to keep more is this source [25] , which tells us more than whats on the article, including he was manager of Prescot Cables F.C. If I found that in a few min on a google search I am unimpressed with the WP:BEFORE here. As there are multiple sources online which can easily boost the article. Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 21:48, 19 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. | speedy keep |
Youmi Kimura : — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Music . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 15:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve; definitely does satisfy WP:MN #2, #8, and #10. The first song from the Ghibli film charted at #6 and spent 42 weeks on the charts per Oricon , and was also nominated for Song of the Year in the Japan Record Awards in 2001. She also wrote the theme song of Howl's Moving Castle , for which she won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Music (confirmed here ). The song from Spirited Away won the prize for best music at the 56th Mainichi Film Awards and a special prize at the 25th Japan Academy Film Prize . Dekimasu よ! 02:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The song from Spirited Away should also have been certified platinum in Japan, since it sold over 400,000 units in 2001 according to Oricon, which would mean she also meets WP:MN #3. I don't think Oricon puts those figures online itself anymore, but the number can be seen here or here . Dekimasu よ! 02:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Willing to withdraw, and these sources can be incorporated in some way. The article really needs some cleaning up, though. It should probably also be moved to Yumi Kimura ; I'm not sure why this article is even at this title to begin with. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 23:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy keep |
Mila (Doctor Who) : Does not seem to display GNG or SIGCOV, and I doubt it ever will. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:16, 30 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. | speedy keep |
Threshold (Doctor Who) : No sources seem to exist for them, and the article already cites no sources. Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:46, 30 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. | speedy keep |