Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Treujenn-gaol : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some text and references from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I see no issue that requires deletion. Geschichte ( talk ) 18:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I vote to keep this article. It has been improved with additional references and content. Waqar 💬 17:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Armin van Buuren: In the Mix : Instead of PRODing, I've brought to AfD as there are some sources that I found in my search, and I think it would benefit from a community discussion before deletion. The sources that I've found are noted below: GameSpot (a reliable source per WP:VG/RS has an extensive preview of the game here ( [51] ). The press release about the creation of the game is covered in a number of blog posts from reliable sources. ( [52] , [53] , [54] ) There is no coverage in any sources I searched for in Newspapers.com or Newsbank, and absolutely no coverage of the released game. This Wii music game just doesn't meet our mark. Nomader ( talk ) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , and Video games . Nomader ( talk ) 03:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn. Per source finds from Zxcvbnm , Timur9008 and Mika1h , this nomination was pre-mature and the sources easily pass WP:GNG . Nomader ( talk ) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep As you are likely aware, foreign-language sources are admissible in the Wikipedias of other languages, and I found this review in GameZone which covers the "multiple sources with significant coverage" criterion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found a preview in Gamer.nl , so I am changing it to a normal "Keep" ! vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One note to your foreign language comments -- they're not only admissible in the Wikipedias of other languages, but they're also obviously admissible here, and I'm a bit embarrassed that I missed the mark following the steps of WP:BEFORE on this nomination in my sources search. On the sources themselves, if I were an uninvolved editor coming around and a WP:THREE argument was a GameSpot preview, a GameZone review, and a Gamer.nl preview, I'd be inclined to say Weak Keep and I'm strongly considering withdrawing the nomination right now. I'm going to sleep on it before I do. Nomader ( talk ) 05:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nomader : See also the Eurogamer and other source found below, I think this is a clear withdraw as there is not a snowball's chance in Hell it will be deleted at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment probably a potential source [55] . I've checked the game developer's website and publisher's webiste for reviews but there is nothing there. Timur9008 ( talk ) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not sure if this should be kept but I believe there is a viable place to redirect this to if there is a a consensus against having an article. That target would be Armin van Buuren#2007–2009: Imagine since the game is mentioned in thr final paragraph of that section.-- 65.93.193.94 ( talk ) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , reviews from Eurogamer and Power Unlimited : [56] , [57] -- Mika1h ( talk ) 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Tribe (Philippine TV series) : Donald D23 talk to me 01:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added some sources, and I think that this show is notable because it was one of Net 25's (the network's) most popular shows for children and teens. Also, I think it's impressive that it was consistently being recognized as a source for family-friendly, informative entertainment. D-Flo27 ( talk ) 06:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep and tag for improvement – sources show notability and so do the awards. It could use synopsis/development and reception sections but deletion will not achieve that. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 22:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . For starters, this is a nominee of the PMPC Star Awards for Television which is the near-equivalent of the Emmys in the Philippines (actually, AFAIK, the only industry-related award). --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per nominations from notable award giving bodies. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per everyone who voted/commented. - Ian Lopez @ 16:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Special:Diff/1171599920 - Procedural, but please be mindful of WP:WNTRMT #3. Templates shouldn't be removed when "There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue". 99% fad-free ( talk ) 11:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn per the notices above. Donald D23 talk to me 21:24, 27 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

Lawrence Sebalu : Yes, he may be the Minister of Finance, but I'm failing to find SIGCOV of this individual. All I can see is passing mentions. Probably not notable just like his successors. dxneo ( talk ) 00:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Africa , and Uganda . dxneo ( talk ) 00:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject passes WP:NPOL as a finance minister, and a perfunctory Google search as well as a search on newspapers.com ( [59] ) shows quite a few sources which can be used to sustain an article ( WP:NEXIST ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Having sources unreachable is not a genuine reason. Subject is not the current but was a finance minister soon after independence which I hope in the days was notable. A quick Google search on books brings lots of recorded books, see here , here and here . This shows that subject passes WP:GNG / WP:NPOL - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw the nomination : per recent article improvement. Word to Tumbuka Arch , I would suggest that next time if an article is moved to draftspace, it must not be moved back to mainspace without convincing improvements that it passes WP:NBIO as WP:BLP is a very delicate subject which requires strong sourcing. I couldn't verify the notability of the subject based on an unreachable source and blog source. dxneo ( talk ) 02:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur with Dxneo here. I have cleaned-up the article and added to it significantly in terms of both prose and sourcing, but am generally not a big fan of cleaning up other people's messes. Curbon7 ( talk ) 03:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Tim Nedow : I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - if some of the information is wrong, this can be corrected through editing, rather than deleting the entire article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems there was a lot of old vandalism never reverted about weight, height, etc., but I've reverted it here . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , vandalism isn't a reason to AfD. I will say I find it odd that a new account's only edit at all is to nominate an article for deletion; TommieKunst ( talk · contribs ), have you got any other previous Wikipedia accounts? CoconutOctopus talk 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A search found numerous reliable sources to back up notability. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 01:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources found in the article seems to back up notability. Brachy 08 (Talk) 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Night and the Doctor : XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , bordering on speedy keep due to the superficial nomination statement. It's an official Doctor Who project — those don't sink into obscurity even when they become lost media — and it's already amply cited. In a case like this, an AfD nomination needs to make an effort to explain why the obvious factors counting in the article's favor somehow don't. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just because its an official Doctor Who project doenst make it notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Technically it doesn't, but in practice, it kind of does. Topics become notable when people write about them in reliable sources, which happens with cultural mainstays like Doctor Who rather a lot of the time. Some of the more niche-interest topics, like one-off minor characters and settings visited only in passing, might not need a whole article. That's why we have List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens and so forth. At worst, Night of the Doctor would be a candidate for merging , not deletion. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there were plenty of reliable sources already cited in the article when it was nominated. Donald D23 talk to me 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Having a sourced reception section, there seem to be enough sources to fullfill WP:WHYN . Daranios ( talk ) 16:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete Lets look at the sources. Douglas Mackinnon [@drmuig] (18 November 2019). "I directed this!" ( Tweet ) . Retrieved 25 June 2021 – via Twitter . This sources is a tweet by the director, doesnt establish notability. The Night's Tale (DVD). Doctor Who Confidential . Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series. 21 November 2012. This is Doctor Who Confidential which is a behind the scenes show. While this would be good for production information its not independent. Berriman, Ian (22 October 2011). "New Doctor Who mini-episodes reviewed" . SFX . Retrieved 8 January 2012 . This one talks about the miniepisodes directly so it would agree this is good. Sinnott, John (23 November 2011). "Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series (Blu-ray)" . DVD Talk . Retrieved 24 March 2013 . DVD Talk doenst seem reliable and seems like a collection of user generated reviews. Jane Anders, Charlie (17 November 2011). "Your Magical First Glimpse at the Bonus Scenes on the Doctor Who Season Six DVDs!" . io9 . Retrieved 27 March 2012 . I cant say much as to this as I am not familure with it. Jusino, Teresa (22 November 2011). "Great New Scenes from the Doctor Who Series 6 DVD/Blu-ray" . Tor.com . Retrieved 26 March 2013 . Once again I am not familure with this but this seems to be about the dvd release itself, and not the specifc story. Blumburg, Arnold T (25 January 2012). "Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series Blu-ray Review" . IGN . Retrieved 24 March 2013 . Same story as with above about the dvd release, it does talk about it for a paragraph, and not particularly indebth more like a plot summary. Of these sources none of them are particularly great. So Delete is the proper course of action Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment DVD Talk is definitely considered a reliable source. Search the notice boards. It's been discussed and is used regularly in notbabilty discussions. Donald D23 talk to me 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A story about the DVD release is an appropriate source for an article that, among other things, discusses the DVD release. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I honestly don't see the issue with the article, either. Furthermore, this is a part of Doctor Who canon. In " The Husbands of River Song ", in the final scene, River discusses with the Twelfth Doctor about why he kept cancelling their date to Darillium. During this, she mentions the "night there were two of you", a reference to the "Last Night" episode. This is also referenced in the episode's Wikipedia article under "Continuity" - a sourced reference - and that has never been questioned or challenged. So, if one of these interconnected mini-stories is connected to the main show's canon, then they all are connected. As such, this entire collection is canonical and notable. Ooznoz ( talk ) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Ooznoz [ reply ] Keep as nominator. For reasons leasted above, in particular regarding canon. Hektor ( talk ) 07:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the intitall nominator I see I did not do a good enough job in my before and the page is notable enough and should be kept and improved upon. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Meredith Badger : I have looked for book reviews on Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist, as well as a general Google and Google Scholar search, but haven't found any reviews for her books -- nor any other reliable, independent sources that discuss the author. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator : Thank you, Bridget , for pointing out the pseudonym! I somehow missed that when I nominated for AFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , and Australia . Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 16:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Bridget (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Were you able to search for sources using her other name Em Bailey? I've found some sources on her that should be included in the article in a preliminary search: Publishers Weekly review of Shift (2011) , these articles from the Australian books outlet Books+Publishing [24] [25] [26] [27] , and this review of The Special Ones (2017) in The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books . Also, some reviews are mentioned on the US publisher's ( Macmillan ) website for two of her books: [28] [29] , which might also be worth searching for. Bridget (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think there's definitely a case for WP:NAUTHOR . There's this brief review of The Special in the The Australian , one from Kirkus Reviews , and one from School Library Journal , and this review of Shift (via Gale) in The Horn Book Magazine . Bridget (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

The Martini Henry Rifles : StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Sourcing is just not available. The BBC account of their signing is significant, but it is alone. The other references (now removed) were simply a link to a streaming service and what appears to have been a self published source (private registartion [32] ) that hosted only a review of this band and som album that may have beein called "Semi finalists" and nothing else, [33] but in any case was misconfigured for all archive runs, and no archives of the text exist. The article says they prepared to release a second alnum in 2006 but there is nothing about a release. I can only find one album release [34] plus singles. I don't see any evidence the second album was ever completed. In any case, release of the album was not on a major label. I looked carefully at WP:NBAND under all criteria, but they don't meet any nor GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've added additional sourcing from newspaper reviews which I believe now meet the first criteria of WP:NBAND . Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting so editors can assess additions to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I have looked at the sources and agree they support NBAND#1. The article is very original-researchy, and should probably to be cut back to something closer to a stub unless citations can be found. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Thanks for finding some sources. At least 2 reviews by actual publications is satisfactory so I’ll withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sirfurboy would you be willing to reconsider this article? L iz Read! Talk! 04:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:HEY and in support of the withdrawal of nom. I have looked at the additional sources, and produced this table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Drowned in Sound Drowned in Sound was a British webzine with a freelance writing team. No indication of paid for content DIS did not pay its writers and this affects editorial standards but it is generally reliable The source discusses the subject directly and in detail but the piece is very brief. ✔ Yes Western Telegraph Often this kind of coverage is based on a press release or copy supplied by the band. However, it reads like an independent review, so will give benefit of the doubt The Western Telegraph is a Carmarthanshire regional paper. ~ A short review of a CD release in a regional paper of a local band does not indicate significance ~ Partial Manchester Evening News Another regional paper but this time about a concert away from the band's home. Regional coverage The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail. It is primary inasmuch as it just reports a concert took place, and nothing significant rises above the primary sourcing. ✘ No Uncut At least I am pretty sure they are. Didn't bother to check as it fails on significance "Good news for fans of no tunes" and one star. Bad reviews can still be significant but this one is just a paragraph long. ✘ No BBC Wales It's the BBC BBC Wales is Welsh regional BBC coverage This is the best source in my opinion. Something to write the article from. Coverage of what the BBC saw as a possible up and coming band. It has a regional focus though, and this coverage does not preclude them being a one hit wonder. ✔ Yes South Wales Argus Usual issues with regional coverage but again, benefit of the doubt given Regional coverage only It is a significant review. The regional focus in the band's home region needs to be noted. ✔ Yes Broadcase Now This is a primary source that reports a successful complaint that the BBC should not have played one of their songs as it was offensive. Primary sources do not count towards notability and the coverage is, in any case, brief ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . That appears to show there is sufficient significant coverage to warrant the article. I retain strong reservations. All of the coverage is regional in one way or another - even the BBC coverage is BBC Wales, although Wales as a region is also Wales as a nation so I'll give that one an unequivocal pass. The other coverage could all be picked at. The band signed a deal with a record label (not a major label) and only had one release plus a few singles on it. Nothing more will be forthcoming. If this scrapes across the line, it is just barely. Do we really think a band with one album and only regional coverage is notable? But HEY. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sirfurboy Thanks for the work you've put in to analysing these sources. The table above is helpful feedback that I can think about in my future editing :) Jonathan Deamer ( talk ) 09:11, 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

Mannat Murad : Shellwood ( talk ) 21:17, 14 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

Gesser : My consideration is to redirect to the football coach and have a hatnote for the record producer, but I guess a straight up deletion also works. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations . Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep if anything, this is a case of WP:TWOOTHER . We can choose what to do, in this case I would opt for the status quo. Broc ( talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . For starters WP:ONEOTHER is about disambiguation pages. This is not a disambiguation page. Jason Gesser is also not particularly notable and is certainly not ubiquitously referred to only as "Gesser". The bar for a primary surname redirect is way higher than this one. — Xezbeth ( talk ) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep particularly with the addition of another person but agree that this isn't suited for a surname redirect to a single person. Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : now has 3 names, standard surname page. Pam D 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination someone else has been added, no longer eligible for AfD. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 09:14, 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

List of EGOT winners of Filipino descent : Nominations for awards alone are not typically enough for notability unless it's multiple per WP:ANYBIO . There are separate lists for winners/nominations for the 4 separate awards that make up EGOT for other countries, but all of those have a stricter inclusion criteria (not descent, but actually from the country) than just descent, so this list is wrong on the basis of being about EGOT, which is something WP:SPECIFIC and on the basis of being inconsistent regarding inclusion criteria compared to other separated out awards lists. Raladic ( talk ) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator following below discussion with article creator, rescoping the article to address the issues I raised by renaming and removing descent based criteria for WP:CONSISTENT with other such (split out) lists. Raladic ( talk ) 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Film , Music , Television , Theatre , Awards , Entertainment , and Philippines . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :: Delete : I think it's the best thing to delete this article rather than move because I mistook the title early. It wasn't for Lopez's wins but for Filipino descent as an equal. I believe "List of EGOT winners and nominees of Filipino descent" is a good title or you can rename it to "List of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony winners and nominees of Filipino descent" as a whole list of accolades involving Filipino descent. As a matter of fact, it lacks the information of accolades or "winners and nominees" of Filipino descent like "List of Oscar winners and nominees of Filipino descent" or "List of Grammy winners and nominees of Filipino descent". So, I put that title as a whole list rather than separate. GeniusTaker ( talk ) 03:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I expanded on in the nomination, this list is inconsistent with other lists about the separated-out awards, which are not about descent, but about people from those countries. So per WP:CONSISTENT , the current list fails this and should be reduced to either being a combined list, or 4 separate lists, but narrowed down to "List of Filipino X award winners and nominees", without the "descent" part. Raladic ( talk ) 03:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about "List of Filipino Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony award winners and nominees"? Was it good for you? Because I don't want that separate list but instead as a whole. It's very difficult for that. GeniusTaker ( talk ) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose that can work if you don't want to split it out, but you'd have to remove all people from the current lists that are only of descent. Please strike your above "Delete" (by putting <del> and </del> around it) and I can withdraw the deletion nomination and we can speedy keep it and then move it to the right article title. Raladic ( talk ) 03:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Mitchell Waite : A PROD was contested in 2013. SL93 ( talk ) 01:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Computing , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom; too promotional and too much unsourced content. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the sources shown by SouthernNights, my first preference would be to redirect/repurpose the article to be about The Waite Group. The notability is entirely based on the books published, but there is probably enough coverage. (If there are sources that aren't contemporaneous trade magazines, I will strike my vote.) Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tried to look for recent coverage, but there are so many hits about books I couldn't tell. Which is sufficient evidence this shouldn't be deleted. It needs cleanup, (and with the existing sources might need to be repurposed to be about the publishing firm), but shouldn't be deleted outright. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 02:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not seem to meet notability standards of WP:AUTHOR GuyBanks ( talk ) 02:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on new information found and provided by SouthernNights GuyBanks ( talk ) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Very PROMO. I can only find places to buy his books, no reviews... Nothing about this individual either, no mentions in RS. delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, the article needs a rewrite and citations. However, it turns out this guy was a big deal in 1970s and '80s computing. A search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a few reviews of his work in a places such as SciTech Book News and BioScience , along with this article in the New York Times covering some his work ( link ) and this article from another newspaper where Waite discusses his memories of Steve Jobs . However, where I was truly overwhelmed with citations supporting this person's notability was in a search in the Internet Archive . Turns out his work was heavily covered in computer magazines and journals of the 1970s and '80s, with that search returning over a thousand results. Yes, some the results are ads for his books but there are also what appear to be hundreds of reviews or mentions of his books in Compute! , Byte Magazine , Creative Computing , and many other publications. For examples of these reviews, see the following links: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 . Please note there are many more reviews, so I'm not attempting to link to all of them. As another example of his notability, the June 1986 issue of Amstrad Computer User states that "The de facto references in this sphere are the works of one Mitchell Waite who, with a crew of collaborators made writing CP/M hooks a one-man industry in the CP/M heyday around 1980." ( "Mitchell+Waite" link ). Based on all these reviews of his work, I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have definitely shown notability. I wish I could withdraw this, but I can't with three prior deletes. SL93 ( talk ) 23:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears one of the editors changed their mind. Perhaps if we contact the other two editors and ask them to weigh in? I'm also willing to work on improving the article with the citations and other info I've found if the article is kept. SouthernNights ( talk ) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've now cleaned up the article and added new info and citations. Also, Waite's life and work is heavily featured in a large section of the book Code Nation: Personal Computing and the Learn to Program Movement in America . I've added info from this to the article. That book makes a strong case that Waite was instrumental through his books in encouraging the "rapid development of the Mac platform in the 1980s." SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The new sources added from the 1990s help improve the article, we have enough to show notability now. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per SouthernNights, although the article will have to be rewritten and re-sourced C F A 💬 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Burglar (character) : I feel like this is less of a character and more of a reoccurring idea, but that's just my opinion. Industrial Insect (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . Industrial Insect (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CTRL+C CTRL+V-ing all these discussions with "Keep or merge in the spirit of Preserve" does NOT add ANY extra weight towards your argument, and I'm kinda concerned since ALL of these discussions have nearly the exact same arguments for keep. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't speak for @ Rtkat3 , but as I stated at Wikipedia:Help desk#Same arguments at similar AFDs. : - "triggering an AfD is easy and simple, posting a Keep argument that's properly researched effectively takes as long as creating an article, particularly for a niche area where a lot of reliable sources are offline (in the case of comic book characters things like The Comic Journal, Amazing Heroes and a lot of small-run books). Seeing as there was and is no sign of @Industrial Insect having done much more than an online search before mass-nominating a group of articles - a common problem with AfDs in the area - I see no reason why I should drop the projects I'm currently working on to effectively research 18 articles in a week on subjects I'm only peripherally interested in. But on a point of principle I try not to allow under-researched AfD nominations slide as I've seen far too many articles in desperate need of clean-up saved without the AfD process involved; the articles are just waiting for someone genuinely knowledgeable in the subject to find the time to bring them up to scratch or make a genuine, informed decision as to whether they're tenable. My cut-and-paste votes directly reflect the amount of effort the nominator put in to a) attempting to salvage the articles before nominating and b) researching the before. " Hope this helps. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 09:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent. Instead of A.) Actually trying to bring good arguments to the AfD or B.) Not participating, you decided to vote out of spite. Didn't you yourself advise me not to be rude at AfD? Industrial Insect (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's an interesting way of reading it, and it's curious that you've sidestepped the stuff about your questionable Before. Not sure how much joy you're likely to get out of this "I don't think this is good enough, everyone else needs to run around and justify it to me" approach to Wikipedia, TBH. I mean, with any of these nominations have you attempted any content cleanup through editing? Have you looked at any potential merge targets? Have you done any Before that isn't just typing keywords into Google? If the answer to any of those questions is "no" then the nomination is undercooked and potentially frivolous, and you're expecting people to do more work to Keep than you expect to do for Delete. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and regarding rudeness, I did indeed say that, and look what happened - you've cast aspertions on at least one good faith editor, lunged in on any votes that don't go the way you want them to, attempted to fire up a Batsignal at the Helpdesk because you also didn't like the way some of the votes are going, and also expect other volunteers to do things you can't be bothered to do. None of that suggests to me you are treating other users with the respect needed, bluntly. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 15:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I'm for closing all the AfDs as keep since that's been the prevailing consensus at all of them before. I did a lazy BEFORE, and it's obvious that I'll be reaping what I sow. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Sam Kaplan (American football) : Open to redirecting this to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 or another target. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Washington, D.C. . Let'srun ( talk ) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom. Another possible target is List of Washington Senators (NFL) players and I have no preference between the two lists. I could not find any SIGCOV of the subject. Willing to reconsider if coverage is identified so please ping me. Frank Anchor 23:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] changed to neutral per below request to withdraw. Frank Anchor 00:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Article has now been expanded substantially. Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to be just enough WP:SIGCOV now. Willing to withdraw this AfD, what do you think @ Frank Anchor ? Let'srun ( talk ) 00:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] It’s enough for me to not get in the way of a good faith request to withdraw. Some SIGCOV, not a lot, but that’s typical for a player of that era. Frank Anchor 00:50, 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

Eric Saucke-Lacelle : PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [ [42] ] and [ [43] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Fireworks (2000 TV series) : Tagged for notability since 2015. PROD removed because one of the other languages has citations, but looking at them they are either primary or mention the show in passing. Donald D23 talk to me 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea . Donald D23 talk to me 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I found multiple reliable sources, albeit written in Korean, to support the keeping of this article. They're all in-depth (not passing mentions) and not routine coverage, as they cover the show in detail. 드라마 '불꽃', 뒤집기 성공할까 [Will the drama ‘Fireworks’ succeed in turning its fate around?] ( Chosun Ilbo ) Dong-a Ilbo : [7] , [8] , [9] (this one is about an actor who played in Fireworks, but it has information about the show - also consult this article from the Maeil Business Newspaper ) A source from Maeil about its music Joongang Ilbo : [10] , [11] (this one is linked in the kowiki version, though there it's broken), [12] There's more I didn't link, but I feel this is enough to support its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuju Daisuki ( talk • contribs ) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for not signing my comment, I was on mobile web and the site was acting real wonky. Today I expanded the article from a stub and (hopefully) made its notability apparent. Wuju Daisuki ( talk ) 01:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wuju Daisuki's comment. toobigtokale ( talk ) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Another review of the recently found sources would be helpful. Has the nominator looked them over? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per sources listed above. Donald D23 talk to me 01:15, 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

Ahmad Yar Gharany : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Being a hoax and promotion at the same time sounds like nonsense. Geschichte ( talk ) 12:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There's a source cited from Khaama Press , the largest news agency in the country. Why do you think it's a hoax? Wikishovel ( talk ) 12:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Created by a sockpuppet of User:Abbasshaikh124 but I think other editors have done enough work on it that it's not eligible for CSD G5. L iz Read! Talk! 04:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 : There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67 , 194 , 242 , etc. A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine . Longhornsg ( talk ) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is literally the only UNGA resolution regarding this issue, it is important to keep so that people can see how the conflict has affected the UN. Scarlet Strange ( talk ) 04:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If it was important enough for a Czech minister to consider leaving the UN, it is important enough to keep. Zagothal ( talk ) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . How can you say it is non-notable? There are various reliable sources showing it is notable. A bullet or two for this resolution would NOT do this subject justice. This nomination is wrongheaded in more ways than one. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: @ User:PatrickJWelsh , @ User:Toadboy123 , @ User:Rwendland , @ User:Omnipaedista , @ User:Barzamin , and @ User:Tony24644 this discussion may be of interest. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . 1. As stated above, there are various reliable sources showing it is notable; and that is my main argument. 2. We have a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and it features many articles about relevant resolutions that are far less notable than this one. Note: we also have articles about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/20 that are fairly related to this one. -- Omnipaedista ( talk ) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a good point as well. There more than "routine news coverage" and considering the resolution is relatively new, how can "enduring notability" even be assessed? Historyday01 ( talk ) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The cited sources appear to constitute WP:SIGCOV , and UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so this has lasting significance. The sum of the article already seems to transcend news reporting in my opinion, and can’t be compared to anything else listed in ENDURING. The argument that this is fundamentally different than articles about some other UNGA and UNSC resolutions should explain how, in relation to our guidelines.   — Michael Z . 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly. I actually have a long-term plan to go through ALL the UN resolutions and add context to them. And having a page for such resolutions will undoubtedly help anyone who is doing research on this in the future as well, especially since the UN site is a bit confusing to navigate (and use). Historyday01 ( talk ) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This will literally be mentioned in history books. Patrick J. Welsh ( talk ) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The resolution has received widespread media coverage and academic interest. It should be seen as equivalent in its power, effect, and gravity as the UN Special Emergency Session resolutions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have their own dedicated pages. Cscescu ( talk ) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article has more noteworthy content than 2 bullet points. Legend of 14 ( talk ) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Related to a major ongoing international conflict and we have articles about UN GA Resolutions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other standalone articles on GA and SC Resolutions related Israel and Palestine (such as Resolution ES-10/19) and this is more detailed than most articles on GA Resolutions and features citations from a variety of news sources. -- AXEdits ( talk ) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (endorse speedy close), good faith nom, but clearly a pass on GNG. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] '''Keep'''. Don't be absurd bro, This is the first time I see someone claimed UN Assembly Resolution is not notable. I highly doubt your motive @ Someone97816 ( talk ) 03:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, me too. I don't get how a UN resolution is NOT notable. I have some sinking suspicions about the OP as well, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 ( talk ) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability is blindingly obvious. Zero talk 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Deleting this resolution on the list of resolutions concerning (the state of) Israel would make Wikipedia as partisan as it would be, if we deleted the same/similar from the list of resolutions concerning (the (proposed) state of) Palestine. Jaap-073 ( talk ) 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since widely reported on by RS. Makeandtoss ( talk ) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , at least for now, reliable sources have covered it and the nom’s rationale lists 67, 194 and 242 as examples but looking at them they have developed enduring notability. Somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a merge but it’d just be the case that it’d get spun out again as the parent article would get too lengthy. Agree nomination is in good faith but speedy closure may be inadvisable as others may wish to disagree . SITH (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but not speedily. The discussion of the AfD nominator's good faith is immaterial; this AfD does not really fulfill the requirements of WP:KEEP . However, I heavily disagree with the nominator; I do think that this article has enduring notability. As a rough proxy measure of current notability, the stub article originally only cited a single UN press release. Within a few days, the article has 30 citations, the majority of them secondary WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and is linked to by quite a few other pages . The current Israel–Hamas conflict is inarguably of enduring notability; transitively, given that pages related to it are frequently linking to this resolution, I don't think a bullet or two on a general page about UN Israel–Palestine-related resolutions is sufficient. Barzamin ( talk ) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Extremely notable and relevant. 67.252.8.78 ( talk ) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is the first UNGA resolution regarding the ongoing conflict. Bit strange even to delete it by claiming UNGA resolutions are not notable. Toadboy123 ( talk ) 12:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Silicon Slopes : Silicon Slopes is essentially a commercial high tech real estate project that over time grew out of Thanksgiving Point with a large amount (over 40%) of vacant real estate and this article is the ad for that . Article makes more sense merged into Utah Valley since having a standalone article is nothing more than advertising for commercial real estate in Lehi, Utah . Recommend delete or merge into the previously mentioned articles. KindHorta ( talk ) 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I change my vote to keep and request this Afd be closed. Whether the content should be merged into Utah Valley is another discussion for another day. The article has been improved to the point it's no longer a blatant advertisement. KindHorta ( talk ) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and refine. As this well-sourced article notes, the concept is distinct and well-established, but there's no evidence to say Silicon Slopes is centered on Lehi versus the broader Wasatch Front region. Compare the lede for Silicon Valley : "Silicon Valley is a region in Northern California that is a global center for high technology and innovation. Located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Santa Clara Valley." Likewise, for this, I'd suggest that framing Silicon Slopes like this: "Silicon Slopes is a term that defines the part of Utah that is a major economic center for technology and innovation businesses. Centered on the cities of Salt Lake City and Provo and their surrounding suburbs, it corresponds roughly to the geographical area of the Wasatch Front." In fact, I'm going to make that change right now. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is not for advertising and honestly, that's all this article is about. Your corrections help a little but seriously, this article is an advertisement. I am not certain that claiming the entire Wasatch Front, which is hundreds of miles long, encompasses Silicon Slopes just because the article says so. Silicon Slopes is centered at point of the mountain north of Lehi, and that's where it started from the Thanksgiving Point commercial real estate complex which expanded over time. This article is a blatant advertisement and is written as such. KindHorta ( talk ) 02:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the article's too promotional, then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM . Deletion is for articles that don't belong on Wikipedia at all, usually for notability reasons. There's plenty of WP:SIRS sourcing for "Silicon Slopes" as a concept (and it's sourced as well as or better than most of the other " Silicon ___ " appellations with articles on Wikipedia). This debate isn't about whether the article is promotional; it's about whether the topic is notable. Do you disagree? Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 04:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From Lehi, Utah - Ancestry.com moved its headquarters from Provo to Lehi in May 2016. The headquarters building is located in The Corporate Center at Traverse Mountain. Microsoft has an engineering department specializing in the next version of its MDOP (Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack), code-named "Park City."[19] Initially employing 100, Microsoft has built a second building to house its staff.[20] Microsoft Southwest District is located at 3400 N. Ashton Blvd., Suite 300 Lehi, Utah 84043.[21] Other Thanksgiving Park tenants are Oracle Corporation, Infusionsoft, Workfront, Vivint Solar, Agel Enterprises, DigiCert, Jolt and ProPay Inc. [22] . Article should be deleted are merged, preferably merged into Utah Valley which is where is belongs. KindHorta ( talk ) 05:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliable sources make clear that "Silicon Slopes" refers to a wider area beyond Lehi: Draper ( Deseret News , SL Tribune ), Midvale ( KSL News Radio ), Ogden ( Utah Business , TechCrunch , Axios ), South Jordan Utah Business ), American Fork ( Utah Business ), and Provo KUER ). Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 11:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree there are a lot of promotional articles claimed to be sources, and I also agree the topic is notable. What I am debating is where it should be mentioned. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that are well sourced but turn out to be advertisements and get deleted or merged. "Silicon Slopes" is now a marketing term for any high tech company in Utah. I lived in Utah for 30 years and was living there when Silicon Slopes was being built and I can tell you with certainty it only referred to the area north of Lehi, and it did not embrace the 200 or so miles along the entire Wasatch front, which is what you are claiming. You are just flat wrong and the sources you quote are all promotional nonsense advertising high tech real estate in Lehi, Utah. KindHorta ( talk ) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Please note this is the second AfD for this article. The first was improperly overwritten by the nominator here. Owen× ☎ 06:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There was no listing on the talk page of the previous Afd, and when I inserted the template it ended up in the wrong place. I tried to go back after the fact but I may need some help with doing that. Sorry. KindHorta ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Part of the problem here is that the nominator is removing numerous WP:SIRS from the article (under the guise of removing "advertising") that support the idea of "Silicon Slopes" as a collective name for the regional tech economy and collapsing the concept to a single nonprofit with the same name, which is a form of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH . I have no dog in this fight other than that I have heard numerous people referring to the greater Salt Lake region this way, and reliable sources (such as the ones I've cited upthread) confirm this usage. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I have repeatedly said, "Silicon Slopes" is a marketing platform to advertise Utah Valley, real estate and workforce as the next "Silicon Valley". All of my content is backed up with concrete secondary sources. All of these sources you keep quoting have their origins from siliconslopes.com, a "mormons only" club trying to convince large high tech companies to settle in Utah and employ mormons. If you are a non-mormon, LGBT, or a woman you won't get a job there or equal pay comparable to the diversity in the real Silicon Valley, and you will face discrimination in housing and other areas of life if you move there. Please stop drinking the Silicon Slopes Koolaide and actually go and read and research these sources. What's original research is claiming that "Silicon Slopes" is a regional area of Utah when in fact the sources point to it as a crowd-marketing scam to lure people into Utah that is run by mormon interests. There is no map or regional area, municipality, or city with the name "Silicon Slopes". It's original research to claim Silicon Slopes is the same as "Wasatch Front". KindHorta ( talk ) 20:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say it's the same as the Wasatch Front. I said it encompasses a tech economy throughout the Wasatch Front area. I have no idea who you are but you seem to have a major axe to grind here. This language you've added in the article ( "Although often compared to Silicon Valley, Silicon Slopes lacks the workforce diversity and climate of equality and inclusiveness which exists in Silicon Valley. Due to the strong influence of the Mormon Church in the area, women, LGBT, and minorities face significant challenges in the workplace in Utah and discrimination in pay and other benefits. Salt Lake City is somewhat more inclusive than Utah Valley where Silicon Slopes is based, which is over 90% Latter Day Saint in terms of population. Incidents of antisemitism and discrimination of LGBT and women have been reported in the Silicon Slopes workplace. The Silicon Slopes job market is also reported to be over-hyped in comparison to Silicon Valley." ) is not NPOV, and you appear to be a WP:SPA since your edits are only on this article and this AfD. Ironically, considering you started this AfD by complaining about promotional content, what you are doing appears to be WP:PROMOTION of a particular point of view. As you point out above, you believe this is a "crowd marketing scam" run by shadowy "mormon interests." I have been assuming good faith until now but seeing these kind of comments, there is no way you are in a position to edit this article fairly and I think you should step back from the article and let this AfD run its course. P.S. I'm not Mormon, I don't live in Utah, I don't work in tech, I have no affiliation with anything to do with this subject matter, but I can read the sources. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of that content you object to is backed up with credible reliable secondary sources. I usually just edit with my IP, but you need an account to Afd and I have been forthright about that and disclosed it as required by WP policy. I have no axe to grind here other than improving the quality of WP. I also know a lot about this topic and I came across this article and saw it flagged as advertising and it in fact is advertising, so I reviewed it and tried to improve it. I have to wonder if you have a WP:COI . Can you please disclose your relationship to this topic. KindHorta ( talk ) 21:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just told you above I don't have one. Look at my contribution history -- I'm a new page reviewer working this month to clear the new page review backlog, so I engage in tons of discussions here on many different topics. I'm able to review the sources and I know the framework for how they validate notability or not. I had heard casual mention of this topic a couple times before but didn't dig in until I reviewed your AfD. Meanwhile, you have used biased and POV language and disclosed that you lived close to the original development, so obviously you have a specific take on it. And like I said, perhaps you should step back and let this this AfD take its course. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Now that the advertising has been removed for the most part and silicon slopes has been "unmasked" in the article, I hope the article get's kept or merged. I have consistently said I think the topic is notable and belongs on WP, but cleaned up and properly scaled. I think this article goes well with Utah Valley and belongs there but that's up to the consensus of other editors. I want you and others to understand how Silicon Slopes came to be and what it is apart of the marketing and hype. As of today, it's a lot of vacant real estate looking for tenants. KindHorta ( talk ) 21:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Deletion is not cleanup , so if you think the article is sufficiently improved, you should ! vote to withdraw your nomination so this debate can be closed. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 21:30, 22 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

Courtney Woods : While it may have a shot at passing GNG, it definitely doesn't pass SIGCOV, and given that she hasn't appeared or been referenced since 2014, I doubt that's changing anytime soon. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:11, 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

Nara Bahadur Bista : Shivangi1738 ( talk ) 07:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nepal . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Constituent Assembly is the equivalent of a national parliament. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain and tag for more sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 10:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Constituent assemblies are not always WP:NPOL conferring (such as in a constitutional convention, where they have no legislative powers); however, in the case of Nepal, the Constituent Assembly was the national legislature, thus conferring WP:NPOL . Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - why, as article creator, wasn't I notified about this AfD? Easy keep per NPOL as CA member. -- Soman ( talk ) 18:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AfD was created manually rather than with the tool. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:16, 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

Charlize Mörz : Broc ( talk ) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria . Broc ( talk ) 16:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : Some coverage in Austrian media [18] , [19] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The gymnast recently won a bronze medal at an FIG World Cup event. She won this on the floor exercise which had a field of 56 gymnasts in qualification . The gymnast is also leading the women's rankings on the event . The 2024 FIG World Apparatus Cup series allows two gymnasts per event to qualify to the 2024 Summer Olympics , so she is in contention of gaining this nominative spot for herself. theworldgymnast1 ( talk ) 20:35, 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

Bhima Kheda : It is missing information to show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Created on 20 November 2013. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 12:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added a ref and it now passes WP:GEOLAND . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 04:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:GEOLAND . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 12:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Stefan G. Rasmussen : Anything notable in this article is contained in SAS Flight 751 . C apital S asha ~ t alk 19:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Aviation , and Denmark . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm not familiar with the Danish system of government, but the fact that this person served in the national parliament for four years appears to meet WP:NPOL . RecycledPixels ( talk ) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Danish parliament. Here are additional sources which should be added to the article: [5] [6] . Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:33, 14 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

Josephine Piyo : Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - She meet WP:NPOL as a member of the Plateau State House of Assembly , a state-wide elected office. She is also the incoming Deputy governor of the state. -- Whpq ( talk ) 15:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is poor quality, but notable nonetheless. Nigerian state legislators pass WP:NPOL . Curbon7 ( talk ) 17:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets both WP:NPOL and the WP:GNG . Can someone speedy close? gidonb ( talk ) 21:39, 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

John Ross (blogger) : Sources in the article are mostly brief mentions in the context of his time as one of a largish group of advisors to Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, and are therefore not WP:SIGCOV . The exceptions to this are op-ed pieces, interviews and commercial book-store websites (and therefore not reliable/independent). The Guardian "profile" is a single-sentence mention summing to 15 words. No instances of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE . WP:BLP article so should be based on high-quality sources. FOARP ( talk ) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . FOARP ( talk ) 13:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Politicians , Journalism , and China . TJMSmith ( talk ) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's a sportsperson with the same name, nothing found for this person. no sources found. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I expect there will be a WP:AUTHOR case here. We need to look for further reviews for: China’s Great Road: Lessons for Marxist Theory and Socialist Practices (2021) [21] Thatcher and Friends: The Anatomy of the Tory Party (1983) The Great Chess Game (2016)[ [22] ] Don’t Misunderstand China’s Economy (date?) It's difficult because a number of relevant sources are likely to not be available online because they're from the early 80's or in Chinese. Jahaza ( talk ) 16:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's also difficult because there's another John Ross, author of You Don't Know China , who has a web presence as a China expert. Jahaza ( talk ) 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This [23] Evening Standard article, was actually published in October 2007 and is SIGCOV. Jahaza ( talk ) 17:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's substantial coverage of Ross in Andrew Hosken's Ken: The Ups and Downs of Ken Livingstone (you can see some of that content here [24] ). That plus the Evening Standard article, plus the book reviews already identified, plus this in the Sunday Telegraph [25] . (There are also other less useful sources that document smaller facts and opinions [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] ) Jahaza ( talk ) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Jahaza , I'm not sure about the WP:NAUTHOR pass but I'm OK to withdraw based on the Evening Standard and book coverage. There's already a Delete ! vote on the board so I can't withdraw at this point though unless Oaktree b withdraws - what do you think Oaktree? FOARP ( talk ) 08:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm rescinding my vote above. I'm ok if it gets kept, with the new sources, as above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Oaktree b . In our defence, the refs in the article are bad and the many other John Rosses out there complicated performing a WP:BEFORE . FOARP ( talk ) 07:54, 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

Grandadbob : Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - looks like I need to get better at finding music sources, and I'm happy that the citations added support their notability. I'm glad that the nomination at least brought some attention to an article that needed it, if nothing else. Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 02:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England . Suntooooth , it/he ( talk / contribs ) 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep on this one as there is evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC , including: secondary album reviews in allmusic , Resident Advisor , and musicOMH , an allmusic staff bio, charting evidence from the Official Charts Company , and significant coverage on national radio BBC Radio 6 . WP:V citations have been added to the article for all of these. Resonant Dis tor tion 13:03, 28 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

High school basketball : Do high school teams meet the general notability guidelines? Certainly some professional players rose from the ranks in high school, but is the high school bracket noteworthy for an encyclopedia? I'm not going to say it isn't. It's just that this article is one sentence long and doesn't really justify its own page. It's as brief as a dictionary entry. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect back to Basketball#High school basketball . High school basketball had been a redirect there from 2007 until yesterday. I can't completely rule out the possibility that there ought to be a separate article for high school basketball; after all, there is one for high school football . But this article is one sentence long, shorter than the section on high school basketball in the Basketball article. If editors think there ought to be a separate article about high school basketball, they should prepare it as a draft and then move it to articlespace, rather than creating a one-sentence article and hoping that it will be better someday. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — High school basketball had a major impact on 20th century American culture and has probably thousands or millions of high-quality citations from reliable independent third-party sources, plainly meeting WP:GNG . The articles written about Hoosiers alone are enough to complete the article. Pretty massive oversight for Wikipedia to not have this article until 2024. Please remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup and the current stub status of the article after one day of existance has no relevance to its notability. All deletion arguments against this article are WP:SURMOUNTABLE . PK-WIKI ( talk ) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that it has left a very large imprint on culture in North America, and this article has much potential as a secondary topic for Basketball . Given the article's short length, it should be heavily expanded to include everything at Basketball#High school basketball and then some. The issue is that this article was created over a redirect that pointed to Basketball#High school basketball , which is more comprehensive on the subject than this one, and until there's interest in writing a full-length article, this would really be better as a redirect. I am going to withdraw this nomination and place a cleanup tag on the page. — Paper Luigi T • C 22:12, 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

July 2024 global IT outages : No reason by the nominator was given and this is a serious and global issue which is being reported by the media worldwide. We can decide later on if we need to delete it if it is not notable (see WP:RUSHDELETE ). ― Panamitsu (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose As long as the article's subject is notable, and the content is fine, there is no reason to delete the article. Gust Justice ( talk ) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose As it is a current ongoing event, it is better to keep the article while simultaneously updating the article. Note that I will also support this argument on every future ongoing events, whether it’s an assassination attempt, terrorist event, or even massive global affecting IT outage. SymphonyWizard72 ( talk ) 08:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Clearly a major, global story. Why on earth has this been nominated for deletion? I'm tired of people constantly nominating stuff that's obviously notable! Wjfox2005 ( talk ) 08:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose A major event caused by CrowdStrike, just like the assassination attempt days ago. AnimMouse ( talk ) 08:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CptViraj ( talk ) 08:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Moving to draft would likely lead to the contents being added to CrowdStrike's corporate profile so reducing its effectiveness. Thincat ( talk ) 08:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose . Clearly a major global event, where many countries were affected. This should remain in article space. Procyon117 ( talk ) 09:32, 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

Zheng Zhong : Unclear notability as a Han dynasty eunuch. Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , and China . Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See Rafe de Crespigny, Fire over Luoyang: A History of the Later Han Dynasty 23-220 AD (2016); and Ulrich Theobald, http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Han/personszhengzhong1.html , in turn citing three secondary or tertiary sources in Chinese. (The last three I have not been personally able to access.) Overall the preponderance of evidence suggests this is notable. Adumbrativus ( talk ) 09:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Subject has had an illustrious career as senior eunuch, holding sway over the young Emperor He of Han as a power broker in the eunuch faction against the consort kin faction (a familiar theme in Han dynasty politics). He is given a biography in the Book of Later Han , but more relevant to Wikipedia policies, his life is detailed in Rafe de Crespigny 's A Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms (23-220 AD) (p. 1130). In de Crespigny's other work Fire Over Luoyang , Zheng Zhong is mentioned no less than 28 times, and is described as having played "a critical role" in the coup against the consort kin Dou clan of Dou Xian , and his involvement sets a precedent as "the first time members of the inner court had been so actively involved in politics," and that "Zheng Zhong and his associates were models for the for the future, [where] palace eunuchs would become major players in the politics of the dynasty." (p. 132). Key political figure of lasting influence with unarguable notability. _dk ( talk ) 09:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable historical figure. Retinalsummer ( talk ) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More notable than many others with biographies and Wikipedia articles in Book of the Later Han and with citations from Rafe de Crespigny, arguably the most reputable English-language source on the era. In-line citations from Book of the Later Han vol. 78 should be added by someone familiar enough with the Classical Chinese, and as I have access to de Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary... I will add citations from that when I can, but the topic is still notable even if sources are identified but not yet included in the article. Benjitheijneb ( talk ) 19:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum: having now added inline citations, specific criteria for notability according to de Crespigny explicitly include: significant involvement in a palace coup; being granted a marquisate as a reward (de Crespigny does not specify him as the first eunuch of Later Han to be granted one however); being the first Later Han eunuch to be significantly involved in governance; and being the first Later Han eunuch to pass on a fief to an adopted son. These are in line with WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL . Benjitheijneb ( talk ) 20:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a power behind throne and historical figure. Extra passes WP:NPOL as senior court official. What a nonsense AfD. Shame! 1.46.88.188 ( talk ) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am willing to withdraw, but I believe it is not allowed with the Delete ! vote by User:I2n2z . Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reading through the discussion, I'm willing to withdraw my delete vote. i2n 2z 03:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Moderator Mayhem : They are at the very least press releases and raise doubt on their sponsored/pay to play nature. This browser game does not seem to be notable for anything in particular and the coverage died down right after its release. Kate the mochii ( talk ) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites . Kate the mochii ( talk ) 03:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is linked from the front page right now. Would you be willing to withdraw and renominate at a later time. — siro χ o 03:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep currently linked on the main page ( WP:CSK #6) Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 03:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) : No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Christianity , and Latter Day Saints . Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following: Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'" , John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry. Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy" , paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN : mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century. Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845 , eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics. Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics , ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing. So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether ", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry ", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo ( talk ) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar . Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Soccer Mania : I have not found any reliable sources for this video game, and most searches come back with Football Mania (known as Soccer Mania outside Europe) which released at a later date in 2002. Please let me know if anyone has more luck than me when looking for a reliable source. Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Football . Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - This game was released in the early 1990s. It may have coverage locked away in hard copy magazines... Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mobygames test comes up with a lot of print magazine reviews. It's usually the case that most retro games released in physical form are somehow notable simply due to the lower volume of game releases back then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:45, 11 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

International Wood Products Journal : This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 18:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Long-established journal, indexed in Scopus amongst others. Easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 01:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think there's both a long-enough history, and enough secondary-source coverage. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Indexed in Scopus, easy pass of WP:NJournals . -- Randykitty ( talk ) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Boleyn ( talk ) 13:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Dinosaur Safari : Possible redirect to List of Windows 3.x games , where it is listed. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years and it doesn't appear to be neglect. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Education , and Software . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Got WP:OFFLINE reviews in Wired Magazine , CD-ROMs Rated , CD-ROM Today , and The Multimedia Home Companion amongst others. It seems the WP:BEFORE was largely just for online sources, which indeed don't exist for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per above. Boleyn ( talk ) 21:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Posy (given name) : Everything in the article is sourced and there are several articles about people with these names listed. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. Vehemently oppose. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 05:23, 30 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

IGDB : Was a draft that has been moved by creator. Recommend redirecting to Twitch (service) . IgelRM ( talk ) 01:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Companies , Websites , and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Databas för spel tar in miljoner , 13 February 2018, in Dagens Industri , is a 500-word article in the dominating Swedish finance newspaper. There's a couple of paragraphs in "Mycket på spel i snabbväxande bransch", Göteborgs-Posten 24 January 2019 (pages 16–17), online as " Mycket på spel i snabbväxande Göteborgsbransch ". There's also " Blev rik på sin galna get – nu investerar han i 'IMDB för spel' " in the Swedish news site Breakit, probably the dominating source of journalism aboout finance news about the tech sector in Sweden. I'm leaning towards keep, based on this and the sources already available in the article. / Julle ( talk ) 16:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the Swedish sources. Somewhat local startup coverage, but some details. Perhaps a merger with Twitch service would still make sense, but otherwise leaning keep. Dagens Industri says "world's largest database for computer games", I think MobyGames would claim that. "rawg.io" etc don't get that much local press, right? IgelRM ( talk ) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I can't confirm if Göteborgs-Posten article is WP:SIGCOV but even without it, there's just enough with the 2 other Swedish sources and Twitch acquisition articles. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 18:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mika1h : I realize this is the AFD venue, but may I ask your opinion about a merge after my above comment. I will withdraw the AFD if someone wants to switch to the article talk page. @ Sulfurboy : (AFC reviewer in 2020), do the sources change your notability concern? IgelRM ( talk ) 09:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine with a merge. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 09:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: User:IgelRM , you are the nominator and you say you are now leaning Keep. Do you want to withdraw this nomination? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the facts of the size of content of the database and the usage by Twitch and Amazon alone justify it for a article. If you insist that it fits better there, you could merge it as a section in " Twitch (service) ". UnkreativeFrog ( talk ) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (writer of " IGDB ") [ reply ] Keep - size of content and usage of Twitch etc do jusrify this article being kept. BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Ehsanul Haque : No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Bangladesh . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep International cricketer that featured in a World Cup and had a strong domestic career. It is highly likely that sourcing exists offline given the time of his career, or in non-English language sources. I'm sure other cricket editors will be able to find sourcing on him. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The guidelines are very clear, he must have at least one source providing significant coverage, which I was unable to find anywhere. Maybe other editors can find sources on him, but if there are none, then he certainly fails WP:SPORTSPERSON , WP:GNG , and WP:SIGCOV . FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I really don't think you understand the level of the game at which he has played... StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do understand that he has played at a high level. But that does not make him notable. As I said before, he must have at least one reliable source providing significant coverage , which he does not, and therefore fails WP:SPORTSPERSON , WP:SIGCOV , and WP:GNG . FatCat96 ( talk ) 17:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact he has played Test cricket and in the cricket world cup makes him very notable. Whilst English language sources might be lacking (particularly as his international career came to an end just when the internet really took off), there will be plenty of Bangladeshi written sources for him - he made 134 appearances at the highest domestic level of cricket in Bangladesh alongside his international career (of which, Test cricket is the highest level of the game). We are not Anglopedia. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A nomination beyond stupid. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no WP:BEFORE has been done, and this nomination appears not to have looked for non-English language sources, of which I would expect there are many given that he played at a Cricket World Cup, and had a long domestic career. I've added one piece of significant coverage based on a 2 minute search, so it seems very likely that more exists if people look for it rather than blindly nominating this as non-notable. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Joseph2302 . When I nominated I did look for non-English and English sources (though not very thorougly), and found nothing. I just finished another more in-depth search, and found at least 3-4 sources, which I will soon add to the article. I will conduct another search soon. I am now considering withdrawing this nomination. FatCat96 ( talk ) 01:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing nomination : Enough WP:SIGCOV found to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON . FatCat96 ( talk ) 02:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Voluntas necandi : Uncited for 14 years. I can't find any significant coverage discussing this concept (quite a few very brief mentions). I would prefer a merge (amounting to a mention given the article is two sentences) and redirect but I can't think of where to. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge without prejudice to animus nocendi , where it is already discussed. The term is used in Italian books that seem to be discussing the intention to commit homicide [34] [35] (see especially the section heading on pages 726 and 1679 respectively). Cf the expression "animus necandi" which certainly means the intention to commit homicide [36] [37] ). I think it would probably be a good idea to add "animus necandi" (which seems to satisfy GNG) to the article as well. We do not presently have an article on voluntas [38] . James500 ( talk ) 23:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am apparently stupid, because I somehow did not notice that article existed (despite the fact this one links to it...). Yeah that's a great target. Should I withdraw this then? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objections to you doing that if you wish. I have no objections to you immediately merging the article if you wish. James500 ( talk ) 01:53, 30 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

Kevin Brown (defensive tackle) : No significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV . Willing to reconsider if coverage is made available so please ping me. Frank Anchor 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to keep per sources added by Alvaldi. Frank Anchor 18:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete never made it past a practice squad so never had an NFL career. ArcAngel (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per source improvements. ArcAngel (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:GNG with sources from his college career. Found this on Newspapers.com [24] , then couple of articles in the Los Angeles Times covering him, Brown Tests Well but Aims Higher , Brown’s Working His Way Back In and one from the Orange County Register . @ Frank Anchor : @ ArcAngel : , what's your take on them? Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per sources found by Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Alvaldi's sources. Admittedly they are a little light individually. But the LA Times coverage counts as one source for GNG purposes and put these two articles together, not to mention additional minor coverage from the LA Times I found on newspapers.com and the LA Times seems to have given him significant coverage. So that is 2 sources with significant coverage plus what I would call intermediate coverage from the Orange County Register, and I think he just clears the GNG bar. Rlendog ( talk ) 19:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Bruce Rockowitz : The Barrons source is the only one that covers him in detail. Other sources that I was able to locate only mention Rockowitz in passing, which is not WP:SIGCOV . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator : I think this is quite a clear case now, editors have found a great many sources on this person. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Canada . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - since most of the things that he did were while he was in Hong Kong, he may have decent coverage in HK sources - worth a look if anyone is confident doing a HK source search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uncontroversial keep per WP:GNG . @ Actualcpscm : Looks like you need to get registered for Wikipedia Library, as you easily qualify. ProQuest immediately turned up a major feature article in South China Morning Post which I've now added to the article. (There are several sizeable paragraphs of prose / facts / commentary, even if we were to completely ignore the fact that the second half is a Q&A interview.) Sure, the article could be improved and brought up to date, and we should add more sources to it, but these are not grounds for deletion per WP:ATA . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:11, 14 June 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 Zhong, Isabella (2015-08-11). "Advantage Mr Rockowitz" . Barron's . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The article notes: "As a former tennis pro, Global Brands CEO Bruce Rockowitz knows that having an accurate serve or a big forehand aren’t enough to win matches. A tenacious mind and a can-do attitude are just as important. ... For all his corporate commitments, Rockowitz remains committed to his passion for sports and fitness, and has even made a business of it. He is co-founder and chairman of Hong Kong-based fitness and yoga chain Pure International." Sheng, Ellen (2016-02-11). "Bruce Rockowitz Wants Global Brands Group to Be a Fashion Force" . Women's Wear Daily . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The article notes: "Bruce Rockowitz seems an unlikely purveyor of American apparel brands. First of all, he’s Canadian. Secondly, he arrived in Hong Kong not as someone dreaming of breaking into the fashion world but as a semi-pro tennis player who decided to take a year off from college and kick around on the circuit before heading back to North America. But that year turned into more than 30, and Rockowitz’s tennis background led him into the apparel world, where his career trajectory propelled him to chief executive officer of Hong Kong-based sourcing giant Li & Fung." Tsang, Denise (2011-06-25). "Well served by a change of game" . South China Morning Post . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The article notes: "He may have been born in Canada and raised in Boston, but after 32 years here Bruce Rockowitz sees himself as a Hong Kong native. Last month he was tapped to be president and chief executive officer of Li & Fung, the global trading concern. In hindsight, quips the 52-year-old, his purchase of an US$800 air ticket from Boston to Hong Kong in 1979 was the best investment he has ever made, his ticket to a career in supply-chain management. He also owns a 20-strong fitness and restaurant chain called Pure Group, which has outlets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and New York." "Bruce Rockowitz named in offshore property deal probe" . The Guardian . 2012-11-28. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via South China Morning Post . The article notes: "Hong Kong billionaire Bruce Rockowitz has been named by the Guardian as part of a major investigation into the use of offshore companies to obscure the real identities behind secretive British property deals. Rockowitz - president and chief executive of garment wholesalers Li & Fung, husband of pop star Coco Lee and one of Hong Kong's most successful expatriate businessmen - bought a luxury London flat and transferred it to an associate using an opaque offshore technique." Leigh, David; Frayman, Harold; Ball, James (2012-11-26). "How secret offshore firms feed London's property boom" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2023-06-14 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 . The article notes: "Another businessman, the billionaire chief executive Bruce Rockowitz, who runs the Hong-Kong-based garment wholesalers Li & Fung, bought a luxury London flat in Cadogan Square, Knightsbridge, and transferred it to an associate using an exceptionally opaque offshore technique." Shenq, Stanley Lim Peir; Cheong, Mun Hong (2018). Value Investing in Asia: The Definitive Guide to Investing in Asia . Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley . pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-119-39118-0 . Retrieved 2023-06-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: "L&F hasn't been shy with engaging external talent. In May 2011, Bruce Rockowitz took over from William Fung as L&F's CEO. Rockowitz had been an executive director of the group since 2001 and president since 2004. Rockowitz joined the group after a company he co-founded was acquired by L&F. And after the fourth-generation family member, Spencer Fung, took over as CEO of L&F in July 2014, Rockowitz was appointed as CEO of the newly listed Global Brands Group Holdings Limited." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bruce Rockowitz ( simplified Chinese : 乐裕民 ; traditional Chinese : 樂裕民 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 06:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Cunard sets out the policy and sources in great detail, and Cielquiparle has kindly expanded the article. Thank you to both. Edwardx ( talk ) 10:37, 14 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

Catholic–Gallaudet rivalry : This is not a notable rivalry. It's been a totally one-sided series between two lower-level programs in which Catholic has won 21 games to one game for Gallaudet. There are random passing references to a "rivalry" (e.g., here ), but nothing in independent, reliable sources that deals with the series in depth -- and certainly no SIGCOV of a "rivalry". Cbl62 ( talk ) 20:56, 21 November 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 November 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Who won more games in it doesn't really matter. For instance, Lance Armstrong beat Jan Ullrich almost every time they raced, yet they are rivals. Sugar Ray Robinson beat Jake LaMotta every time except once, but they are rivals. Mitsuharu Misawa beat Toshiaki Kawada every single time from about 1990-1998, but nobody would say they aren't rivals. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 21:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure how wrestling, boxing, and bike racing rivals have any relevance here, and there are no stand-alone rivalry articles on those pairings in any event. But my contention is this: Competitiveness isn't determinative by itself, but it absolutely should be one of the factors we consider in deciding whether a series of college football games has risen to the level of a notable rivalry that is worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article. The depth of SIGCOV is, of course, the most important issue, but in close cases, other attributes may factor into the assessment as well, e.g, competitiveness, geographic proximity (schools with geographic proximity and especially bordering states more likely to generate animosity that makes for a notable rivalry), the existence of a rivalry trophy, frequency of competition (teams that face each other every year are more likely to be rivals). In this case, there is no in-depth coverage of this series as a rivalry, and the other factors support the conclusion that this is not a Wiki-notable rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk ) 22:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For example, the LSU Tigers and Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns have played each other 22 times dating back to 1902, and LSU has won all 22 matches, mostly by huge margins. See here . Despite the geographic proximity within football-crazed Louisiana, the one-sided nature of the series makes it hard for followers to develop a true rivalry. Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cbl62 - I would personally rank SIGCOV as the most important above all. The problem with competitiveness is results change (see Michigan-Ohio State where Michigan was undefeated early) and with proximity, you get situations like Notre Dame and USC, which are nowhere close to each other. I do also think rivalries in general are partly a media narrative than anything else. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 02:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, SIGCOV is the paramount touchstone. The other factors shed light in close cases. Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn . After digging deeper, it turns out there is a good deal of SIGCOV from the early years. It also appears to have not been so one-sided after all. E.g., here , here , here , and here . Cbl62 ( talk ) 23:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:57, 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

Pavel Šulc : Despite the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article being longer, from what I can read, the secondary sources listed there only contain brief mentions on Pavel Šulc himself; nothing in-depth to pass WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Czech Republic . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unquestionable notability. The player had a breakout season this year, and is covered week after week after week (examples from one news outlet). Who has time to sift through it all? I started making some additions as to how the player had made his mark. Geschichte ( talk ) 10:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Currently the top scorer of the 2023–24 Czech First League season, member of Czech Republic national football team . This nomination is a bad joke. FromCzech ( talk ) 10:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above. Apparently mistaken appointment. Svartner ( talk ) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article could certainly be improved, but the player is clearly notable now, [33] , [34] , having played for the national team, etc. Govvy ( talk ) 14:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very surprising nomination. This is a clearly a notable subject. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as above, obviously notable, awful nomination. Giant Snowman 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with everything that has been written above apart from the nominator's statement. SportingFlyer T · C 02:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Ontario Express : No significant coverage found when searching for the company. Article has been unsourced since December 2009. Retracting my nomination. Sources have been tracked down, thanks to Sunnya343. Many thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Travel and tourism , and Aviation . Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found sources in the ProQuest database by searching "Ontario Express" "Canadian Airlines" . Here are some examples: [4] , [5] , [6] . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. I'm unable to access these, unfortunately. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 23:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I altered the links if that helps. [1] is a Toronto Star article about the airline ending flights to Hamilton, [2] is a piece in The Globe and Mail about them buying new aircraft, and [3] is an Ottawa Citizen article about the airline beginning operations. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way you should have access to ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library if you meet these requirements . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, okay! I didn't even realize the Wikipedia Library was a thing - I'll get that set up! Once I can get those sources in, I'll retract my nomination. Thank you so much! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:09, 13 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

Stockton Rush : — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, he does very much meet point 2. And with regards to point 3, I will contest that it weren’t his actions during the expedition that caused the mishap, so he’s not independently notable for it. Basically he was just one of the occupants, his role in the loss of Titan wasn’t substantial. Carbon case of what this policy was written for. T v x 1 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Definitely a notable businessman prior to the wreck, with full length sources from months and years ago: [5] , [6] , [7] Dr. Swag Lord ( talk ) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Not true. If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. There’s nothing spectacular about his business activities. T v x 1 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is now the central character in a major international news story. People will remember this incident and the person responsible for years to come. I'd say his backstory, which had many elements that led up to the implosion of the Titan, is relevant for historical purposes. 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] The central character in ONE EVENT ! People like him is exactly what Wikipedia:BLP1E was written for. Nothing in your comment justifies his article. T v x 1 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That argument doesn't work. BLP1E isn't satisfied because the third criterion states it has to be insignificant, whereas this was significant. 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No his role in the incident has to have been substantial, which is not the case. There is nothing that suggests that his piloting of the vessel caused the breakup. His role in the accident isn’t in any way more important than that of the other four occupants. T v x 1 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial - that's a subjective interpretation of what is meant by 'substantial'. And clearly his role is more important than the other four occupants - this incident revolves entirely around a sub that he and those working for him designed and built. He himself dismissed concerns about the safety of the design, and then he himself was piloting it. The incident doesn't even happen without his involvement, so his involement is objectively substantial. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] It's a big personal conjecture on you part to state it would not have happened without him. The expedition was executed by a company, not a person. They could have done that with another CEO as well. Also there is confirmation that design errors by him caused this, your are making wild assumptions here. There's nothing here about that incident that wasn't already included elsewhere. This is largely a content fork . T v x 1 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First of all, he wasn’t the pilot. Second of all, he’s the CEO of the company and had final say in the design decisions of the sub, which ultimately led to a lack of proper engineering and safety standards that led to the implosion. 42.3.105.87 ( talk ) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 42.3.105.87 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] We don't know that yet. There has not been any confirmation that the break-up was the result of design flaws. And even if so, there were multiple engineers working for the company who all could be responsible. T v x 1 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From BLP1E: 'John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.' This article clearly meets those conditions and there is a precedent. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No it doesn't. These case are not comparable. That assassination attempt was completely orchestrated and executed by Hinckley. It wouldn't have happened without him. In this case, there's nothing to suggest that the accident was caused by Rush's piloting. His role in the cause wasn't substantial at all. He was just as much an occupant and victim as the other four. T v x 1 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His piloting of the vessel doesn't need to be the cause of the sub breaking up in order for his role to be substantial. The Reagan assassination does not happen without Hinckley and the Titan incident does now happen without Rush. 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) 23:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 176.254.143.249 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] That analogy is just not true. He wasn't needed at all for that submersible to be operated. T v x 1 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep. Definitely notable for more than one event, there are a lot of sources ranging from years ago to now easily found online. Icehax ( talk ) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then why was no one interested in writing an article for him prior to his death? T v x 1 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was then; this is now. Though deceased, he is an internationally recognized figure following this news story that made headlines around the world. 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] ONE news story. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E . Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies before taking part in a procedure like AFD. T v x 1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep. As per above. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which are valid arguments, so neither is yours. T v x 1 23:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, you are wrong in this case. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are. Please read the sites content policies. Anything worth mentioning about this person can be put in the articles on his company and on the accident that claimed his life. T v x 1 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable, and a valid split from OceanGate . I have to disagree with Tvx1 's assertion that If he had been a notable businessman prior to his death, he would have already have had an article. Given that we continue to write new articles on Wikipedia, that can't be the case. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry but that’s nonsense. A notable businessman who had been active for decades, yet was of interest to no one here prior to dying?? Please just admit the reality that no one would be interested in an article on this person if he hadn’t died this week. T v x 1 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the fact he did die and was a central figure in a significant event IS enough. You're not giving enough weight to the situation 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 2A00:23C6:B894:FA01:815C:3D36:1E41:964D ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No it isn't. Please actually read Wikipedia's content policies. Why do you keep acting with such a know-it-all attitude, even though you haven't any edit whatsoever to this site outside this AFD? T v x 1 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP, he was notable before the implosion i think, but is only more notable now. Iljhgtn ( talk ) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No he wasn’t. That’s why we didn’t have an article on him before. T v x 1 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of these "notable" people write their own articles about themselves, and perhaps Rush didn't think that was important or didn't have the inclination to do it. Just because there wasn't an article before, doesn't mean that after becoming world famous he isn't worthy of an article now. 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — 96.241.148.20 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] That must have been the worst argument I have read here so far. T v x 1 00:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep otherwise Merge and redirect into OceanGate . Rush is unquestionably notable now from the events following Sunday. However, the information in this rather quickly compiled article would be sufficient if moved to the main article of the OceanGate of which he was CEO. Notoriety prior to the Titan incident would indicate an article having been written previously, this is not the case. If a substantial article can be written on his background, which would be the entirety of his life leading up to the incident, then an article is fine. Otherwise, a detailed section in the OceanGate article would suffice. 11wallisb ( talk ) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per sources prior to the implosion , Was certainly notable prior to the recent events, Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I he was, he would have already had an article. T v x 1 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Firstly, he's had coverage in a myriad of sources before the submersible incident and that compounded with the recent coverage makes him notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress; just because he didn't have an article before does not equate to him not meeting notability requirements now that he does. Additionally, considering that he's now dead, that offers a greater degree of separation between him and OceanGate, which will presumably get a new CEO and move on. - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 23:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Crucially however, it doesn't give him the required separation from this one event . T v x 1 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NYT BBC Newsweek The Independent AP CBS San Fran Chronicle NYP WaPo CBC The Guardian DW NBC The Smithsonian Bloomberg doesn't give him the required separation from this one event Bro, what ? How does this fail to confer notability? - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 00:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . There are numerous sources mentioning him before the disaster(as per above). He's relevant enough to deserve his own article, especially now. Emkut7 ( talk ) 23:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which demonstrate notability. T v x 1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong and speedy keep. Let's get the tag off the page --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. T v x 1 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

The Mark (2012 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 ) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , found this review [28] . Not sure of the reliablity consensus of the site however. Donald D23 talk to me 23:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Carpenter, Edwin L. "The Mark" . The Dove Foundation . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The review notes: "This movie has a strong faith-based message and points to Christ as mankind’s future and only hope. It should be noted that there are moments of strong violence in the film including people being shot and a couple of characters display very bloody wounds and the blood flows on their clothes and on a man’s hands. A woman is shot too but it is not shown in a graphic manner. There are a lot of fights and punching and kicking and guns held on people as well as a knife. Several people do die. Despite the violent moments there are strong themes of faith so we are awarding our Faith Based Seal to the movie with a caution for violence." "The Mark" . Movieguide . Archived from the original on 2023-10-20 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 . The review notes: "The Mark is an action packed thriller. The characters are poorly developed, but the production design is very good, giving it a realistic feel that makes it quite suspenseful. It has a strong Christian worldview about forgiveness, redemption and following God’s plan for our life. There are scenes of both prayer and conversion. There is some action violence with shooting and some blood, so a light caution is recommended." "The Mark" . Filmausweider: Das Splattermovies Magazin (in German). 2013 . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Google Books . The review notes: "Und das kann man so auch Alles locker auf,,The Mark" übertragen. Zwar fängt der Film von James Chankin, sogar noch halbwegs subtil, als überaus billiger Allein-gegen-Alle-Actioner a la,, Passagier 57" an, doch schon, wenn im dystopischen Vorspann von Christen in Gefahr gequatscht wird und wenn eine Reporterin die Bibel ins Spiel bringt, dürfte beim minderbemitteltsten Videothekengänger das erste Stirnrunzeln auftreten. Und da hat man gerade die ersten 10 Minuten hinter sich gebracht! Doch keine Sorge, die Gespräche über Gott, Christentum und die Bibel zu den unpassendsten Augenblicken nähmen im Laufe des Films inflationär zu, und schaffen es dann auch in regelmäßigen Abständen, die ohnehin seltsam anmutende Handlung. nicht nur in Lächerliche zu ziehen, sondern auch noch gehörig auszubremsen. Aber das ist ohnehin nicht so schlimm, wie Das, was in der Mitte folgt. Denn spätestens, wenn in der Mitte die Entrückung kommt und auf ..." From Google Translate: "And all of that can easily be transferred to "The Mark". James Chankin's film starts out, even somewhat subtly, as an extremely cheap solo-against-all actioner a la "Passenger 57", but it does , when the dystopian opening credits talk about Christians in danger and when a reporter brings the Bible into play, the first thing the least wealthy video store visitor is likely to do is frown. And you've just finished the first 10 minutes! But don't worry, the conversations about God, Christianity and the Bible at the most inappropriate moments increase exponentially over the course of the film, and then at regular intervals they create the already strange plot. Not only to make people look ridiculous, but also to really slow them down. But that's not as bad as what follows in the middle anyway. Because at the latest when the rapture comes in the middle and..." Tyrkus, Michael J., ed. (2017). VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 2011: The Complete Guide to Movies on VHS, DVD, and Hi-Def Formats . Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale . p. 688. ISBN 978-1-4103-1643-1 . ISSN 1095-371X . Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: " The Mark 2012. So the world is on the verge of economic collapse and ex-soldier Chad Turner is the unexpected guinea pig who's implanted with a biometric chip that's supposed to be explained at the G-20 summit. Naturally, there are bad guys who want the chip and they hijack the plane Chad is on, fighting and stuff follows. Pretty reporter Dao says the chip is evil because there are strange faith-based elements mixed in with the action, but the plot doesn't make that much sense anyway. 98m/C; DVD. Craig Sheffer; Eric Roberts; Gary Daniels; Ivan Kamaras; Sonia Couling; D: James Chankin W: Leland Jourdan; C: Wych Kaos; M: Edwin Wendler." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mark to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per Cunard’s contribution. The Film Creator ( talk ) 15:35, 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

Women in Guam History : See also previous discussion in talk page. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , and United States of America . :3 F4U ( they /it ) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not ! voting on notability (in this comment), but surely an alternative to deletion here could be merging to Women in Guam ? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not necessarily fair to say " there are no reliable secondary sourcing discussing the list in question "-- I found some coverage in the Pacific Daily News ( [7] , [8] ) though that by itself probably doesn't establish notability Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding those. I had not seen them, and it's really nifty to read those. Nice. — Maile ( talk ) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to express, was that I couldn't find secondary sourcing in my attempts to find them. I just saw the recent edits and the clarification that the subject of the article is a book/exhibit, rather than the project of a website helped clarify what I was supposed to be looking for. I'll withdraw my nomination under WP:BKCRIT since there is secondary sourcing on the subject. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the people can be added onto List of people from Guam given that they all appear to be individually notable, but I'm not sure that the existence of a publication about women in the history of Guam would match the scope of the Women in Guam article. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 23:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep . I think the book has at least marginal notability, given the coverage in local news sources. At the time of the nomination, the lead was a bit confusing and it wasn't clear exactly what the topic of the article was. I've now clarified that this is a book (and a photography exhibit) published by a nonprofit associated with the University of Guam. Even if we decide the book is not notable, the list should be kept (perhaps in Wikipedia space rather than article space), as it's a valuable redlist. pburka ( talk ) 23:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . TJMSmith ( talk ) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per meeting WP:BKCRIT . This book has coverage in The Guam Daily Post , Pacific Daily News , and KUAM-TV . TJMSmith ( talk ) 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and regardless of the outcome, thanks to those who have edited the article today. Until I read the comments above, I was unaware this is a book. I had the idea that Guampedia was just a web site. This has been enlightening. — Maile ( talk ) 00:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per TJMSmith. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 05:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nomination appears to have been a misunderstanding. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 05:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per TJMSmith Suonii180 ( talk ) 06:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this is a book, not a list, and clearly notable. Pam D 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think the first column of the list should be in bold, per MOS:BOLD , but don't know enough about table formatting to fix this. Could a tables geek please pop over to the article and fix this? Thanks. Pam D 08:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Muriel Frost : Does not meet GNG or SIGCOV. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:31, 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 ) 01:31, 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

Ray Ashcroft : I did a BEFORE to see if I can add or cite anything, but I can't find any sources published about the subject himself. From what I can tell, WP:NACTOR is also a reach, as most roles linking here seem to be guest starring appearances or supporting/minor roles. The more significant ones only appear to possibly be Truckers (he's a bit further down the IMDb credit list, so not sure there) and Birth of the Beatles (maybe?). If you find anything, please ping me, as I'm happy to withdraw if my search was simply insufficient. 2pou ( talk ) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 2pou : His roles in The Bill, in the Beatles biopic as Ringo Starr, for example, can be called significant. Added a few other things. And will add more. Honestly, he seems to meet fairly the criterion for actors. Best,- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . 2pou ( talk ) 18:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added a few sources for verification. Can be improved but I think he meets WP:NACTOR , as having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Theatre , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the additional information and sources provided by Mushy Yank. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - withdraw - I withdraw my nomination thanks to some of the work above. We still need to remove his unsourced birthday, but that's easy. - 2pou ( talk ) 08:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Young Drivers of Canada : There are almost none, if any Wikipedia articles about specific driving schools/driving school franchises. Although Young Drivers may be the biggest in Canada, it doesn't really meet the notability guideline. Other countries may have driving schools on their scale but they're still not notable enough for Wikipedia. 747pilot ( talk ) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If the coverage by reliable sources exists (and it seems to), then the company is notable. We have articles on other for-profit training companies. A company doesn't have to be cool to be notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We do, but not for simple driving schools like this. 747pilot ( talk ) 20:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Schools , and Canada . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Getting some hits on google from CityNews Toronto Star CBC among a few others. Probably offline sources as well. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There appear to be numerous (paywalled) sources available, per a ProQuest search. Mind matrix 17:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , nomination appears to dismiss the article because of its subject. Garuda3 ( talk ) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article definitely needs rewriting as it reads like an advertisement, but the nominator's statement is misleading. This is not a single school, but a company which owns 140 schools. There is no rule that says such a company cannot be notable. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 19:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to vote, but i think it's important we understand that having the word "school" in this company's name doesn't make it in any way an educational institution. It's a business that for profit provides training in a single skill in a field dominated by for profit businesses. In no way should the grace we show educational institutions regarding notability apply. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 00:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have "schools" like barber schools and barista schools and those don't warrant their own article. You are correct @ 69.92.163.38 . 747pilot ( talk ) 00:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They would if they met the GNG, which this one does. All articles stand on their own merit, anyway. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep My mind boggles given how well it is known, and are asked to comment on various issues. Simple?!?! Hundreds of hits in Proquest, dating back over 50 years. Massive BEFORE failure by User:747pilot - can they withdraw this nomination? Nfitz ( talk ) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no need for such personal attacks @ Nfitz : . I have already withdrawn the nomination. 747pilot ( talk ) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see, User:Renamed user b12u3ewq1561 that noting something is a big BEFORE failure is a personal attack. It's about what you did - not about you. I certainly don't see it as personal attack, nor meant it to be taken that way. Now, if you'd talked about how you'd scoured the Internet and Proquest, but failed to find sources, it might be a personal attack - but I see no indication in the discussion that there was a proper BEFORE attempt. Nfitz ( talk ) 18:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - I think perhaps they are indeed notable but the article will need a lot of cleanup to avoid promotional content. 747pilot ( talk ) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Elephant Community : I'm not sure this is notable. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Guatemala . Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you clarify what you mean when you say the sources appear to be cherrypicked ? Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The party just won two seats in the parliamentary elections in Guatemala. Of course it's notable. Number 5 7 07:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Nom's claim that the sources are "cherry picked" makes no sense. Central and Adams ( talk ) 12:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WITHDRAWN . I nominated this unable to find articles myself. I realized that it's likely due to my locale settings, and just because I couldn't find sources doesn't mean sources were cherrypicked. I jumped to a rash conclusion, likely because I had dealt with other nonsense articles the day I nominated this so I was still in that headspace. - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs ) 18:24, 21 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

The Casino (film) : Source 4 is a personal blog about movie reviews, which is not created by a well-known movie critic. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . 日期20220626 ( talk ) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added a few references from reliable sources. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since sources have been added, I withdraw my request for deletion and the administrator can close this discussion. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 22:50, 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

Shibata Takumi (fund manager) : No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basic business person resume/CV. Of the 4 references, 3 are brief appointment announcements and one is a brief database type description. North8000 ( talk ) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , and Japan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Obvious Keep I wonder if North8000 did a WP:BEFORE search including sources in Japanese . We're talking about the former CEO of a company with $250 billion under management. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] (and yes, I realize some of these are short but keep in mind Japanese is a much more concise language . These results are just from the first couple of pages of results in a quick Google search btw. DCsansei ( talk ) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How about picking/pointing out 2 that cover him in depth. North8000 ( talk ) 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/withdraw The creator has increased it from 4 references up to 27 references. They've also asked me to take a look at those/the article as they are away on vacation/holidays. (IMO this mostly means analyzing all of the new references and finding the GNG-best ones per my request above).... happy to help someone enjoy their vacation/holidays and I did. Most of the best looking ones are behind paywalls, but as a minimum there are many near-GNG references by top tier sources. They have also expanded the article substantially with enclyclopedic content, also indicative of the addition of in-depth references. While I can't vouch for the most rigorous-interpretation GNG compliance, I have decided to switch to "keep/withdraw". Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 11:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Arleen McCarty Hynes : Additionally, article isn't written from an NPOV. Urban Versis 32 KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs ) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Urban Versis 32 KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs ) 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised about this. I found her on Women in Red, and wrote the article like I have written all of my other articles. I would like a second opinion. A lot of research went into this. Fortunaa ( talk ) 01:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I took out some phrases that could be interpreted as not neutral, but I'm still struggling with why it was categorized that way. I did not know about her before doing the research, I cited books, articles, newspaper obits, etc. There was even a dissertation on her. Fortunaa ( talk ) 01:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iowa . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 02:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Here's a second opinion - the above is just one editor's viewpoint, and we can fix this. I added some ISBN numbers to the books above. I'll look a little more, and check again tomorrow. Right off hand, nothing glares at me that makes this deletion fodder. By the way, do you know an easy way to list books and have ISBN fill in the rest? At the top of your edit window, and look at the drop-down "Templates". Click on it and go to cite book. Open that, and input the ISBN number, then click the little thing to the right that looks like a magnifying glass. It should then fill the template. Works on most ISBN numbers, and on some it doesn't. Sure is a time saver. — Maile ( talk ) 03:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fortunaa the Eugene McCarthy section is an example where I might have worded some of it differently. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you did it. Unless someone wants to change a word or two, I think that section is good like it is. — Maile ( talk ) 04:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The issues the nom raises are not adequate reasons for deletion, even if you agree with them (and I don't think I do as it now is). Is she notable? It seems yes, and there are enough refs. Johnbod ( talk ) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep None of that is an argument for deletion? I would have expected a multi-year old editor like Urban Versis 32 to be aware of that and what AfD is for. Anyways, discussing an actual topic of deletion, ie notability, I see plenty of additional sources on her. For example: Therapists use poetry to aid self-examination ( Page 2 ) Bibliotherapy shapes nun's life ( Page 2 ) Widowed grandmothers found new life as nuns ( Page 2 ) In age of diversity, these women are moms, grandmoms and nuns So I really don't see the point of this AfD. Silver seren C 05:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - not a deletion candidate. Arleen McCarty Hynes is clearly notable just by quickly skimming the article's refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly notable, no reason to delete. Newklear007 ( talk ) 07:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Early life of Mao Zedong : Coddlebean ( talk ) 09:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment can you please clarify the deletion rationale? There are other articles that detail early lives of historical people. Like Stalin , Cleopatra , Samuel Johnson , and Joseph Smith Oblivy ( talk ) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- No valid deletion criterion provided, which is no surprise as clearly none applies. Subject is clearly notable. Mao's stature would probably support separate articles for each year of his adult life. Central and Adams ( talk ) 11:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No valid deletion rationale. Even just Category:Early lives by heads of government (of which the article under discussion is a member) holds 43 articles across all subcats; this one isn't special. Folly Mox ( talk ) 12:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . SK1, no intelligible deletion rationale. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : SK1, no valid rationale for deletion. Not only is this a valid page split, it also outright passes WP:GNG as Mao's early life is very well covered. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale. I tried to give the nominator a chance to explain, and I'd reconsider my vote if that opportunity is taken up. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:52, 13 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

Neutral atom quantum computer : While the topic might become suitable for a page, it is too soon . As yet there is no evidence of extensive citing or other secondary results (beyond science blogs). Ldm1954 ( talk ) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is still valid without the 2023 results. Neutral atom quantum computers were proposed in the late 90s . Vtomole ( talk ) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the term is well established in academic literature, including the prestigious Nature journal . Current sourcing can be improved, but existing SIGCOV already establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep it is clearly one of the main competing quantum computing architectures availables. See people like QuEra Computing Inc. who have been working on that for a while. The article is not the best but it can be improved. Edit: This implementation can also be found in many textbooks. -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Review paper has almost 3000 citation; the 2023 Nature article has 40 citations. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 23:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am withdrawing my nomination as others feel it is notable. Keep Ldm1954 ( talk ) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Ngõ 224 Lê Duẩn : WP:GEOROAD seems to be useless, so does WP:GEOLAND . Even if kept, it should be renamed to something else, perhaps Hanoi Train Street , since the article is clearly mentioning the train street as a whole which is 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) in length, while this alley is just the a segment of it (south of the Hanoi Railway Station , 21°01′02″N 105°50′28″E  /  21.017307788630127°N 105.84107098863252°E  / 21.017307788630127; 105.84107098863252 ) and is less popular. The main segment of the train is the one north of the station, 21°01′49″N 105°50′39″E  /  21.030257222877193°N 105.84425082143629°E  / 21.030257222877193; 105.84425082143629 which crosses several streets: Điện Biên Phủ, Trần Phú, Phùng Hưng. Đại Việt quốc ( talk ) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's sourced to AfP and CNN, I'm not sure why it's being considered for deletion. I can pull up more RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : Please note that although it is called "Articles for deletion", that is not the only outcome. Other alternatives might be merging to another article, renaming, adding to it so that it becomes a broader subject... From my perspective, just by being a popular tourist destination is not sufficient enough to be notable, as it may violate WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTNEWS . And I think I mentioned above that even if it ends up being kept, it should be renamed, the title Ngõ 224 Lê Duẩn does not sound right, when the article content is about the whole Hanoi Train Street, whose main and most popular segment is at Ngõ 5 Trần Phú , 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) north of 224 Lê Duẩn. Đại Việt quốc ( talk ) 01:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Here's an article from Time, from this past summer [46] and a local source [47] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename I've been here, a search for "hanoi train street" reveals countless news stories and articles over multiple years about the site, among the most popular in Hanoi. Seems obviously notable, but it doesn't take an AFD to rename or somewhat change its scope. Reywas92 Talk 03:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets GNG per Oaktree b's example sources. — siro χ o 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : But should it be renamed? I think I pointed out this issue and provided enough proof about the misleading title of the article? Đại Việt quốc ( talk ) 07:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I think a rename probably makes sense. — siro χ o 07:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Oaktree b , Reywas92 , and Siroxo : From my prespective, just by re-emphasizing how unique or how popular the place is doesn't make it notable. I'm voting this because I found several Vietnamese sources that provides information about its history. Turns out the residents in this Train Street community were previously workers of... the state-owned railway companies, and their descendants. Even more surprising, it was the government that laid out this 'neighborhood' in the 1960s. The whole Train Street community is considered a microdistrict , known in Vietnamese as "khu tập thể". This type of neighborhood was very common during the years of planned economy , which is, no doubt, Soviet-inspired. The only reason why railway company workers were assigned here was due to... its proximity to their workplace. Đại Việt quốc ( talk ) 08:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wouldn't this just be a Move then, using the appropriate tools in Wiki? I'm not sure this is the correct forum for what you're proposing, but I could be mistaken. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : Like I mentioned earlier, I only agreed to this after I found the additional sources about its history. Prior to that, my suggestion was to merge it into another article, like Hanoi railway station , or Hoàn Kiếm district (the district where the Train Street is located at). This is due to the confusion caused by the misleading title (which you didn't even recognize), and more importantly, the tone of the article itself sounds somewhat like a news piece and a travel guide, which violates WP:NOT . Given those, I think it was reasonable enough for me to bring it up here. But now, since more sources were found, I am more than happy to withdraw this, which I will do later. On the other hand, this article needs a complete rewrite, starting with a Move and a detail explanation of its location to avoid confusion. Đại Việt quốc ( talk ) 04:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Garib Mammadov : The subject is not a notable academic. The subject heads the State Land and Cartography Committee (Azerbaijan) but it does not appear to be a cabinet-level position in Azerbaijan. The page appears intended to promote the subject. Thenightaway ( talk ) 13:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , and Azerbaijan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's extremely buried among all the other crap in this article, but the subject passes WP:NPOL as he served in the National Assembly (Azerbaijan) from 1995 until 1998 ( source ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I missed that. I agree that the article should be kept as he meets the notability reqs for a politician. Thenightaway ( talk ) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Deputy of the first convocation of the Milli Majlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atakhanli ( talk ) 15:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) : Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - An unnecessary WP:SPLIT that in no way has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand alone article. The sources that aren't just listcruft/churnalism articles that are generally not considered valid for establishing notability are reviews and coverage of the game and series as a whole, which of course mention the setting as part of that coverage, but not to the extent that there is enough to support a separate article. And, on top of the sourcing problem, this is a clear example of WP:NOPAGE , where any kind of coverage or discussion of the game's setting would make far more sense on the main article for the game rather than split out. The castle (and its inverted counterpart) are already covered as part of the main Castlevania: Symphony of the Night article, and the reception section there even has some coverage of reviewers thoughts on the castle/inverted castle. I suppose I would have no objection to Redirect, per WP:CHEAP , but I honestly don't see this title as a useful search term. Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should we not at least merge some of the content, if we decide that this should not have a page? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as I mentioned, the castle's role in the plot, the existence of the inverted castle, the development of it, and reviewers thoughts on it, are already covered on the main SotN article, so I really don't think a merge would be necessary at this point. I suppose I have no strong objections if people feel there is something worth merging, but its leaving this as a standalone article is the possibility that I definitely do not agree with. Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am honestly still not close to convinced that this subject warrants a WP:SPLIT , but as its obvious that this not going to result in anything but a Keep at this time, in no small part due to the improper rationale in the nomination, I have struck my recommendation above, to allow this to be closed early. Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, this was my first real deletion discussion, I still have a lot to learn, but I appreciate your patience and understanding. Thank you! Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you could do another more competent deletion request to show how a proper deletion request is done. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator admitted that it meets GNG. A merge discussion would have been more appropriate. Even then, I do not think it should be merged. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is a possible outcome of AFD. Meeting the GNG is not an auto-close scenario of an AFD. Please discuss the merits of the nomination rather than grumbling about venue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking of which, I guess I should have looked more closely at the page. Merge whatever should be merged, but this should at least stay as a redirect. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although, I would like to say that my ! vote did discuss the merits, it just was not well-researched. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Per WP:SK #1 - the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. The rationale for deletion was "doubt that an individual game mechanic deserves its own article", which is incorrect, as there are countless articles on Wikipedia about individual game mechanics. It boils down to WP:WEDONTNEEDIT but without a real explanation why we don't. The AfD gives the false impression that articles about game mechanics are banned on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. For those who don't feel like checking for sources, here are the ones that prove GNG is passed: [11] [12] [13] [14] There are certainly others that one may or may not see as significant coverage, but I am confident there are enough the level can stand on its own... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep , this article passes GNG. The nominator's rationale that "a video game mechanic doesn't deserve its own article" is inherently flawed, given we have articles such as the Water Temple and Rainbow Road on Wikipedia. No rationale is given as to why this should be merged beyond this reasoning, and the article itself has significant reception to the point where its existence is justified. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep; the sources found by Zxcvbnm prove this locations independent notability, and a game mechanic / setting can infact justify its own article, with No Russian and Dust II being perfect examples. This nomination I feel falls under IDONTLIKEIT, even with the admission of GNG being passed? NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 07:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nominator does not argue any deletion or even merge rationale, instead appears to simply express their own opinion. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Notability is not the only reason to start a deletion discussion. But what would it be otherwise? I guess that could fall unter WP:DEL-REASON #5, being a contentfork, but that only applies "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate". So I think the deletion process should not be used to lead a merge discussion, even though merge is one possible outcome. One can discuss if this is a case of WP:NOPAGE . But I see little overlap in the current versions of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night , and we have two not-so-small stand-alone articles. So I think they should be kept separate. Daranios ( talk ) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After giving it more thought, I think I will go back to Keep It is a well-written article on a notable element of a video game. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep per everything said. ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let it snow keep per ZX's sources and the lack of clear rationale from the nom. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Gideon (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 ) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 13:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , found this [31] , under its Danish title. Donald D23 talk to me 19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , also found it listed as one of the top 10 Charleston Heston films at In Session [32] Donald D23 talk to me 19:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is also a review in Variety and one on TV Guide . — MY, OH, MY! (mushy yank) — 21:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw per Variety and TV Guide reviews. The Film Creator ( talk ) 21:38, 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

Torrent (Elden Ring) : Torrent in this case is more of a game mechanic, and even in the sources cited there isn't an indication of importance beyond the game itself. While there is some slight design commentary, the vast majority pertains to Elden Ring itself as a gameplay element to explore the title. It's not a discussion of the horse's character or how players or reviewers reacted to it, but in sources like VG247 ' s there the excitement of riding a horse in a game like this. Couple it with a dev section that's essentially trivia, and in-universe details to bulk up the "Features" section (why is the exact health regen a thing?) and...yeah. At best, what reception isn't in the Elden Ring article would be better suited there. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (Am article creator) It appears the nominator has ignored the significant coverage from Kotaku , PC Gamer , Polygon and VG247 as well as TheGamer , amongst other sites, as disliking the subject apparently comes first. Torrent is unquestionably notable, and is a fully fledged character of the game - while he doesn't talk, it's hinted Torrent's probably of human-level intelligence and directly chose the main character rather than the other way around, not that it matters as far as GNG is concerned. There isn't much more to say besides that it seems to solely be motivated by not liking the article and calling it "trivia" without merit or basis in fact, which is obviously no basis for anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody is "ignoring all this SIGCOV". Let's do a source analysis. The Gamer is giving an exposition dump and while fine for citing in the context of the body for secondary sourcing, is not reception. It's also the sort of sourcing you've argued against in the past. PCGamer, Polygon, and VG247 are discussing it in the context of a game mechanic. Outside of the scope of Elden Ring , this is meaningless, unless you somehow feel "turning radius" is character reception. All of this relates to Elden Ring's reception, even in light of other FromSoftware games. As a stand alone character, there is no discussion. Kotaku's is the one case discussing it in the context of design. And even then, it veers into gameplay commentary in the scope of Elden Ring. So yes, the sources were read and examined prior to this. One has to consider the scope and text in a source and what it's applying to. The fact it's a horse doesn't change notability standards: compare it to Weighted Companion Cube , a subject that is, literally, an inanimate cube, yet has discussion and SIGCOV actually discussing it in the context of being a fictional character.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is rather rich that you are making this argument, while also having directly contributed to articles such as Wooper , as well as proposing a merge for Magikarp and Gyarados , which are also about characters with no personality that are judged solely for their gameplay and appearance, yet seemingly had no qualms about them, nor most other Pokemon articles. To call this contradictory is putting it lightly. If what you argue is truly policy it would seemingly disqualify every Pokemon article save for the ones with plot relevance like Pikachu or Mewtwo . We know it's not true, though, because Pokemon like Snorlax did get kept by community consensus. I don't see Snorlax playing a pivotal role in the story of the games besides being a giant roadblock. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty sure many Pokemon are still judged for their personality, even Snorlax. I'm not sure why you chose that particular tangent outside of a weird WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't even remotely apply to this subject.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be clear I'm not arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is that gameplay mechanics are a perfectly valid way for a character to be notable, and one that's been backed up by consensus. This whole "gameplay doesn't count!" thing appears to be a personal invention with no basis in policy. INDISCRIMINATE says it should demonstrate significance, and gameplay can be significant, as in this case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See, here's the problem: gameplay can be adequate to show notability, but there's a good reason why gameplay articles are very rare. Typically, gameplay articles succeed because of cultural impact or because they cover a lot of ground that can't be easily summarized without article bloat. or because they apply to enough articles that it wouldn't make sense to merge it into a parent article. Torrent's reception seems to amount to "most people find him useful for navigating the world of Elden Ring, though some feel that he doesn't change much in terms of quality of life." I would not argue that there's any claim that gameplay doesn't count, I believe the argument being made is that the discussion of gameplay is pretty insufficient compared to other articles about gameplay. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those articles you mentioned are, as Kung Fu Man noted, judged on their personality, appearance, gameplay significance, and more. Anyway, to stay on topic, I'll check the sources myself. [32] - This has very little to say about Torrent as a horse, almost exclusively being based on its mechanical value. Now, that kind of coverage is not without its value, but if it's more premised on a game mechanic and game utility than anything else, I would contend that it needs a lot to give it significance. [33] - This seems to be a... pretty minor article about the jankiness/weirdness of the goatish hooves? This is something I would compare to, say, an article about Blastoise being changed to have Hydro Pump's animation changed so the water comes out of his shell gun things. Not worthless, but certainly not something I'd use as an article's foundation. [34] - Again, this is purely mechanical, not really getting to the heart of Torrent's character in any way. The two mod sources - This feels a little weak; if the articles were about Torrent modding, maybe, but they're just a smaller part of a bigger subject. The rest seem to be about concept and creation info (correct me if I'm wrong). If I may recommend it, you might be able to find better sourcing by using this, frankly, crude method of search I devised: User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching . I find that it's a little more time consuming, but it tends to get deeper (and is much more valuable now that Google search algorithm is so shite). - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 11:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lionel Cristiano ? 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles for Deletion is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Multiple reliable, independent sources give significant coverage to the character, meeting WP:GNG , such as [35] [36] [37] [38] . (I don't see the problem with the sources giving significant coverage to the character in the context of Elden Ring gameplay — at least, I don't see any objections in the GNG to that. SIGCOV is SIGCOV, GNG is GNG). The article also has enough content to be standalone. Skyshifter talk 02:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It was already discussed, and it appeared that the sources had been examined (See above). Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but it should be noted that people do not have to agree with the nom's conclusion about the sources. In this case she did not concur with the assertion they do not pass GNG criteria and were insufficient for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually commented only because the user probably didn't know the sources they brought here up were already provided above, not to disagree with their vote. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 06:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair, just be mindful of your wording, as that's how I understood it. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 06:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know the sources were already provided; that's why I commented about the sources giving coverage "in the context of Elden Ring gameplay", because I saw this was an objection to the sources (which I disagree with). Skyshifter talk 09:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well the context more accurately is that the argument is that the gameplay element within Elden Ring is the sole aspect of discussion. To put it better, the citations discuss how using a horse in that game affected exploration of it compared to previous FromSoftware titles, the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources. However, it is the subject of this article. There's also some precedent for this sort of discussion also, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Armor (Fallout) .-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You stated that "the gameplay element is the sole aspect of discussion" and "the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources", which is demonstrably false. Here are some choice quotes: "Torrent is my best horse pal [...] I'd love him all the same." PC Gamer . "Every time “You Died” appears on my screen, I do not suffer. But should Torrent be killed, I absolutely mourn." Polygon . "...you know Torrent is always there. Eager to help." VG247 . While most of the discussion is gameplay, the sources absolutely do talk about Torrent in the manner of a character, not a device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zx come on man you know those are trivial, I mean hell you're even taking the VG247 one out of context. Come on . You've argued against this very same sort of sourcing in the past, and against sources that have said more about subjects just recently.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw, without prejudice to AfD possibly later I feel this AfD has trainwrecked, but at the same time I recognize this is an important subject to the creator. Looking online at Google News has also presented the possibility that upcoming downloadable content may offer more depth to the character and actual reception.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:32, 28 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

Emmetsburg, Iowa : Johnj1995 ( talk ) 04:55, 26 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

A Wanderer in the Spirit Lands : Fails both WP:NBOOK and GNG. I have failed to find a second review despite searching on Newspapers.com, Google News, etc. It is an old book so stuff might be out there that I can't find. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Forgot to mention I did find this one thing . But I'm honestly not sure what it is. It is in Icelandic (?) And might be referring to this book. It is in the newspaper "Heimskringla" from 7 April 1926, page 2. I can't tell how in depth it addresses it either way. If it is a review/analysis/discussion of this and is more than a few sentences I can withdraw this. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PARAKANYAA : Well putting it through Google Translate does seem to show it's somewhat about the book, but Google Translate isn't exactly the best. Interestingly, it gives an alternate name, simply "The Spirit Lands", though searching this also gives little results. This book, however, is for some reason mentioned in one of Arthur Conan Doyle 's works ( The Edge of the Unknown ), though it doesn't exactly go in-depth: In a remarkable book, A Wanderer in the Spirit Lands, published in 1896, the author, Mr. Farnese, under inspiration, gives an account of many mysteries including that of fairies. What he says fits in very clearly with the facts that have been put forward, and goes beyond them. He says, speaking of elementals, "Some are in appearance like the gnomes and elves who are said to inhabit mountain caverns. Such, too, are the fairies whom men have seen in lonely and secluded places. Some of these beings are of a very low order of life, almost like the higher order of plants, save that they possess independent motion. Others are very lively and full of grotesque unmeaning tricks... As nations advance these lower forms of life die out from the astral plane of that earth's sphere and succeeding generations begin at first to doubt and then to deny that they ever had any existence." ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also some fairly decent length coverage in Borderland (magazine) (p.241-242, not sure abt reliability) and some short coverage (p. 385) in The Bookseller . A case could also be made for WP:OLDBOOK since it's been mentioned a few times in the 20th/21st century. Based on this and the above, it's probably best to keep . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 02:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with that, I'll withdraw this. I just couldn't find anything minus the one review, and we've found more than that through this AfD so all is well. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:03, 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

War in Abkhazia : Per WP:TWODABS as well, the DAB is not needed. Yorkporter ( talk ) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Yorkporter ( talk ) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Georgia (country) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Improper venue -The correct venue is WP:RM . Schierbecker ( talk ) 01:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with Schierbecker. AfD is at least not the first step. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Nominator has been locked as a sockpuppet of a globally banned user. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:42, 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

Pheia pyrama : Aydoh8 ( talk ) 04:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and South America . Aydoh8 ( talk ) 04:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSPECIES . Jfire ( talk ) 04:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSPECIES . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Please have a look at the responses to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clivina jodasi and desist from any more of these nominations. (Also note that there is always at least an original description ) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced. Wikipedia is not merely a recapitulation of things that are easy to Google anyway. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep WP:CSK#3 — siro χ o 06:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Andy Barclay : The character fails WP:GNG and the article is currently full of plot summaries. Attempted to boldly blank and redirect but was reverted, seeing if a consensus can be formed here. 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Film , and United States of America . 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 03:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Child's Play (franchise) . I think some of the reception section can be merged to Child's Play (1988 film) as well. — siro χ o 05:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, I may have been a bit too fast on the draw on this one. I am surprised to see a fair amount of SIGCOV of the character in [93] , [94] and [95] — siro χ o 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above sources. ★Trekker ( talk ) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Formalizing my rec after reviewing the sources above a second time. — siro χ o 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Shackleton Fracture Zone : Unlikely that anyone would search for this title, seems like it can be deleted with no loss of information on en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 10:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 10:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oof I meant to nominate Natural delimitation between the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans by the Shackleton Fracture Zone rather than Shackleton Fracture Zone . Sorry. . JMWt ( talk ) 10:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars : Originally, back in 2013, this is a place SpaceX Mars vehicle proposal named "Mars Colonial Transporter" ( [38] ). After that, there are multiple iterations of this concept which is best described at SpaceX Starship design history . Later on, around 2020 ( [39] ), this article list all SpaceX mars mission proposals and vehicles to go along with it. But by 2024, I've rewritten this article to try to emphasize about the relationship between SpaceX and Mars, because the launch vehicles have already being written about at SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Red Dragon , but I stopped doing so when I realized that this article will be filled with original research and press releases information. I think this article should be redirected or at the very least refactored in some way. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Astronomy , Spaceflight , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close per the nominator removing the lead sentence and then nominating the page, which may stretch good faith enough to end this deletion discussion of a notable topic and a very well-sourced and long-term article. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are the one that is stretching people's good faith. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 12:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe both or neither of us is doing so, but the fact remains that you removed the lead summary sentence before nominating (even though you wrote the good summary sentence in good faith). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I need to go out and touch grass a bit. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 12:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't bogart (per WP:IAR). Just trying to save a nice page with 58 sources that you helped improve Randy Kryn ( talk ) 12:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I think I would agree to close this AFD too. Initially I think that this article will duplicate the scope of History of SpaceX and SpaceX Starship design history , but I think that this article could talk more about how SpaceX has popularized the ethos of colonizing Mars after decades of stagnation. I will try to find as many sources as possible before writing this article again to make sure it won't become another op-ed piece. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 12:47, 18 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

Karl-Georg Niebergall : Article was deprodded with the claim that this professor seems to hold a named chair, which I can find no evidence of on the university website . - car chasm ( talk ) 19:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Philosophy , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Courtesy ping to Necrothesp ; where did you see that he was a named professor, as I was also unable to locate this claim? Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the German system, full professors are generally chair of something. Niebergall is Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language [5] . Whether that should be considered as equivalent to the sort of named chair that one might have in a US university is unclear to me. I have been told that there is a difference between established chairs (that are held by multiple people in sequence) and personal chairs (given only to one person as a way to list them as full professor) and that one is better than the other, but I don't really understand the distinction myself nor how to tell which one Niebergall has. Perhaps there is someone more familiar with German academia who can clarify. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . I'm not willing to extend automatic notability to all German full professors and I don't see anything here that goes beyond that, or anything in the citation record that would justify WP:PROF#C1 notability. The Stegmüller Award is an early-career award [6] that I think is too low-level for notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to weak keep now that the distinction between established and personal chairs has been clarified and we have documentation that he holds the more prestigious kind. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I love being misrepresented. My edit summary was actually: deprod; appears to hold an established chair. I didn't mention a named chair, as I am misquoted as doing. An established chair, as David Eppstein points out, is one that always exists, is only held by one individual at a time, and to which one is appointed, as opposed to a personal chair, which is merely an academic promotion to professorial rank (usually for long service) with no actual established chair attached. Named chairs (which are just established chairs that have the name of an individual or organisation attached, either because they funded the chair or in their honour) are relatively rare outside North America, where they seem to be the norm for established chairs. But he does hold an established chair (the Chair of Logic and Philosophy of Language). These are equivalent to named chairs and therefore meet WP:PROF #5. Many professors who already hold personal chairs are later appointed to established chairs, which are most definitely more prestigious. Wikipedia does not revolve around the American way of doing things, which is why PROF #5 quite clearly states "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . JBL ( talk ) 17:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as Necrothesp says, holding an established chair (as opposed to a personal one) in Germany, a country that does not have named chairs, fulfils criterion No. 5 of WP:NPROF . Judging from the phrasing in the article, I wasn't sure whether the is the case with Niebergall, but source No. 3 explicitly states that he is the Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Logik und Sprachphilosophie , which translates to 'holder of the chair for logic and the philosophy of language', a significant difference to just 'professor' for these subjects. Modussiccandi ( talk ) 20:01, 3 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

Andrea Jin : The subject of this article does not appear to meet the [Notability guidelines for entertainers]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers_and_broadcasters) , specifically the criteria for comedians. While Jin is a self proclaimed comedian, the article does not provide reliable secondary sources that discuss her in detail (literally only one paragraph), nor does it demonstrate that she has made significant, recognized contributions to the field of comedy. Only one secondary reference is in English. The only other primary link is to her website which is not considered independent, reliable sources according to Wikipedia's [guidelines]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources ). From the information presented, it seems that this article may have been created primarily for promotional purposes rather than as an informative entry. Therefore, it may fall under Wikipedia's [guidelines on promotional content and advertising]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion ). I encourage other editors to contribute to this discussion so we can reach a consensus on the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.231.121.150 ( talk • contribs ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada , Entertainment , and Women . Bearcat ( talk ) 19:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Quite aside from the fact that you've done many, many things incorrectly here which have had to be corrected , including creating the discussion page in talk space, not formatting it correctly and not even linking to Wikipedia guidelines correctly, you're not even reading the guidelines correctly in the first place. There's nothing "promotional" in the article's tone, for starters, and even more importantly the notability guidelines for comedians most certainly are met by having won a top-level award like the Juno Awards — the Junos are one of those top-level national awards that are in and of themselves an automatic notability clinch for the winners per "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", and that's not up for any debate. Could the article be better ? Yeah, I'll grant that in its current form it isn't very long and could potentially be expanded with more information. But is it unacceptable in its existing state? Not at all. And furthermore, it does not matter whether references are in English or not — as long as references are reliable , we simply don't care what language they are or aren't written in at all. I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that trying to nominate this for deletion was your first Wikipedia edit ever under this IP number, suggesting that you have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines, such as personal animus against Andrea Jin for reasons that are absolutely none of our concern. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO through the Juno Award and I would say Vulture and The Georgia Straight are WP:SIGCOV . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, Juno win is fine, it's the Canadian Emmy award. Also have an article in macleans.ca [11] Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, it's more like a Grammy than an Emmy, but it is indeed still a notable award. Bearcat ( talk ) 21:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As others have pointed out, a Juno win indicates notability, and the article is not promotional. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the subject winning a Juno Award. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 26 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

Shenandoah Valley Governor's School : Elvisisalive95 ( talk ) 21:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is a lot for this one. Some key publications might be this: [10] an academic paper specifically about the school. Also this on specialised STEM schools: [11] . Then there is this book on engineering education: [12] . It doesn't stop there either. Loads of mentions in the Virginia Junior Academy Science awards, newspapers, school directories etc. These are all primary but sustained coverage. There are mentions in other books too. Some passing (like the eductaor who wrote a book but discusses this as his former school). But the academic papers above alone are a GNG pass. Significant mentions in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. This is a very clear keep. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Sirfurboy , thank you for the time you took out to search and find these sources. I didn’t see ‘Sage Journals’ on this list of approved sources by Wikipedia. Nor did I see a need for 1/18 magnet schools in this specific geographical location to have its own dedicated page. Aside from that i respect your 18+ years experience here on the encyclopedia & i value your opinion and factual bases for your Keep vote. Thank you again . Elvisisalive95 ( talk ) 16:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. Which list were you looking on? This page is a bit out of date but see Sage Publishing on there: Rankings of academic publishers . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I use this list > WP:RSPSOURCES I wasn’t aware of the list you linked above when i was doing my credible source search. I will refer to it from here on out. Thank you again. Elvisisalive95 ( talk ) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, that is a useful but (as it says) non exhaustive list of sources that come up frequently. Most academic journals and publishers are not on that list, because there is never much debate over them. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Makes complete sense, honestly i appreciate you linking it because i love to learn more and more about editing on here. I hope you have an amazing week! Elvisisalive95 ( talk ) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets the general notability guideline with the sources in the article and provided by Sirfurboy🏄 . Jacona ( talk ) 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

Piranha Brothers : While sources confirm this sketch exists, I can't find anything showing this specific sketch, out of tons and tons in Monty Python's prolific career, has individual notability. Possibly redirect to the list of episodes? Not sure, though, since it's a sketch not an episode. Previously survived an AfD, but this was was a mass AfD of many sketches, several of which were notable. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 13:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can find a number of sources specifically discussing this sketch. It's discussed in this book on Monty Python in great detail, talking about how the sketch was based on the gangsters known as the Kray twins . Death of a Pirate and Bloody London: Shocking Tales from London's Gruesome Past also discuss the sketch as commentary on the Kray twins' career. It's also used in Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions as an example of satiric rhetoric. There are a lot more of these if you look on Google Books. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, there's a lot of short mentions, but I don't think any of the examples you gave constitute significant coverage, except the first one which seems to be fine. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it is a notable sketch as evidenced by the amount of sources that reference it. I'm still working on the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Undergoing expansion. Need more consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - expansion completed and article is now sourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah my concerns are addressed. Seems fine to keep now. Withdraw. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 13:22, 15 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

Shulk : All of his Reception is sourced to reviews of the game- which, while not unusable, requires some sourcing beyond just the reviews- and to his Smash appearance (The latter of which barely classifies as commentary, with a lot of it boiling down to "He is a strong character") and the only other source I could find was an admittedly solid book source, which I'll link here. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Posthumanism_in_digital_culture/jjYTEAAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Shulk%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT115&printsec=frontcover Beyond the book, there is very little significant coverage of Shulk as an individual character. I feel a merge to Xenoblade Chronicles may be the best AtD, given most of the sourcing in the article is straight from reviews of that game. I'm unopposed to a future recreation, but Shulk as it stands right now is very lacking in terms of what's needed for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as creator (though I wasn't notified?) Beyond the source already mentioned in the nomination, there's significant coverage literally in the article. Here's an entire lengthy article written about him . Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies about the issue with the pinging. Didn't realize that Twinkle was sending it to the wrong person. In any case, I'd argue Shulk's coverage is a bit lacking, as it doesn't really illustrate that the character is notable himself. It's basically all tied to reviews of Xenoblade Chronicles and Smash, which as mentioned is pretty lacking. The reviews give good coverage to him, I agree, but it doesn't really illustrate why he should be a separate article, given how they're all focused on his role in that specific game. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Didn't see the source you linked when I replied, sorry about that. Either way, the article doesn't seem to be too much in terms of significant coverage, since it's just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade with some admittedly solid developmental info. I don't think it's enough to salvage the article entirely, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are you talking about? We've got multiple detailed sources, and an article that is 100% sourced. That's all we need here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you clarify what you mean by multiple detailed sources? Do you mean in terms of conception, reception, or both? I'm just making sure I don't misinterpret your argument by accident here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nominator admits that the Posthumanism in digital culture source is solid. The engadget article is clearly independent and specifically about the character. A well-sourced article. Toughpigs ( talk ) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Engadget source may be about the character, but there's not really much being said in the article. It's basically just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade Chronicles rather than any form of commentary of analysis. I don't believe it really qualifies as an independent source for SIGCOV in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't make any sense. Every aspect of the Engadget article is about Shulk, and it's not a short article. It's the definition of SIGCOV. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is about Shulk, but it's not SIGCOV. This is a plot summary article, and I don't see any meaningful commentary or analysis in here. If I'm wrong and missed something, feel free to correct me, because I'd be happy to count it if it does. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's literally a third party source discussing the subject in significant detail. That's what the GNG requires. Whether or not you found the commentary personally meaningful is completely irrelevant. Sources detailing subjects is what we need. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because it can be verified as existing does not mean it is inherently notable. There needs to be some form of impact shown via the character, whether that be via outside discussion or via a real-world impact. Something like the book source above does that: It's an outside source that actively discusses the character in a meaningful context. The Engadget source is merely a plot summary. While it's an outside source, it doesn't provide much for the article. Where would it be used? It can't be used for Reception. At most it would sub in for a source used in Conception. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. The reviews fall under a similar issue, as they analyze Shulk's role in the context of the game exclusively. The book source discusses Shulk's actions in the game, but uses these actions to analyze beyond the work in question. I'm not against plucking from reviews, as they can be used to great effect in an article if there's enough coverage on them. But if the only sources are reviews with only one additional source, then the subject is better off being covered as a part of the work being reviewed, not as a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 04:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're misapplying these concepts. The WP:GNG does not require any if that of its sources. It simply requires sources to cover a subject in significant detail, which it does. The rest of what you're saying would apply to a short stub or article highly redundant to its parent article, of which this article is neither. And the irony of it all is that your source - the one that ties the subject to transhumanism , is probably some of the best evidence that he is discussed outside of the scope of his respective games. Sergecross73 msg me 06:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have apparently missed the excellent "Conception and creation" section. Simply repeating "it's not SIGCOV" is not helpful. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I definitely agree that Conception and creation is definitely the highlight of the article, but it definitely doesn't justify a split given the lacking Reception. Shulk isn't someone like Varan where the massive amount of behind-the-scenes information justifies the article's existence. There's some good stuff, but I don't think it's enough to justify a split from the main article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 04:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Varan is a fine article, but it's something to aspire to work towards, not the bare minimum bar to clear for a subject to have its own article. There's substantial content here - two detailed paragraphs of development/creation info, specifically about the subject, that is entirely reliably sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep To clarify leading into this, I'm going with "Weak" because I'm spread thin and did mainly a cursory look online. However, this article from Paste magazine discusses his role in the story with some thoughts, VG247 also gives some thoughts, as does this other article from Engadget , and some thoughts from Edge . I feel with the book ref above (which seems to be in scholar also under two papers?), there's enough here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's not the strongest article, but the sources already in the article, as well as the sources Kung Fu Man found, have demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources provided by Kung Fu Man, I'd say, in conjunction with other sources, definitely show to me that Shulk is definitely worthy of a split, thus I'll be withdrawing this nomination, given all votes thus far have been keep ones. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

speedy keep

International Movement for Monetary Reform: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Organizations , Economics , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 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.

withdrawn

Blue Rose (band): If you go on JSTOR, it is only mentioned in passing. This article should be deleted due to the lack of notability. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Basic facts verified by Allmusic entry . Full news page in Oakland Tribune Nov 06, 1988. [15] . Review in Richmond Times-Dispatch Dec 25, 1988 [16] . Short reviews in Walnut Valley Occasional Dec 01, 1988 [17] Oakland Tribune Dec 25, 1988 [18] Daily News Jan 15, 1989 [19] . Remembered many years later in lists such as this . Geschichte ( talk ) 15:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Geschichte's found features and reviews. There's also [20] which is a review of a performance. Also used as a touch point for comparing other groups against in books about bluegrass: [21] "this followup just doesn’t have the legs that made Blue Rose (Sugar Hill SH-3768), a Fink-Marxer collaboration with other sisters of the folk-grass sorority (Laurie Lewis, Sally Van Meter, and Molly Mason), such a strong pacer from the gate."; [22] "the way contemporary performers like Cathy Fink, Mike Cross, Blue Rose, and John McCutcheon bring an intimate knowledge of tradition into contemporary professional usage.". Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." Also the new citations provided by above editors helps. Maxcreator ( talk ) 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - Thank you for providing the citations. I ask that anyone with the authority to do so to please cancel or assist me in withdrawing this AfD. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 00:07, 15 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.

withdrawn

International Christian Medical and Dental Association: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , Medicine , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 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.

withdrawn

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel: There isn't any RS coverage of "multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel", or any other country for that matter. This kind of list would serve better as a category. – Howard 🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . – Howard 🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologise, I have now found out that there is indeed mainstream coverage of R&D centres in Israel. [1] [2] – Howard 🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw this nomination, if that wasn't clear. – Howard 🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now also found out that Forbes contributors are not RS. So I withdraw that one as a source for my claim. However, I have found a passing mention by an additional RS here. [3] – Howard 🌽33 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Mizroch, Amir. "530 multinationals from 35 countries innovating in Israel" . Forbes . Retrieved 2024-02-14 . ^ "Multinationals Open More Than 20 R&D Centers a Year in Israel" . Haaretz . Retrieved 2024-02-14 . ^ Shamah, David (2013-04-16). "65 years on, Israel is top choice for tech by multinationals" . The Times of Israel . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

withdrawn

Miranda Sings: While the article is well referenced with reliable sources, these references do not demonstrate separate notability of the character from the performer. Given that this article is in fact longer than the article about Mrs. Ballinger herself, I propose that some content from this article should be merged into that article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Clearly going nowhere. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Internet , United States of America , and Fictional elements . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge – already enough overlap with Colleen Ballinger that WP:SPINOUT does not apply. small jars t c 03:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . This AfD may have a bit of unintentional recency bias, as an apparent recent controversy may have obscured the fact that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG/ WP:WEBCRIT on its own. Note that many of the cited articles are about the character with only a passing reference to the performer's name, eg [67] , or making clear a distinction of the character from the performer, eg [68] . Even if it wasn't notable on its own, it's an WP:OKFORK by content and length, (Overlap excluded, articles together are above 6000 words which would be the disqualifier), and also noting that this article predates the article on the performer. — siro χ o 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep . The character is independently notable, separate from its creator. It is the subject of thousands of YouTube videos, its own Netflix series and there are hundreds of WP:Reliable sources about the character rather than the creator. Compare Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Note:Ssilvers is responsible for most of the content on both articles) This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We don't have a separate article for Lily Savage for instance. Miranda Sings is her only notable persona, and her fame is deeply intertwined to the character, to a greater degree than Barry Humphries was to Everage. It makes sense to cover both topics in a single lengthy article. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have numerous other articles about comic characters ( Alan Partridge from Steve Coogan , Mr Bean from Rowan Atkinson , Pee-wee Herman from Paul Reubens - the list goes on and on). The character passes GNG, and there is enough distance between character and creator to keep them separate. - SchroCat ( talk ) 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independently notable apart from its creator. As said above, there are many instances where a fictional character has its own article independent of its creator. Jack1956 ( talk ) 07:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Genuinely surprised to see this nomination. I can't see any advantage to our readers in merging with the Ballinger article. Mentions above of the separate (and welcome) articles for the characters and creators of Dame Edna Everage and Mr Bean are very much ad rem in my view. Tim riley talk 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

withdrawn

Alastor (Hazbin Hotel): per WP:BEFORE , only this source could be useful [11] , but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , and Webcomics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: WP:SIGCOV of Alastor the Radio Demon does exist in spades [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] ; the article is restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed editors until 03:42, 16 May 2024, so those references cannot be added yet. A deletion discussion is premature until the article is open to be edited again. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 ( talk ) 23:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

withdrawn

Idiotlamp Productions: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Companies , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 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.

withdrawn

Inphonex: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Technology , Internet , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 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.

withdrawn

Investors Mutual Limited: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Management , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 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.

withdrawn

Michael Connely: As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies. But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to establish that he would satisfy either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already grounds for an article now. Note as well that this title previously existed as a redirect to the first election that he already ran in and lost, until being turned into a standalone article within the past two days on the basis of his new candidacy — so restoring the original redirect, or repointing it to the current election, would also be options. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nebraska . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per nom; very fluffy piece with little to no evidence of notability currently. No objection to draftifying if consensus is that it is just a case of WP:TOOSOON . But it would need to be edited and sourced before publishing. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this is nothing more than a 2021 electioneering bio for "an unknown political newcomer" He didn't win, so this article has no real purpose on Wikipedia. — Maile ( talk ) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, the attempted basis for creation was that he's running again in another election now. That, of course, isn't grounds for an article to exist any more than his failure to win a previous election is, but still should be clarified nonetheless. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : PROMO for a political candidate. Selling seeds as a youth isn't notable, rest is simply a retelling of his life story. This isn't suitable for wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

withdrawn

Shervin Mirhashemi: A separate page is unwarranted, especially when there are concerns of conflicts of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic . US-Verified ( talk ) 16:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Certainly unfortunate on AfC review, but I think it was the correct review. My thorough WP:BEFORE analysis suggests that there is in-depth coverage of him in multiple publications. This coverage includes his current role , as well as his work with Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) as its head ( [11] , [12] ). Interestingly, there is also more in-depth coverage about his legal issues , including a major lawsuit filed against him by the AEG. So, clearly a separate article is warranted and this meets WP:GNG . NP Hatfield ( talk ) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the lawsuit was a high-profile case filed by Anschutz Entertainment Group against Shervin Mirhashemi. It was covered by Law 360 , Lexology, and other media publications [13] , [14] . His tenure as the president and CEO of Anschutz Entertainment Group is enough to prove his notability. Most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies survive AfD, and anything related to the NFL is incredibly noteworthy. Another in-depth article about him: [15] . Passes WP:BASIC . 192.222.232.88 ( talk ) 20:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thank you for digging into his previous role with AEG and the subsequent lawsuit. I believe we can now write a balanced biography without it sounding too promotional. Thus, I am happy to withdraw this nomination to avoid any further waste of time. US-Verified ( talk ) 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

withdrawn

Johnson Keland Management: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . Suggest merging any useful info. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Management , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 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.

withdrawn

RIXC: There is barely any coverage. Likewise, the article stayed unsourced for 16 years! Aintabli ( talk ) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator as several sources have been found. I did try for Latvian sources, however, it was to no success. Likewise, the "duck duck go" search (link below) barely returns anything in my case. Aintabli ( talk ) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions . Aintabli ( talk ) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a search in Latvian (a language I unfortunately cannot read) brings up: a review of the RIXC Festival of Arts and Sciences , including articles for the 2023 , 2021 and 2018 editions an interview to the founders And several more results (here's what I searched for ). Aintabli did you search in Latvian as part of WP:BEFORE ? Broc ( talk ) 20:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This book ISBN 978-3-86588-253-0 has seemingly a 2-pages description of the RIXC (per table of content ), but I have no access to it. Broc ( talk ) 20:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moving to a full Keep after finding mentions of RIXC projects even in English books, such as [12] Broc ( talk ) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then again, it seems the foundational edit was a copyvio, see this book from 2003 at page 277 (probably not the original source) [13] Broc ( talk ) 21:22, 14 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.

withdrawn

Otto von Helldorff: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL . Jalen Folf (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Germany . Jalen Folf (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Are you sure he doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a member of the Reichstag (German Empire) for what looks like 16 years? That looks like an NPOL position to me. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 19:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Beyond the clear NPOL pass, the article also contains sources providing WP:SIGCOV , most clearly this entry in Deutsche Biographie , with sources like [8] and [9] providing pretty good supplementary coverage as well. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He also appears to have an entry in the book Biographisches Handbuch der Abgeordneten des Norddeutschen Reichstages, des Zollparlaments und der Deutschen Reichstage 1867-1918 (Biographical Handbook of the Members of the North German Reichstag, the Customs Parliament and the German Reichstag 1867-1918) by Heinrich Best [ de ] , but the book does not appear to be digitized and the weblink for his entry is a permanent dead link. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references already in the article constitute WP:SIGCOV . As TulsaPoliticsFan pointed out, as a member of the German Empire's parliament, he passes WP:NPOL . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the German Wikipedia lists several people at de:Heinrich_von_Helldorff who probably pass the English Wikipedia's notability standards. One is Otto's father, I think. Those German articles are probably worth translating, although I'm not volunteering to do the translations. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:10, 26 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.

withdrawn

Institute for the Study and Integration of Graphical Heritage Techniques: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Organizations , Education , Archaeology , Technology , Computing , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 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.

withdrawn

Lisa Jahn: This competitor did not achieve a medal and is not presumed notable. Will bundle several other Olympics canoeists who likewise did not medal. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Teruko Kiriake Manaka Kubota Sophie Koch (canoeist) Katherin Nuevo Daniela Cociu Maria Olărașu Bundled additional non-medaling canoeist articles listed above. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 21:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment regarding "non-medaling". Jahn won medals at the World Championships, which is a level equal to the Olympics, only in different years. Same with Nuevo. I therefore opine to procedurally keep the two and focus the discussion on people who really are non-medalists. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , Moldova , and Cuba . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep . Probably a majority of modern Olympians will have significant coverage in their native country - it is inappropriate to bundle seven different Olympians of different countries with different accomplishments (some seem to be world champs, etc.) BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep both for procedural grounds but also on merit. I did a bit of looking into Manaka Kubota since with my Japanese skills I'd have a decent chance of finding sources. We're talking about an athlete with profile and coverage from NHK [1] , Yomiuri [2] , Nikkei [3] , multiple posts in Sanspo [4] , News [5] . The idea that she wouldn't meet the notability threshold is absurd. Given nom's failure to do a search on this one, I doubt they have on the others. DCsansei ( talk ) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:DCsansei , I don't speak Japanese but this doesn't look like WP:SIGCOV to me. Can you clarify your argument? Are you saying these are SIGCOV, or are you saying that SIGCOV in offline/older sources likely exists given this modern coverage? Suriname0 ( talk ) 16:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very important to keep in mind that significant coverage in Japanese will appear much shorter to English-native editors, just as a function of how the language works and style of writing even in newspapers which tends to stick to facts much more than Western outlets. See for example this article . I do think additional SIGCOV exists but I think that the coverage from the national TV channel, Sanspo, Yomiuri Shinbun among others does meet the minimum for notability without finding more. DCsansei ( talk ) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those are close to SIGCOV, even if we were to give some kind of exception for the depth of Japanese sources (which we should not, because notability is exclusively derived from the amount and depth of IRS SIGCOV, not the importance of someone's achievements). The first is the standard athlete blurb derived from their sports org's website N . The second is a stats page with no secondary coverage N . The third is a passing mention N . The fourth is a press release N . The fifth looks like a local-interest community news story, though I can't access the whole thing. Like all GNG-predicting SNGs, NSPORT standards demand NOTNEWS is met, which means routine reports are not considered SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is "keep for merit" a rationale at AfD? I thank JoelleJay for the source analysis is great, and will say BEFORE found similar routine coverage of the others, this is a good example. Jahn and Nuevo's WC medals notwithstanding; I accept the "procedural keep" on those two suggested by the first AfD response. Note that the language spoken in Moldova is Romanian, so I searched on the Latin characters for the two Moldovan names which seems to work OK (i.e. Cyrillic not required). ☆ Bri ( talk ) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As a gold medalist at world competitions equal to the Olympics, Katherin Nuevo is at a different level than some of the others. This is why bundling nominations does not work. WP:SPORTSPERSON says, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor". There are sources in place that document this honor. Looks like Lisa Jahn also received medals at world-level competitions. Again, this merits a Wikipedia article. I endorse the suggestion to withdraw this nomination and submit each person individually. Rublamb ( talk ) 20:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a reasonable request. I withdraw the bundled nomination. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 21:18, 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.

withdrawn

Hyperoptic: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Internet , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 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.

withdrawn

Matt Underwood: Found many others sharing the name, including a professor and a fictional character, but no significant coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball , and United States of America . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It wasn't hard to find reliable sources about him . - Eureka Lott 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per the SIGCOV identified by Eureka Lott. Please perform WP:BEFORE more thoroughly prior to AfD nominations Jack4576 ( talk ) 17:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per EurekaLott. I have since cleaned up the article, and if needed I found a few more references I can sprinkle in. Wizardman 19:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - reliable and in-depth sources exist per Eureka Lott's findings. Meets WP:GNG . - Skipple ☎ 20:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Should conduct BEFORE more carefully if it was actually done. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom withdrawn . Sorry, my bad. I'll be more careful while searching for sources in AfD discussions and nominations. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 16:16, 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.

withdrawn

The Pot Bears a Son: Boleyn ( talk ) 09:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. @ User:Boleyn : The feeling is correct. It is a tale found in textbooks (for instance here ), and the researcher Haim Schwarzbaum [ de ] talks about it in his Studies in Jewish and world folklore on page 104 that it is a motif that has innumerable variants. Based on this perfunctory search I believe the article should be kept and warrants expansion. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 10:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to comment. Added reference and removed single source tag. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 11:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination thanks, Ouro . Boleyn ( talk ) 12:05, 18 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.

withdrawn

2022 Turkey bus crashes: Aintabli ( talk ) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator. Changed my mind. Aintabli ( talk ) 22:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . Aintabli ( talk ) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:Notability (events) , but also borders on WP:SYNTH between two "reportedly unlinked" topics. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This was a big story in Turkey last year and resulted in a large death toll. And this article was then translated into four other languages. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable and well-covered events, both in the Turkish and international press, with high numbers of casualties. It's perfectly alright for someone not to like that these events were tied together in the press but that does not make it into WP:SYNTH or anything near to that! If events were COMMONLY tied together then this is NOT OR. We absolutely should, as done right here, follow in the footsteps of others. gidonb ( talk ) 23:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well-sourced, plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 12:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG requires sustained coverage per WP:NSUSTAINED . News events do not qualify for GNG simply because they were covered, even if it was by several news outlets. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:00, 12 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.

withdrawn

The Light Bearer: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Was AfD'd in 2006 and kept, but standards were then significantly lower. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History . Owen× ☎ 16:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete did not find any refs -- PeaceNT ( talk ) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Changed to keep per below. I was concerned about the Publishers Weekly source as it is a trade magazine, but not a big issue, and the new added sources look great. Meet notability. -- PeaceNT ( talk ) 04:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Why are you not counting the two existing independent reviews already present as citations in the article? Publisher's Weekly has one; this syndicated review originating in the Washington Post is another. Doesn't that meet WP:NBOOK ? Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also added a third review from Kirkus Reviews. Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for fixing dead link and adding refs! -- PeaceNT ( talk ) 04:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn ( talk ) 08:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Was tempted to close but there is still an entire section that is unreferenced or at least it is unclear where these things come from. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ouro : Having unreferenced material on a page doesn't matter for notability, see WP:SURMOUNTABLE . The only thing that matters for AfD is whether enough sources exist to indicate whether the subject is notable or not. It doesn't actually make a difference in this case because the OP withdrew the nomination, just FYI for future cases. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toughpigs : Thank You for this information. I kinda suspected as much, but erred on the side of caution. Cheers and thanks! -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 19:56, 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.

withdrawn

JSM Group: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Engineering . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 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.

withdrawn

Kid in a Candy Store: Deleted in 2022 via PROD, but refunded with no improvements in a year since. Donald D23 talk to me 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No hits found in Gnewspapers for the TV show, only on the phrase itself. Nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Literally two sentences deep with only one source, the primary source. Nothing notable was found either. It could go back to draft status though until it is worked on a bit more. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable. Subject has no coverage from independent sources. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails WP:Sigcov . Maliner ( talk ) 06:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "Chicle sin azúcar" [Gum without sugar]. El Universo (in Spanish). 2012-11-23. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes from Google Translate: "At an accelerated rhythm, the program develops similarly to other culinary realities. Without surprises, its driver arrives in each town and city in search of a specific delicacy; Meet its creators, talks about the benefits of the product and their differentiating qualities while proving an infinite sample of candies and chocolates in order to return to the viewer to an era when they did not fear caries. While there are other programs in this category, Kid in A Candy Store does not have that element that elevates other productions, a charismatic driver. Gertler does not arouse any sympathy during his different presentations. Despite his effort and development before the cameras, he fails to convey the flavors and sensations of the tasted, providing an tasteless adventure among so many candy and caught cookies." Crook, John (2010-07-11). " 'Kid in a Candy Store' is a sweet treat" . The Dispatch / The Rock Island Argus . Zap2it . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "The series follows Gertler as he tours the U.S. in search of unusual, delicious and beloved sweet treats, as well as new insight into how those treats are made. ... One episode takes Gertler inside the Treats Truck that tours Manhattan selling "dessert nachos" and gigantic Rice Krispie Treats (watch closely for Gertler's real mom and dad in that sequence), as well as the Creole Creamery in New Orleans, which specializes in ice creams that incorporate such unusual ingredients as sweet corn, peppercorns and roasted beats. ... The episode will also feature watermelon taffy from Salt Lake City, Utah, and sweet corn ice cream from New Orleans. ... "Kid in a Candy Store" combines the format of Gertler's 2009 Food Network series, "Will Work for Food" and a special he hosted for the network called "Extreme Sweets. "" Feliciano, Sophia (2011-05-04). "San Antonio Tootie pie-sicles to debut on Food Network's Candy Store" . San Antonio Current . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: "But for those who are most serious about the last course of a proper sit-down dinner - the dessert - the one to watch is Adam Gertler, host of the Food Network's Kid in a Candy Store. With the Tootie Pie Gourmet Café on Broadway flooded with lights, cameras, and free pies, I got the chance to observe the ever-animated Gertler play a culinary Peter Pan up close. Between takes playing an adoring customer, I peppered Gertler with questions. The cast was pretty type-based - a wide-eyed little girl, the all-American dad, the dynamic friend, or the jovial grandma - and each table was given a variety of pies to delve into, such as Buttercream, Key Lime Margarita, and Apple. " Flores, Melissa (2011-03-25). "Scrum-diddly-umptious" . Hollister Free Lance . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: "Eating candy might not seem like work, but Adam Gertler has made it into a career. He hosts the Food Network show “Kid in a Candy Store,” which airs Monday nights at 8:30 p.m. and he just happened to be in Hollister to film a segment of his show last week. During the two-day shoot, he made sampling the gourmet candy apples at DeBrito’s Chocolate Factory, on Briggs Road, look fun on camera despite the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. DeBrito’s segment is tentatively scheduled to air in May 9. ... Gertler and the crew arrived March 16 morning, with shooting going from noon to 8:30 p.m. They filmed on March 17 from 8 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., and it was off to the next location after that. The crew stayed nearby in the Best Western San Benito Inn. ... For the show, Gertler visits candy stores, bakeries and sweet factories all over the United States. Each show features at least three locations, so the job keeps him on the road during the September through April filming period. ... Before Gertler shows up on the set, he is given a little background information on the location but he said he prefers not to know too much so his reactions are more natural onscreen. " Kinon, Cristina (2010-07-07). "This 'Candy' man just keeps on truckin' " . New York Daily News . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "New York's Tasty Treats Truck tantalizes Food Network's Adam Gertler in a new primetime series, "Kid in a Candy Store," debuting on Monday at 8. "Kid in a Candy Store" features Gertler, a former contestant on "The Next Food Network Star," traveling the country to find the most creative and most delicious candy, cakes and snacks. The Treats Truck will be featured in the second episode of the night, airing at 8:30, when Gertler's journey brings him to New York City. " Schiele, Elizabeth (2010-07-07). " 'Kid in a Candy Store' on Food Network" . Chicago Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Adam Gertler of "The Next Food Network Star" launches a new television series, "Kid in a Candy Store," featuring food truck fare, down-home delights and wacky twists on favorites such as deep-fried cupcakes and sweet beet ice cream. The first episode, "Take the Cake," takes Gertler to bakeries across the country, including Chicago's Lutz Cafe and Pastry Shop, where he learns how to prepare baumkuchen by roasting the cake in layers. Future episodes will include Chicago institutions iCream and Bleeding Heart Bakery. " Fralic, Shelley (2011-04-11). "Reality shows offer relief from usual nightly fare. Bliss in TV's suburbs" . Windsor Star . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store (foodnetwork.ca for schedule of upcoming episodes) Here's hoping this new entry is less cloying than Unwrapped, the cheesy show that follows Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives most nights. This new sweet treat promises a bit more edge, as energetic host Adam Gertler (a comic-book collector, barbecue chef and former contestant on The Next Food Network Star) hits the highway in a six-part series in search of creative snacks like sweet beet ice cream and deep-fried cupcakes. " Harris, Bill (2011-04-06). "New Season: Kids in a Candy Store crosses border" . The Kingston Whig-Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Both the second-season premiere of The Cupcake Girls on W, and the Canadian debut of Kid in a Candy Store on the Food Network, air Wednesday. ... Speaking of which, Kid in a Candy Store follows Adam Gertler as he criss-crosses the U.S. in search of the weirdest desserts. That means everything from margarita taffy to what appears to be no-melt ice cream. " Philpot, Robert (2010-07-12). "Channel surfing" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Kid in a Candy Store: The charmingly goofy Adam Gertler, who didn't win when he competed on Next Food Network Star, gets a Food Network series, and it's a gig many people would consider a winner: traveling the country, finding the most outrageous sweet treats, which aren't limited to candy. Two episodes air; the first includes a visit to Holy Cacao, Austin's "gourmet dessert trailer." 7 and 7:30 p.m., Food" "Sinfully Sweet Apple Co. to appear on TV" . Redlands Daily Facts . 2010-07-13. Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: "When the Food Network came knocking a few weeks ago, the attention was the delicious topping to a whirlwind of growth for La Verne-based Sinfully Sweet Apple Co., a two-year-old dessert maker. The network is set to feature the caramel apple company on a show that debuted this week, “Kid in a Candy Store,” which sends host Adam Gertler on a quest for the tastiest and most creative treats in the U.S. The episode, “Eye Candy,” is planned to air July 26." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kid in A Candy Store to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging Nfitz ( talk · contribs ), who requested restoration of this article after it was deleted as an expired proposed deletion. Cunard ( talk ) 07:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider recently found sources that have been added to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , as nominator I am convinced that the citations found by Cunard are enough to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. Donald D23 talk to me 02:02, 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.

withdrawn

List of automobiles known for negative reception: People can have a negative opinion about every car in existence in one way or another and this article have no chance to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 14:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Note that this list was nominated for deletion at AfD twice before, in 2015 and in 2018 . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will try to address two main reasons why this article has been kept. List of films considered the worst , so this article should also be kept – No, this is not true. Another similar article being kept does not mean that this article should be kept. Unlike List of films considered the worst, this article does not definitively define notability or criteria for inclusion. For example, should the Cybertruck controversial and potential safety hazard make it suitable for inclusion here? Or if there are only precisely three reliable sources criticizing an old car model, should it be removed from this page? Yes or no, because of why? I do understand that this criteria for inclusion might allow a bit fuzziness here, but in this case I feel that it is too subjective and prone to editor's bias, which leads to... List is sourced to respectable news and broadcasting media – this is very fuzzy and prone to editors' bias. For example, the VinFast VF 8 . If Vietnamese news sources praise the car for being ABC and XYZ, while Western sources all criticize the car in all other respect, should it stay or be removed from the article? Again, if people from the Anglosphere universally criticize the car while people from other parts of the world praise the car, either the omission or the addition of the entry would imply geographical bias. I don't want to say that we should encourage false balance here (especially because I'm biased about the VF 8 myself because of my nationality), but IMO this is something that we have to consider especially for Chinese and Russian cars listed. And here are some more potential issues about the article, some can be fixed, some are inherent, sorted from most urgent: Article is cited to a lot of blogs and websites that are not authoritative and representative of the automobile world. This means that their criticisms cannot be taken as a reliable review of automobile experts' consensus. Excessive amount of quotations, no summary of the criticisms. This is a potential copyright violation issue. List's title imply that all cars that have at least some form of negative reception should be included in this list. – CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't want to turn this to a derisive debate. On a wider note, if this article is kept for the third time, then I strongly recommend establishing a consistent criteria for articles within Category:Lists of worsts to avoid further debates about these kind of articles. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk ) 15:06, 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.

withdrawn

Family Plan (1997 film): All the references in the article are mere mentions about this film. I did a WP:BEFORE and found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I also found nothing suitable, reliable and in-depth enough to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 20:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 20:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few reviews to the page. Keep . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , newly added sources pass WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 02:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , easily sourceable, blatant lack of WP:BEFORE. -- C avarrone 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw this nomination. Apparently, I need to practice WP:BEFORE more carefully. I vow not to nominate any film articles for the rest of 2024. The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:07, 28 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.

withdrawn

Barwar (caste): It needs to be deleted as the content of another article Baruwar (Rajput clan) will be possibly merged into Rajput clans . - Admantine123 ( talk ) 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India . Admantine123 ( talk ) 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey @ Admantine123 . Any chance you might want to withdraw this nomination? Then when the other AFD closes as redirect, we can just WP:BLAR Barwar (caste) to Rajput clans without all the paperwork. This AFD is essentially a duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruwar (Rajput clan) . If not no worries. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 04:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok sure, i was not clear that what is going to happen with this article after the Speedy delition was rejected. Hence, i nominated it. You may do what you have suggested. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 05:07, 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.

withdrawn

Laura Virella: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know what RS is. I'm a fan of zarzuela. It is a somewhat obscure genre in the United States, both in the classical music circles and the musical theatre circles. The nominations (there were three of them for the show) and one win was an important moment for the genre, but was also barely mentioned in the Washington Post. This soprano has been pushing for more recognition of the genre for years, as well as other classical music in Spanish. https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2023/05/22/helen-hayes-awards-dc-theater/ SofiaAmudsen ( talk ) 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SofiaAmudsen I apologize for the jargon. RS means "reliable sources" that are not closely affiliated with the article subject. In order to keep the article it's necessary to have coverage of Virella in such sources. Unfortunately that can mean that some topics that are obscure or less popular are harder for us to cover. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the clarification! I've learned something new. Here are some more mentions of her work in Spanish language music, from major lead newspapers in Puerto Rico: https://www.elnuevodia.com/entretenimiento/cultura/notas/nuevo-album-de-canciones-clasicas-del-compositor-ucraniano-puertorriqueno-jack-delano/? utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1mJI6MrVhFvuYtf7QM8IMT3FEXgKdSqPYX3Njs-QnsuQ1VOpPFUU4MiwM#Echobox=1655070587 https://www.elvocero.com/escenario/ovacionan-su-frida/article_02bce5dc-73ea-11e7-8661-57d9fd3aab61.html https://wipr.pr/lanzan-album-de-canciones-clasicas-del-compositor-jack-delano/ And about her work with Latin American subject-matter in classical music: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/06/08/frida-kahlos-life-was-an-opera-so-why-not-turn-it-into-one/ https://dctheaterarts.org/2023/05/22/theatre-washington-celebrates-2023-helen-hayes-awards/ https://www.hoylosangeles.com/espectaculos/arteenla/hoyla-art-frida-kahlo-mantiene-su-vitalidad-y-su-rebeldia-en-esta-ambiciosa-opera-de-estreno-local-story.html https://www.hoylosangeles.com/espectaculos/hoyla-art-frida-se-despidio-pero-no-sera-facilmente-olvidada-story.html https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-life-of-frida-kahlo-an-opera-waiting-to-happen/ https://dctheaterarts.org/2022/09/12/gala-delivers-a-daring-update-of-revoltosa-the-troublemaker/ https://www.presstelegram.com/2017/06/22/mexicos-wonder-woman-long-beach-opera-tells-the-tale-of-frida-kahlo/ http://culturespotla.com/long-beach-opera-presents-%E2%80%98frida%E2%80%99/ https://dctheatrescene.com/2011/11/18/luisa-fernanda-2/ As well as reviews for standard operatic performances around the world: https://www.lavanguardia.com/20150720/54434003489/la-fe-fa-castells-jorge-de-persia.html https://www.kleinezeitung.at/steiermark/graz/3967661/Eine-Banane-gegen-Lampenfieber https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-02-05-0202050131-story.html https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/4/20040604-075055-5822r/ SofiaAmudsen ( talk ) 00:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are other mentions of this singer's work: LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-list-0618-classical-20170618-story.html LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-long-beach-opera-frida-review-20170618-story.html Broadway World: https://www.broadwayworld.com/washington-dc/article/Review-REVOLTOSA-THE-TROUBLEMAKER-at-GALA-Hispanic-Theatre-20220919 Broadway World: https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Phillipa-Soo-Steven-Pasquale-Ali-Ewoldt-And-More-Nominated-for-Helen-Hayes-Awards-20230130 Quotes from press around the world, according to the artist's webpage: https://www.lauravirella.com/acclaim SofiaAmudsen ( talk ) 00:02, 12 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.

withdrawn