text
stringlengths 40
160k
| label
stringclasses 8
values |
|---|---|
Xing Rongjie: Does not seem notable, but unsure if "founding general" means anything, or if his medals confer notability. Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Military , and China . Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources He is discussed on 12 pages of this book published by Beijing Book Co. [ zh ] . 中国军事大辞典 [ Chinese Military Dictionary ] (in Chinese). Vol. 1. Haikou: Hainan Press [ zh ] . 1992. p. 673. ISBN 9787805901060 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books . The book notes: "【邢荣杰】( 1911 ~ ) 1964 年晋升为中国人民解放军少将军衔。河北省无极县人。 1933 年任国民党保卫团大队长。1937 年参加八路军,同年加入中国共产党。抗日战争时期,任冀西游击队第五大队大队长,司令部参谋长兼三支队支队长,冀豫抗日义勇军参谋长,太行军区第五军分区三十四团参谋长,第八军分区参谋长。解放战争时期,任太行军区第五军分区参谋长,晋冀鲁豫野战军第六纵队十六旅参谋长,第十八旅副旅长兼参谋长,中原军区军政大学总队长,第二野战军十二军三十六师师长。中华人民共和国成立后,任第三兵团师长兼川东军区涪陵军分区司令员,南京军事学院训练部战术教授会教员、副主任,驻越南社会主义共和国大使馆武官,重庆步兵学校校长,陕西省军区副司令员。" From Google Translate: "[Xing Rongjie] (1911 ~ ) was promoted to the rank of Major General of the Chinese People's Liberation Army in 1964. A native of Wuji County, Hebei Province. In 1933, he was appointed captain of the Kuomintang security regiment. He joined the Eighth Route Army in 1937 and joined the Communist Party of China in the same year. During the Anti-Japanese War, he served as captain of the Fifth Brigade of the Western Hebei Guerrilla Army, chief of staff of the headquarters and captain of the third detachment, chief of staff of the Hebei-Henan Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army, chief of staff of the 34th Regiment of the Fifth Military Division of the Taihang Military Region, and chief of staff of the Eighth Military Division. long. During the War of Liberation, he served as chief of staff of the Fifth Military Division of the Taihang Military Region, chief of staff of the 16th Brigade of the 6th Column of the Shanxi-Hebei-Luyu Field Army, deputy brigade commander and chief of staff of the 18th Brigade, captain of the Military and Political University of the Central Plains Military Region, and 10th Brigade of the Second Field Army. Commander of the 36th Division of the Second Army. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, he served as division commander of the Third Corps and commander of the Fuling Military Division of the Eastern Sichuan Military Region, instructor and deputy director of the Tactics Professor Association of the Training Department of Nanjing Military Academy, military attache of the Embassy in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, principal of Chongqing Infantry School, Shaanxi Province Deputy Commander of the Military Region." Dangshi Bocai Journal article . Shijiazhuang: Dangshi Bocai Journal 党史博采. 1993 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books . The article notes: "邢荣杰( 1911- )河北省无极县人。 1937 年参加八路军。曾任冀豫抗日义勇军参谋长、陕西省军区副司令员等职。 1964 年晋升为少将军衔。" From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie (1911- ) was born in Wuji County, Hebei Province. Joined the Eighth Route Army in 1937. He once served as chief of staff of the Hebei-Henan Anti-Japanese Volunteer Army and deputy commander of the Shaanxi Provincial Military Region. Promoted to the rank of major general in 1964." Shao, Yanmiao 邵延淼; Ding, Xiaobing 丁小兵; Zhang, Fan 张帆, eds. (1994). 辛亥以来人物年里录 [ Records of Figures Since 1911 ] (in Chinese). Jiangsu: Jiangsu Educational Press [ zh ] . p. 239. ISBN 9787534320767 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 . The book notes: "邢荣杰( 1911- )原名宝堂,号明山,山东曹县人。东北抗日联军第 11 军军长,东北抗联总司令部副官长。河北无极人。解放军军事学院训练部战术教授会副主任,驻越南社会主义共和国武官,重庆步校校长,少将,陕西省军区副司令员。" From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie (1911-), formerly known as Baotang and named Mingshan, was born in Caoxian County, Shandong Province. Commander of the 11th Army of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Allied Forces and deputy commander of the Northeast Anti-Japanese Allied General Headquarters. Hebei Wuji people. Deputy director of the Tactical Professors Association of the Training Department of the PLA Military Academy, military attache stationed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, principal of Chongqing Infantry School, major general, and deputy commander of the Shaanxi Provincial Military Region." Song, Guotao 宋国涛 (2004). 中国元帅将军授衔全纪录: 中国人民解放军1955-1964年元帅将军授衔纪事 [ Complete Records of the Awards of Marshals and Generals in China: Chronicle of the Awards of Marshals and Generals of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from 1955 to 1964 ] (in Chinese). Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press [ zh ] . p. 264. ISBN 9787801099846 . Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Google Books . The book notes: "邢荣杰授衔边疆少将 1911 年出生,河北无极人。刘邓大军进军大别山强渡河时, 18 旅参谋长邢荣杰率 53 团护卫,部队端着刺刀攻击前进,打下一个村庄,又扑向另一个村庄。碰上敌人就打,打完又往前冲。53 团在扫清了沿河几个村庄的敌人之后,歼灭了位于公路北侧" From Google Translate: "Xing Rongjie was awarded the title of Frontier Major General. Born in 1911, he was born in Wuji, Hebei Province. When Liu and Deng's armies marched into the Dabie Mountains and forcibly crossed the river, Xing Rongjie, chief of staff of the 18th Brigade, led the 53rd Regiment to escort them. The troops attacked and advanced with bayonets in hand. They captured one village and then rushed to another. When you encounter an enemy, fight, and then rush forward after fighting. After clearing out the enemies in several villages along the river, the 53rd Regiment annihilated the enemy on the north side of the highway..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xing Rongjie ( simplified Chinese : 邢荣杰 ; traditional Chinese : 邢榮傑 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 12:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra ( talk ) 14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Cunard' s search, Xing's notability has been proven. XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 18:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. I strongly encourage them to add these sources to the article so that it is not unsourced anymore. Aintabli ( talk ) 18:49, 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. | withdrawn |
International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Organizations , Education , Technology , Computing , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 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 |
International Humic Substances Society: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Science , Environment , and Colorado . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 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 |
Information Security Forum: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Organizations , Technology , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 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 |
Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations , Education , and Maryland . 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 |
Wilson the Volleyball: This is unsourced, and while I know of the ball, this was never seen before the Tom Hanks movie. Some strange OR/hoax article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Someone else has restored the page to its proper form. I will be withdrawing. For future reference to those who are seeing this later, the page was confusing, unsourced, un-notable/important nonsense full of OR/hoax nonsense. thetechie@enwiki : ~/talk/ $ 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perfect. No issues then. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Northern Traders Company: As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the only source cited here is a single book in which this company gets mentioned but is not the principal subject, which is not enough all by itself, and the article has existed in this state since 2013, and been tagged as single-sourced since 2018, without ever having a second source added. And on a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few brief glancing namechecks of its existence in The Globe , but nothing substantive or detailed enough to make up the difference: mostly what I found was coverage about sick or dead people who had been employees of the company, not coverage about the company. Bearcat ( talk ) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Per the included source, the company seems to have been more commonly called Northern Trading Company . I got some more hits, especially newspaper hits, under this name. Ravendrop 05:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. Nice catch, and I can corroborate that the sourcing indeed improves if I search for "trading" instead of "traders". Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat ( talk ) 17:39, 29 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 |
Rob Yang: His acting is not significantly covered to support an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his leading role in American Rust plus starring roles in Succession and Rabbit Hole , along with the totality of his other guest/recurring roles in other notable TV shows and movies seem to meet WP:NACTOR #1. For reliable stories, I've found these that aren't in the article: Rob Yang Boards Paramount+’s Espionage Drama ‘Rabbit Hole’ (Exclusive) , ‘Succession’ Star Rob Yang Joins BBC Spy Drama ‘The Capture’, Filming On Second Season Underway , TV Talk at TCA: ‘American Rust’ actor talks season 2 , 'It Was Like A Master Class Watching Jeff Daniels & Maura Tierney: Rob Yang On Showtime's 'American Rust' , 'Rabbit Hole:' Rob Yang & Enid Graham on Throwing Out Your Theories & Working With Kiefer Sutherland, the Genre Master , 'Rabbit Hole' Star Rob Yang Teases What to Expect From Season Finale (Exclusive) , Rabbit Hole's Cast Dishes on Crafting Their Complex Ensemble . Some of them are primarily interviews but together with meeting NACTOR they can help build a full article. Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks great. I'll withdraw this nomination. Thank you, Skynxnex ! JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 23:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Database Nation: Merge/redirect or redirect to author is a possible WP:ATD . This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This book does not have anything to do with music, not sure why the nominator mentions WP:MUSICBIO . This book satisfies WP:NBOOK . From Google Scholar, I found this , this , this , there are more. These sources are independent and are sufficient to establish the notability. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per Deltaspace's comments - my error. Thanks, Boleyn ( talk ) 15:19, 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 |
Marmara Park: Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are the links of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] QalasQalas ( talk ) 08:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for sharing these. Withdrawn Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 11:56, 18 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. | withdrawn |
CoRoT-15b: So less! So I think it should be deleted or put into a draft. 117daveawesome ( talk ) 08:12, 26 October 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 October 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there appears to be enough sources to build out an article on this topic. Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I recently added some more content and sources to the article, suggesting it be moved to CoRoT-15 if kept since it's now about the binary system and not just the brown dwarf. User:117daveawesome then moved the article to this title and removed the AfD template , so the nomination could be considered withdrawn. SevenSpheres ( talk ) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A useful article with a detailed infobox with enough sources even though it's just a stub. Je Bon Ser ( talk | sign ) 15:30, 27 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. | withdrawn |
J.P. Turner & Company: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 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 |
Jamaicans of English descent: Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 19:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment What is going on here, Omnis Scientia , why are you moving the article and AFD page? This should have been done before putting together an AFD, not during an AFD. Now, this AFD page title includes an article title that is different from the article named in nomination. I think this should be procedurally closed and a new AFD filed. L iz Read! Talk! 00:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz , I'll be honest, I have no idea what I was thinking when I did that. Will open a new AFD. Omnis Scientia ( talk ) 09:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect both titles ( Jamaicans of English descent and English Jamaicans ) to British Jamaicans . BD2412 T 00:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Shayea: This singer does not appear to meet notability criteria for WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:GNG . The current sourcing is almost entirely user-submitted content, or music download sites. A WP:BEFORE search finds social media, download or streaming sites like Spotify, Apple Music, and SoundCloud, but no SIGCOV whatsoever. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Iran . Netherzone ( talk ) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The activity of rap singers in Iran is grateful and no festival or award is given to rap artists in Iran. But still, he is one of Iran's most famous rappers who is not allowed to work as an official artist in Iran. Shayea concerts are held outside Iran and are welcomed. In addition, 7 Sobh newspaper , which is used as a source in the article, is the official newspaper in Iran that covered the news of his presence. -- Meyboad ( talk ) 17:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to have an established career with some presence, social media and coverage, which makes it more than borderline. scope_creep Talk 13:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Scope creep , I trust your judgement implicitly but I'm not finding reliable information on this specific person, Mohammed Reza Shayea, born on July 31, 1992. Here is what I'm finding so far...Online , I’m finding another Iranian rapper with the same birth name,(full name: Mohammad Reza Mohammadi), but they have a different birthdate: April 16, 1996. (I can't post the link because Issuewire is blocked by WP); and another Iranian rapper with the same birth name (full name: Mohammad Reza Gholami Fard) born on April 15, 1994.(also on Issuewire). Then there is the Persian rapper with the same name, (full name Mohammad Reza Naseri Azad) but born on February 1, 1988, who I found in wikidata [ https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6411090 ] Other than the sources in the article that are playlists, download/streaming sites, music purchasing sites and social media: The first source says he was born in 1372 (!) in Tehran in the city of Ray. It calls him by the name Mohamed Reza Tash. A different source in the article seems to mention a different Mohamed Reza (full name Mohamed Reza Keshavar) Who was born in King Abdul Azim City of Ray. { https://7sobh.com/بخش-اجتماعی-35/551790-جمع-رپ-فارسی-در-نوفل-لوشاتو ]. Another source in the article calls him Mohammed Reza Saseh, but later calls him Mohammad Reza Sazh, a rapper born on August 9, 1372 (!) [11] . The only source that I can positively identify as him is [12] . I'm not sure that we have enough reliable biographical information at this time to verify who is who, however, we do know he wasn't born in 1372 if he is a rapper. I admit that my translations are really rough. Perhaps @ Meyboad can shed some light on this and clear up the confusion? If we can identify 3 solid, independent, reliable sources, I'll consider withdrawing the nom, but right now it looks like it might be a TNT situation if not a notability issue. All feedback is welcome! Netherzone ( talk ) 21:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone Thank you, Nader, for mentioning the things that can help in your answer and for guiding me. Regarding the popular first name, his first name is Mohammad Reza, but the correct source does not mention his last name. That's why I tried to enter his name according to the correct information available. ( Reza Pishro and the other names you mentioned are also Iranian rappers, but they are different characters and different from Shayea.) According to these cases [13] [14] [15] , his year of birth is July 31, 1992 and he was born in the city of Ray (Shahre-Rey). I have extracted and entered other information from the official interview Shayea in Raptaminophen program . I will also add the things I said to the sources of the article. Thank you for your guidance Meyboad ( talk ) 08:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Meyboad , Could you please remove any incorrect or unreliable sources from the article so we can see only the reliable ones with the correct name and birthdate? Also please remove music streaming or music selling sources, social media or user-submitted content, leaving only the high quality newspaper or magazine sources? That will really help to see what is actually there supporting the content in the article. I understand the Mohammad Reza is a popular first name. What is his legal last name? Thank you! Netherzone ( talk ) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Netherzone I am glad that you will guide me how to improve the article (I will use this experience for other articles. I will check the sources again and leave only the official sites and news. Shayea has an interesting story. He did not show his picture for 10 years and no one saw his face. After showing his picture, no one knows what his last name is. Everyone knows and calls him Shayea, and he is mentioned by that name in interviews. Meyboad ( talk ) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, Meyboad , I changed the place of birth in the infobox to: Ray (Shahre-Rey), Tehran province, Iran . Is this correct? Please remove from the article: any sources that have wrong information about him, or the wrong person with a similar name, or are unreliable (as specified above.) Let's try to narrow it down to 3 or 4 of the very best news sources, and go from there. On Wikipedia, all content, especially in biographies of living persons, needs to be accurate and verifiable - see WP:V for more information. Best regards, Netherzone ( talk ) 15:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, Rey is Trust, His name was finally revealed. According to the statement of the Iranian Ministry of Culture, Iran's official news agencies revealed his full name during the events that happened a few days ago for his concert in Iran. Mohammad-Reza Dadashpour (محمدرضا داداش پور) [16] [17] [18] Meyboad ( talk ) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Meyboad , I looked at these sources, and they look fine. I also see his name is Mohammad Reza Dadashpour "Sha'i" in that article. I want to confirm with you, is Sha'i the same as Shayea but in the Iranian language? Netherzone ( talk ) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I'm glad I got it right and improved the article (with your help, of course). Yes, this name is "شایع" in Farsi, which is also written as Shayea, Sha'i, Shaye in Finglish (using English characters for Farsi writing). Meyboad ( talk ) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, thanks for working with me in such a collegial manner. I am going to withdraw the nomination. It may take a little time for an admin to process the change. Netherzone ( talk ) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] you're welcome, Also, thank you for the helpful tips. Meyboad ( talk ) 21:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Hiltz Squared Media Group: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . This article has been here since 2007. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , Companies , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 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 |
Innovate BC: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 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 |
Yorkville University: I can’t find any RS for this except some PR pieces. Some articles have a passing mention of the existence of the university but that’s it. NM 01:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: I found one . Is that enough? NM 01:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . NM 01:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Steve Williams (rugby union, born 1970): Primefac ( talk ) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , and Wales . Primefac ( talk ) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A 28-match international career usually brings coverage, and there is sourcing in this , this and others. With the majority of his career played when online sourcing was limited, it's likely there will be more offline. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. As said above, probably more offline, but there’s some content that can be used to expand beyond stub article. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 09:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to follow up, added significant number of sources from his playing and coaching career. Should be enough to meet notability requirements. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 18:00, 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 |
Ghanchi (Muslim): Has been unsourced for long. Should be deleted and content, if anything appears useful, should be moved to Ghanchi. Admantine123 ( talk ) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India . Admantine123 ( talk ) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After I reverted it to last best version, i realised that it holds some importance to be included in Wikipedia. I want to withdraw this nomination. Tagging admin Novem Linguae . - Admantine123 ( talk ) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please bold your ! vote of nom withdrawn PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 18:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan , Gujarat , and Rajasthan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn : It was a two line article when i nominated it for delition. But, when i went through its past. The older version when it was just created, i found it in good state then. Actually, many articles like this were disrupted over the time by vandals. Hence, I don't think delition is required. - Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
International Business Initiatives: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Management , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 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 |
Intrafish: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , News media , Companies , Environment , Singapore , Norway , England , Chile , New York , and Washington . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 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 |
Great British Nuclear: I've proposed the BNFL page is moved to here, until then this article should probably be deleted. Find out more: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/great-british-nuclear Dreichh ( talk ) 11:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - page made into redirect whilst parallel move discussion. Dreichh ( talk ) 08:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) continues on BNFL page [ reply ] Redirect As creator, I wasn't aware of the tangled histories of Britain's nuclear projects when I created the page. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 11:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dreichh : This should solve the issue (and allow the move discussion to continue). I suggest withdrawing ( WP:WDAFD ) this deletion request and just changing Great British Nuclear to a redirect for now. {{replyto| SilverLocust }} ( talk ) 23:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm inclined to agree, will do that for now. Dreichh ( talk ) 08:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Unbeatable (game show): with no sources, and no significant coverage of the article. Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 21:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Entertainment , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a quiz show on BBC One, the most popular television channel in the UK. I am RedoStone ( talk ) 21:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has had sources added to it that I think more than adequately establishes WP:GNG . Seems likes there are plenty of more sources out there that can be used to expand and improve the article. - Navarre0107 ( talk ) 22:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as is, article currently has sources that meet GNG. matt91486 ( talk ) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Hoyland Fox: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 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 |
International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles: 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: History , Organizations , and Archaeology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 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 |
Hazelrigg, Indiana: Anyway, every reference to it I've come across calls it a station on the Big Four , including the one cited in the article. The line is gone now, converted to a trail. Maybe someone wanted this to be a town, but I'm not finding evidence that happened. Mangoe ( talk ) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of the existing sources on this article state any thing about this being a community. One guy owned all the land around the station according to the 5th source. I was unable to find any other sources to support this as an article. James.folsom ( talk ) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not finding much, but apparently this couple got married in Hazelrigg, Indiana , on August 15, 1952. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that, it provides a point time to further scrutinize. But, I'm pretty sure that at best this is a rural area known as hazelrigg. For a population center in 1952 to have no discernible existence in 2024 is a a little dubious. For that to happen to a place and leave no news is even more stretching of credulity. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not much more I can do with it. The 1950 census doesn't have a populated place called Hazelrigg. Donald's marriage license [12] doesn't mention Hazelrigg at all. There are two obituaries out there that state they were married Hazelrigg, but obituaries are not always reliable. There are not any other sources than GNIS. So there still isn't any reliable source that says it exists. The marriage announcement might be useful if anyone could find it. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I did an old-school trip to the local library this weekend and found plenty of material affirming that Hazelrigg is indeed an actual town which, though small, has a long and documented history. (Please feel free to browse the references section.) Multiple history books identify it as a notable stopping point on the Big Four that grew from a station into a small town with residences, businesses, and a post office. It was also hit during the infamous 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak and visited by Governor Branigin. I've gotten a start on expanding the article and have added some photos as well, but will continue to expand and refine it. I think the material so far sufficiently establishes that Hazelrigg (unlike some others ) is a bona fide community and that retaining the article is merited. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Lee Kelso: The only pre-wiki sig coverage I could find is a WSJ article (which is also not solely about him, but his company-related investments). Even searching today, the subject does not appear to have any in-depth coverage whatsoever. Being an anchor for TV stations does not automatically inherit notability. I checked via Newspapers.com and Wikipedia Library, and couldn't find any printed sources that discuss him. All available online, and in print, were passing mentions focusing on the TV programs, and mentioning him as the anchor. X ( talk ) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , and Television . X ( talk ) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem here, Xoak , is that Fort Wayne newspapers are not in Newspapers.com. They are in databases TWL does not provide, namely GenealogyBank/NewsBank. There are some longer pieces, but it would take a lot for me to keep a page on an anchor in a sub-100 DMA. Take a look at what I've hauled up and tell me if I need to dig up more: [30] ; [31] + [32] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sammi Brie , These are wonderful sources. Kudos for digging up. So much so that I'd be willing to withdrew my nomination now. Tho the article needs a trim and should only have information with newly provided inline citations. X ( talk ) 08:57, 23 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 |
IEEE-ISTO: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Engineering , Technology , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 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 |
Jon Brennan: I find all of four GNews hits about him; a general search turns up stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors but not much else. Primefac ( talk ) 19:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Education , Sports , Rugby union , United Kingdom , and England . Primefac ( talk ) 19:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete an internet search seems to bring about a BBC interview, but the page looks to have been taken down. I'd be interested to know if there's any offline coverage in Jersey media, where the team he played for are quite regularly covered, but I'd say weak delete for now. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is all thats left of that BBC interview & have bolded the only notable thing. BBC: "We've gone from level seven of the pyramid to level two and we're now disappointed that we've lost to a team who are 14th in the nation." Brennan, 31, is the club's longest-serving player and in his 10th season at St Peter. He has been part of the island side which has been Jersey gained a bonus point from the weekend's match which leaves them six points above bottom-placed Doncaster. "We're not really looking at Doncaster, we're looking at our games," added Brennan. "We're looking to have our destiny in our own hands which we still do, we don't want to rely on other teams losing." PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found this stats site, but I don't have any money to pay for it. https://www.itsrugby.co.uk/players/brennan-jon-27005.html PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Got his net worth($5 Million) from this page: https://allfamousbirthday.com/jon-brennan/ PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to update my vote to Weak keep given the sources added. It's still close on GNG, however there's clearly sourcing out there such as has been added. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in light of multiple sources added to the article, which was a woefully undersourced stub before but has now been expanded; unreferenced claims have been removed by nominator in line with BLP rules. Longest-serving player on the Jersey Reds, with 200 appearances during its ascent through six leagues to the RFU Championship; named to the RFU Championship Dream XV at the end of their first season at England's second-tier of rugby, at which time he was one of only a few Jersey-born players left on the team. More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC , which allows us to combine content from multiple independent sources to establish notability. Strongest national coverage for notability purposes are "Legend Brennan Ready for Siam Cup Farewell" on ITV, and The Guardian article in 2013 on the rapid ascent of the Jersey Reds , which has several paragraphs on Brennan (although some of those are direct quotes); Brennan was also interviewed in the BBC Sport article, "Jersey prop Jon Brennan says they have the quality to stay up" . There is a lot of other coverage besides chronicling his career, and as a side note, there seem to be an awful lot of articles which feature his photo prominently (suggesting that he really was the "face of Jersey rugby" for an extended period). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Since listing, the article has grown from stub status to something with numerous sources and references. There seems rot be enough articles featuring him specifically. Article was lacking info but this AfD has managed to turn it into a good piece. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Bishop Foley Catholic High School: I've noticed that the page in question contains a general lack of secondary and tertiary sources, which are hard to find. Another problem is that the page is formatted as though it's an advertisement. I personally believe that this article qualifies under WP:TNT , as no amount of repair will fix this. The sexual assault controversy with former school president Gerry LeBoeuf , though notable in its own right, is not nearly notable enough to be included. While alumni Tom Jankiewicz & John Keating are very notable in their own right, they are pretty much the meat of the article, minus multiple statistics and MHSAA sport listings. Finally, the article severely violates WP:V , depending too much on primary sources; however, as stated previously, secondary sources are hard to come by. Before you ask, I did check all the established alternatives to deletion and determined that none of them will work in this case. P.S. Source searching per WP:BEFORE is not required (as stated by User:FOARP ); however, I did conduct a brief search for reputable sources, coming up short. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk ) 17:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Christianity , and Michigan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The school has been around for 57 years, since 1965. In that time there have been at least 3 more sex scandals other than the one you mention. Of course, as you say, BEFORE is not required, but IMO, it is malpractice to nominate an article without performing it. When I typed in a google search I came up with lots of sources, including the 4 sex scandals already mentioned, this about the founding of girls football in Michigan. Since the internet (and google search) wasn't even around for most of their existence, I'm venturing there's tons of stuff in old newspapers and other offline sources. Deletion is not cleanup . This article could use cleanup, but it is verifiable , it meets the general notability guideline . It needs to be improved, not deleted. Jacona ( talk ) 19:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is not temporary . Almost exactly one year ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Foley Catholic High School this article was kept. What has happened to "revoke" it's notability since then? — Jacona ( talk ) 20:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that; however, reputable sources are hard to find. As we speak, I'm performing a search for sources. Again, I'm coming up short (minus the school website, of course). Most of them are sports related. I guess the question now becomes the following: how do we clean this up? The article consists of a lot, and I do mean a lot of loose unconnected threads. How do we tie them together? Any help would be much appreciated. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk ) 01:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Namethatisnotinuse , Have the sources that were deemed sufficient one year ago disappeared? — Jacona ( talk ) 10:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they haven't. However, there are no sources (even in the set of sources Wikipedia presents above) besides the aforementioned sex scandals and sports statistics. What do we prove about the academic portion? P.S. Most secondary schools (to the best of my knowledge) have no good info outside of the school website. Also, to be completely honest, there might be a conflict of interest at work here. I am a current student at the school who is concerned about the school's outer image. If there is a major conflict of interest, feel free to close this as a speedy keep. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk ) 12:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nothing has changed. Sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . Judging by the results of the previous discussion, this discussion is 100% going to be snowballed . Please assist in locating reputable academics-related sources, and don't be afraid to re-list if something I didn't notice comes up. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse ( talk ) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- We have usually regarded secondary schools as notable. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:54, 22 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 |
Irmulco, California: This location is non-notable; coordinates given lccate to empty forest. This is one of dozens of mass-created stubs on nonexistent California locations created by the same editor during a short period in 2009, based only on GNIS coordinates. The fact that there was once a post office by this name does not establish notability; this was likely just a temporary logging camp. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw my recommendation that the article be deleted. Another user has added some reasonably good sourcing and I think the article now has enough to keep . The article's current state is exactly how articles about small vanished communities should be...i.e., not just "Xyz is a location at zzz coordinates, and it had a post office in 1858". WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment This an example of place which was definitely "there" in some sense but about which we can't really say anything definite. We can't even really characterize it well. I've found one reference to a public school there, and another passing reference to people living there, but as the nom here says, the name and location tends to suggest it was a logging camp of perhaps greater than usual permanence. There's some possibility that a history of the logging railroad might have more information, but without that it's hard to defend keeping this. Mangoe ( talk ) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep like many places in the American west, it was a settlement for as long as the mineral seam lasted, or the lumber mill was hiring, etc, and then when the industrial or commercial interest checked out, it faded away, but it was a substantial settlement for a time in a thinly populated part of the world. It's part of the answer to the question "where did the redwoods go?" and I think it's notable enough to stay. jengod ( talk ) 23:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that places like this shouldn't be erased from history, but we need reliable sources about them if we're going to host an article saying anything. All we have is a couple of statements that it was a point on a railroad map and there was a short-lived post office in the vicinity, neither of which cuts it for WP:N purposes. If anyone can find more, then of course we can keep the article and say more. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Thank you for expanding the article; this is exactly what we need! WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Brent Saunders: Yes, he has joined Boards, changed roles but there's nothing to indicate he's a notable businessman including the Forbes cover. I don't see a viable ATD given his ties to multiple companies. Star Mississippi 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Science , and Medicine . Star Mississippi 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . That prior AfD was very thinly attended and didn't get the right outcome. Saunders was CEO of Allergan , an S&P 500 company. That should have been good enough by itself. Then he became CEO of Bausch and Lomb , another, even bigger, megacorporation, both of these should meet some SNG, but I'm not an expert in this area, so let's look at WP:BASIC . There are hundreds of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Saunders: here are a few. I will probably add some more later. [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] Jacona ( talk ) 03:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Here are a few more: [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] . Creating clippings, fixing the url and posting here is a bit painstaking. If you would like, go to newspapers.com to find many, many more. Jacona ( talk ) 03:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't spend hours. I assume most who participate will have or can get access. What do you think has changed most since March 2022. My primary concern remains that while the mergers are notable, I haven't found enough to indicate he was the key figure in them. Happy to keep looking on my end as well. Star Mississippi 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Star Mississippi , In March 2022, the AfD was really not worked. As far as being a key figure, he was the CEO of two of the biggest corporations on the planet. He at times held other significant roles, such as COO. There is a wealth of WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT , WP:RS . He met WP:BASIC then, and he still does. — Jacona ( talk ) 04:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I may have not made it clear, he is the current CEO of B&L, a position he has apparently held twice, as well as being the current chairman of the board. [123] — Jacona ( talk ) 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given status as leader of two massive companies that affect the daily lives of millions. SIGCOV is extensive, I’m not sure where to even start with a comment like “there's nothing to indicate he's a notable businessman including the Forbes cover .” WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WilsonP NYC , You're right, this is a heck of an endorsement for WP:N . — Jacona ( talk ) 04:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As others have set out in detail, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG . Edwardx ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 |
Firewalk Studios: There are not enough information on this studio to justify an entire article Carpimaps talk to me! 10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies . Carpimaps talk to me! 10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Sony Interactive Entertainment per WP:ATD . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea, I will withdraw this and do a merge instead. Carpimaps talk to me! 04:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jharkhand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:02, 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 |
Siege of Smoluća: Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace. I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability. CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , and Bosnia and Herzegovina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia . Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic. [29] [30] [31] [32] Dege31 ( talk ) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!” Well, look at the sources i put on the article. There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed. Orhov ( talk ) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Orhov : , I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD. However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion. You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures. The other reference is a YouTube video. I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov ( talk ) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article. As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information. Orhov ( talk ) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Dege31. Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The book reference pointed out by Dege31 is more convincing than the others. However, still not sure it would meet guidelines. But, if someone is will to update per WP:HEY I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Request to withdraw - At this point I do not have an opinion on notability but can say that the references do verify the content. Would ask to withdraw the nomination without prejudice. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Bret Simon: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MUSICBIO? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Extensive coverage available at Newspapers.com; I've added a few sources to the article. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep thanks to the sources added to the article, not to mention the sources available on Newspapers.com and elsewhere. Clear GNG pass here. JTtheOG ( talk ) 20:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination Happy to accept I'm wrong here. Thanks for your input. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:15, 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 |
Evan Fraser of Balconie: 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see how it fails WP:GNG, the nominator owes something of an explanation. The nomination to be honest is a bit of a head scratcher, but I'm willing to admit that perhaps I've fallen behind the latest trends in the application of deletion policy. He's a reasonably significant landowner and public figure from the 19th century Scottish Highlands, he's not necessarily going to have a lot of coverage in the Ohio Times or New England Journal of Medicine or other internet-available publications but he is discussed in relevant scholarly sources. Was just reading about this topic the other day, see here . The article maybe could do with expansion and more up-to-date citations but that's a different matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't see how it fails WP:GNG either. Ben Mac Dui 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Daniel M. Thomas: The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written about his political impact, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced. Bearcat ( talk ) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California . Bearcat ( talk ) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would suspect that the second Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is more historically significant as a body than many later iterations of the same, and wonder if perhaps sources can be found for this subject. I immediately wonder if he is the same person as the Daniel M. Thomas who was elected as the first County Judge of San Bernardino County . BD2412 T 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It is the same person. He was a Mormon political activist who advocated for San Bernardino County to be split off from Los Angeles County . Cullen328 ( talk ) 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. See also the county record . I would lean to keep on the strength of these points. BD2412 T 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, that's a lot better. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat ( talk ) 02:05, 29 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 |
The One About Friends: The references used are insufficient for a determination that the subject is notable, and my WP:BEFORE did not reveal significant coverage elsewhere. Articles about television series' episodes, like all articles, need to be about subjects that are notable in order to merit inclusion. Unilateral redirection was attempted two times, by longstanding editors, but has been reverted by IPs, and the most recent restoration was done by an IP with a singular focus on the series (see WP:SPA ). — Alalch E. 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . — Alalch E. 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . St. James, Emily (2009-10-12). " "The Great Wife Hope"/"The One About Friends"/"Spies Reminiscent of Us"/"Home Adrone" " . The A.V. Club . Archived from the original on 2023-10-01 . Retrieved 2023-10-01 . This is a 262-word review of the episode. The review notes: "The Cleveland Show: This one I’m a little less sure on. There were fewer laughs than in last week’s episode – outside of pretty much anything featuring Cleveland, Jr., and Cleveland’s inappropriate come-ons to a variety of teenage boys – but the storyline made a lot more sense. I mean, if you’re the kind of person who thinks that a man having an opossum stuck to his penis equals instant laughs, it’s entirely possible this was your favorite episode of television of all time, but I’m sad to say I’m not that kind of person. The cut-away gags still aren’t working, as though the show is trying to figure out a way to be its parent show without really being its parent show. ... Grade: B-" Haque, Ahsan (2009-10-12). "The Cleveland Show: "The One About Friends" Review" . IGN . Archived from the original on 2023-10-01 . Retrieved 2023-10-01 . This is a 565-word review of the episode. The review notes: "Thankfully the best gag of the episode was reserved for Ernie's possum latching on to Cleveland's crotch. Sure the entire segment of a naked Cleveland trying to wrestle this creature off his crotch came across as very juvenile, but it was pretty well done and it's hard not to laugh at the sight of Cleveland humping a dresser in attempt to shake the possum off. ... The other memorable segment of the episode was towards the end when Cleveland and a small army of rednecks attempt to rescue Ernie from his foster home. The ensuing gunfight was ridiculously over-the-top and was nicely choreographed, with plenty of bullets and the kind of violence you'd expect to see from a show like this." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow "The One About Friends" to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I agree, and I had missed the latter source. — Alalch E. 10:54, 1 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. | withdrawn |
InRule Technology: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Technology , Software , and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 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 |
Archaeological heritage of Armenia: It is also undercited and without a lede. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator per strong rationale below. TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 02:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Armenia . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - No reason to believe any of the issues raised can't be solved with time and more maintenance tags, article is easily notable enough to exist in one form or another. Even just hiding anything you're not certain of and leaving a stub template should solve any concerns. Orchastrattor ( talk ) 18:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP --- The article is cited to multiple reliable sources which seem to be directly relevant and to establish the subject's notability. There are some Passages where it is unclear that they are covered by the preceding source, as seems likely; but even if those are uncited, they cannot render the topic non-notable. The editor is surely not a native English speaker - most likely Armenian - and there are some defects of style, but basically the article is in good shape and just needs some tidying-up. Deletion would be utterly inappropriate in such a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap ( talk • contribs ) 17:18, September 15, 2023 (UTC) Strong Keep - As per rationale above. Archives908 ( talk ) 00:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Archaeology in Armenia . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AFD has been withdrawn so it will be kept, I do think it needs some clean up though. - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
TransPennine Express (disambiguation): A hatnote at the main TPE article linking to the two could suffice JuniperChill ( talk ) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Disambiguations , England , and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . JuniperChill ( talk ) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . JuniperChill , I think you hint at WP:2DABS yet I see 3 items at the disambiguation page. Can you clarify? gidonb ( talk ) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb I said 'two OTHER topics' per WP:TWOOTHER . I think you are confused that on the main TransPennine Express page, it will have links to the two pages TransPennine Express (2016–2023) and First TransPennine Express via a hatnote. Basically, TPE has a primary topic with two other topics is another way to put it. JuniperChill ( talk ) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, yet we do not have a rule against disambiguation pages with three items either. gidonb ( talk ) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No policy reason to delete this valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 20:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Please refrain from unnecessary AfDs. There are way too many AfDs. gidonb ( talk ) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Shhhnotsoloud, nothing in the nomination is a reason to delete. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok fine, here is a policy example located at WP:TWOOTHER : " If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. " So my proposal hatnote would have been: This page is about the 2023 operator. For the 2016–2023 operator, see TransPennine Express (2016–2023) . For the 2004–2016 operator, see First TransPennine Express . It may vary but for me, its 1 1/3 of the way there. An alternative is to create a page called TransPennine Express franchise or TransPennine Express (brand) if its allowed. Then the dab page can redirect to it after its been created as what happened to ScotRail (brand) . JuniperChill ( talk ) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. It means that there is no strict need to create disambig pages for three topics. But once these pages are there anyway, these should not be deleted. That's not in the policy. Please use everyone's time in a more constructive manner! gidonb ( talk ) 17:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, I think the disambig page can be kept, but I propose to change the hatnotes so that it now links directly to the two former TransPennine Express TOC as if the disambig page never existed. . JuniperChill ( talk ) 09:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's nothing for an AfD. WP:JUSTDOIT ! The nominator has withdrawn this AfD gidonb ( talk ) 16:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , no valid reason given for deletion. Weshmakui ( talk ) 23:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
American Institute for Economic Research: All the secondary sourcing I could find basically discuss the organisation exclusively in relation to GBD, and despite ample opportunity to add independent sources, their interns have failed to do so and the article was almost exclusively based on misused WP:ABOUTSELF (per 1, and obviously 5) up until JzG's first pass in October 2020, and second pass in February 2021. Now, the 2019 intern probably wasn't paid (unpaid?) enough to care about the orange {{ Primary sources }} tag that was on the article since 2013, but I think that's still reasonable, if weak, additional evidence that no such sources exist except in relation to the target. And up until that point it probably should have been WP:DELREASON 4'ed in addition to 8.
Out of curiosity (though it wouldn't affect WP:NORG ), I did also do a quick check on the influence of its economic work. With a sample size of one, the response I got was negative.
If the Mirowski opinion is sufficiently noteworthy, I guess it could be copied over to the target. Perhaps mention the Atlas Network as well. Otherwise, I think most of the relevant content is already there. Overall, I'm only bringing this here for consensus since I feel this should be dealt with with prejudice. Please leave your thoughts! Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing due to plausible argument for impact. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism , Organizations , Economics , and Massachusetts . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - they should meet on notability based on thousands of references in reliable sources and profiles such as https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0009156/ , https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42121305 , https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/ , https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/ , https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-29/a-right-wing-think-tank-is-behind-the-controversial-great-barrington-declaration-calling-for-covid-19-herd-immunity/ . - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As mentioned, I am actually a little curious about how often or rarely they might be mentioned in serious economic literature (not especially so though, I only asked one person). If you're making an argument on that basis, could you please provide an estimate of some measure of impact factor with some evidence Indefensible ? Of the profiles you linked, as far as I can tell none of them are suitable for establishing notability. I understand Resilience and DeSmog are both group blogs, LOC is a database entry with all the prose sourced to DBPedia which is UGC. While the ProPublica database is useful for collated financial information it is a database with limited transformation of such primary content. Per consensus, MBFC is of limited use on Wikipedia. The subject specific criteria for organisations and companies are a guideline , there are instances where we might consider other factors override them. I'm not convinced this should be one of them. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think they are doing much serious economic research, what they are is more of a political lobbying organization like The Heritage Foundation which produces opinion pieces to sway policy. The fact that they are widely covered shows their notability, it would be good to maintain encyclopedic coverage of them not for publicity but for public knowledge. - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , user:Indefensible makes good points, but also a google search shows this think tank at least meets the minimum requirements for notability and I agree it would be, "good to maintain encyclopedic coverage of them not for publicity but for public knowledge." Iljhgtn ( talk ) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... Which minimum requirements are you thinking of Iljhgtn ? Because I strongly doubt you can write a WP:COPO compliant article without a shred of secondary coverage in RS except in relation to the COVID misinformation. I don't see the "wide coverage" that Indefensible es claiming, so perhaps you're looking at that, in which case can either of you please share something that isn't UGC, a database entry or a group blog? I'm not even asking for three, just one so I don't feel like I'm barking mad will do. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some i found today not already cited or used in the article if you or anyone else wants to add them in the relevant sections: • [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0216790D:US#xj4y7vzkg • [6] https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0009156/ • [7] https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/organisers-of-anti-lockdown-declaration-have-track-record-of-promoting-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/ • [8] https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/ Iljhgtn ( talk ) 15:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Iljhgtn , the first two you've posted are database entries. They would not be usable even if they weren't like the LOC entry, "retrieved from dbpedia", a user generated source (as mentioned above). The LSE article supports that coverage should be at Great Barrington Declaration § Sponsor per WP:NOPAGE , and it's an editorial, not really a secondary source. And as mentioned above, DeSmog is a group blog. The "relevant section" for these sources to be added to is Great Barrington Declaration § Sponsor , that's why I'm here for a redirect. None of the sources that exist show, even at first glance, significant coverage under our criteria for companies and organisation , which is generally required, and neither of you are giving reasons why we should ignore this requirement, when it's perfectly appropriate for an organisation who has only received coverage because of said declaration to be covered at that declaration. Of the four, the LSE article is the only one that isn't UGC, a database entry or a group blog . If you think we should confirm this analysis, I'm willing to list this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you have specific disputes about it. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 06:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 02:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though i am not sure if i need to say so again for a new AfD? if i spoke up in an earlier afd is that still "counted" in the final review by the reviewing admin? Iljhgtn ( talk ) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't a new AFD Iljhgtn , it's still the same one. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - gscholar lists thousands of citations of AIER publications. This means AIER meets WP:JOURNALCRIT for its publications alone. I'll mention a few here, as a sampler, as time allows: • (1) Academic book citing an AIER article as a reference, and I only cite the first AIER citation in a content chapter; actually, both the book editors and other researchers in other chapters of the same book also cite AIER. The cited paper is cited by 39 gscholar articles . Sinclair Davidson; Jason Potts (2022). "The Entrepreneurial State and the Platform Economy". In Karl Wennberg; Christian Sandström (eds.). Questioning the Entrepreneurial StateStatus-quo, Pitfalls, and the Need for Credible Innovation Policy . Springer Nature . p. 22, 36. ISBN 978-3-030-94272-4 . Retrieved 28 October 2023 . We do not intend to provide a critique of her original contribution (see McCloskey & Mingardi,2020) [...] McCloskey, D., & Mingardi, A. (2020). The myth of the entrepreneurial state. American Institute for Economic Research • (2) Natural Hazards Review , a pubblication of the American Society of Civil Engineers , cites the AIER article "Pressman, S. 2015. Defining and measuring the middle class. Great Barrington, MA: American Institute of Economic Research." in its 2022 article " Integrating Household Decisions in Quantifying the Seismic Resilience of Communities Subjected to a Sequence of Earthquakes ". In total, 52 books and articles cite this one AIER article . • (3) WP:NMEDIA "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" is met because publications such as The Wall Street Journal commonly cite AIER. For example: AnnaMaria Andriotis (1 October 2010). "Five Cities for the Career-Minded Student" . The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 28 October 2023 . The top 15 small cities in the American Institute for Economic Research's 2010-11 College Destinations Index had an average unemployment rate of 7.5% in 2009 • (4) Ditto Los Angeles Times : "Earlier start is sought for Fed program" . Los Angeles Times . 8 May 2008 . Retrieved 28 October 2023 . "It would have the effect of putting a floor under the federal funds rate," said Walker Todd, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Mass. XavierItzm ( talk ) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That works for me, I'll withdraw . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:48, 28 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. | withdrawn |
Luke fon Fabre: Having hard time to find more per WP:BEFORE . Zero WP:SIGCOV . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 07:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Video games , and Anime and manga . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - for what it's worth, it survived merge discussions in 2014. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that time where the standards isn't high yet. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 00:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Found and added some sources primarily focused around him. Tintor2 ( talk ) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . "Zero SIGCOV" is a serious allegation for an article that cites 50-odd sources. Are you willing to do a source analysis to prove this point? Just at a glance, I see multiple published books cited in the ref list. Per WP:SIGCOV , significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material so mentions within reviews may be significant or not significant but that would be revealed by a detailed source review. Axem Titanium ( talk ) 15:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Ihavandhoo Health Centre: Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 05:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Medicine , and Maldives . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 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 |
Camp Victoria: Found no significant coverage of the subject. Previously deprod with this article , which counts more as trivial mention. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Kosovo , and Sweden . Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Here is a link to the archive for the dead link: https://web.archive.org/web/20141029064632/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuellt/2010/06/nya-boendelosningar-nar-camp-victoria-laggs-ner/ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All I'm finding in Finnish is a few extremely short (think single paragraph) news articles about the death of a Swedish peacekeeper in an explosion of an ammunition storage. Leaning delete unless better sourcing is found, but I'll wait a bit before ! voting as I don't really have access to any Swedish language sources. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Swedish media archive w:sv:Mediearkivet contains a number of articles on Camp Victoria, typically in the form of depicting someone's visit or work there. I've added articles from Expressen , Hallands Nyheter , sv:Karlskoga Tidning , sv:Södra Dalarnes Tidning and sv:Värnpliktsnytt . I couldn't find any of the articles easily accessible online, but anyone with access to Mediearkivet (students and staff at Swedish universities, Wikipedians with access through Wikimedia Sweden) can read them. None of the articles are amazing (they tend to be 500–800 words long, and the camp itself shares the attention with the lives of the people being depicted), but I'm convinced this can be kept. / Julle ( talk ) 19:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nom . Enough sources found. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 14:08, 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. | withdrawn |
Robert Hessen: This article only has one reliable source, most of its content is clearly original research. SparklyNights 21:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Authors , and United States of America . SparklyNights 21:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . High GS cites pass WP:Prof and befit a professor at Stanford as expected. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . Also passes WP:AUTHOR with many published reviews of his books. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Nominator, who has been editing for three months, might do well to study WP:Before . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Withdraw. I hadn't seen the review of his books at the bottom of the article, that makes him notable. SparklyNights 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , History , and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Samana Bay Company of Santo Domingo: I was advised to start a debate here by @ Jéské Couriano : . DeemDeem52 ( talk ) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Dominican Republic . DeemDeem52 ( talk ) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for posterity that I don't actually believe that the article should be deleted; I think notability is proven by the available sources, as well as these which I found myself: [1] [2] [3] [4] I am mainly putting this here because I understand that it is policy for controversial moves to draftspace. DeemDeem52 ( talk ) 18:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DeemDeem52 , The only need to start an AFD is if you think it should be deleted. AFC is optional and articles do not need to be reviewed by the AFC volunteers, except in certain cases of COI or a history of undesirable content creation. So if you do not think this should be deleted and is demonstrably notable you can withdraw this nomination. McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I see; the reason I included this in AfD was because I was advised to here . What should be the proper process for returning this to draftspace? DeemDeem52 ( talk ) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify : The history shows this to be a disputed draftification. It appears to be susceptible to improvement, though I have not determined its true notability. Draft space gives those interested the time and peace and quiet to see if the can be achieved 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Draftify : Searching for info on this, it clearly meets GNG and there is lot of room to expand (which might be best to do in draft space instead of keeping it as a stub). —Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , while a little rushed, notability is demonstrated here and while AfC or draftify is preferential when an article isn't suitable for mainspace, there is nothing inherently wrong with this stub. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 20:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : The article has now been reviewed, so I don't think there's really any more reason to keep this up for draftification. (I think the relevant policy would now require a speedy keep from someone who's not me, though.) DeemDeem52 ( talk ) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Pennington, Dennis (2000-01-01). "The Golden Fields of Santo Domingo: A Historical Analysis of America's Obsession with the Dominican Republic During the Nineteenth century" . Mahurin Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects . ^ academic.oup.com https://academic.oup.com/jah/article/97/4/974/717342 . Retrieved 2024-05-29 . {{ cite web }} : Missing or empty |title= ( help ) ^ "The Transition to Plantation Agriculture in the - ProQuest" . www.proquest.com . Retrieved 2024-05-29 . ^ "THE UNITED STATES AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1871-1940: A CYCLE IN CARIBBEAN DIPLOMACY - ProQuest" . www.proquest.com . Retrieved 2024-05-29 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 |
Felyne: In fact no indication of any notability and it's been in that state since apparently 2018 since it was created. Absolutely everything in here can fit comfortably in a parent article. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (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 ) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Creator keep It says that WP:BEFORE came up with nothing, but even the most basic Google search from me came up with significant examples of real-world significance, such as being used by the police in order to promote crime prevention, and a full article on the creation process of Felyne vocalizations. Gizmodo also covered Felynes, describing them as "a staple of the franchise" and "gosh darn adorable" among other reception comments. The idea that there's no indications of notability is simply not true. "Everything can fit comfortably in a parent article" is an invalid argument for an AfD, so WP:WRONGFORUM applies as well. I should add that the current state of an article does not equate to its notability, per WP:NEXIST . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also note that I found an additional article on Felynes from Washington Post of all places. Maybe not great on the reception front, but still technically a significant description of them from a sourcing standpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The sources provided above were considered prior to launching this AfD: The police matter is a promotional event per the company's press release and the character's image is strictly used in that capacity. VG247 is development, but does not offer any reception. The Washington Post article is basically a game guide. The only source I did miss of those was Gizmodo, which offered light reception. That was a mistake on my part. However the argument ath WP:WRONGFORUM applies is wrong, because pointing out an article's subject does not demonstrate a need to be separate from the parent articles is a valid point, and WP:NEXIST is difficult to cite here when the argument is being made that notable sources aren't being provided for this subject. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:SECONDARY . "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources". Simply being based on a primary source, i.e. a press release, doesn't somehow disqualify a source from being usable. Featuring reception is also not a pre-requisite for a source being reliable and secondary. An article should preferably have some kind of reception to not be indiscriminate, but all sources do not need reception. "Pointing out an article [..] does not demonstrate a need to be separate" is a matter for merge discussions. AfD is for pages that are considered completely unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that the source should be understood as promotion and not the police asking to use their image directly as they asked about a partnership with the Monster Hunter franchise from what was stated. One offers a lot more strength to a subject than another (think like a Rapper mimicking a character out of appreciation vs a company asking them to use the character's image). And like I said with AfDs I'd *rather* be proven wrong and find there's discussion on a subject that can be cited meaningfully, I just didn't find it and was surprised the article hadn't changed much at all since 2018.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per the sources brought up by Zxcvbnm and the arguments they made. The nominator's assertion that WP:BEFORE turned up nothing is incorrect. Haleth ( talk ) 08:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw Point has been raised that this may not be the best avenue for discussion and Merge may be better, and I'm inclined to agree on reflection.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Per sources above. I would very much prefer if the article is improved. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 16:08, 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. | withdrawn |
1768 China sorcery panic: Whether the stated topic is notable is questionable; few sources other than the one used discuss it in any detail. As I noted in a previous discussion on this page, it's possible that the book itself is notable, but for the time being I'd suggest just deleting this page. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China . SilverStar54 ( talk ) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was created in 2020 by a student editor with 29 edits: all except the few statutory student guided-tour edits are on this article, and all were made between March and June 2020. No substantial edits (beyond gnomish fixes) have been made to the article since. All but 5 of the 51 citations are to Philip A. Kuhn's 1990 book Soulstealers . Kuhn makes clear this is a study, a single example of a sorcery panic; the other sources indicate similar witch-hunts around the world, and closely-similar "queue"- (pigtail-) stealing incidents at other times in China. Even Kuhn, therefore, does not assert that the 1768 incident that he uses as an example is "notable" in Wikipedia's terms: it is not, as nobody else has chosen to write about it. On the other hand, Witch-hunt is certainly notable, and is a reasonable redirect target. An alternative would be to create a stubby article from this one, Queue-cutting sorcery panics in China , giving the four dates (1768, 1810, 1867, and 1908) and trying to say a little (in balance) about each one. I'll support either the redirect or the reshaping as folks prefer; both solutions will result in most of the material here being cut. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Paranormal , and Religion . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd happily withdraw my nomination if someone volunteers to rewrite the page. If we're giving it a new title and substantially changing the content, it might make sense to WP:BLOWITUP and start over at the new location (perhaps that's what you were suggesting), especially since the content here could violate copyright. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 16:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's what we should do. Fancy collaborating on that? Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Deletion is not cleanup. Seems to meet GNG. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Srnec ( talk ) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Srnec - one RS does not make a topic notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 07:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep easily meets WP:GNG , in that it has substantial coverage in at least three reliable sources. The state of the article should be irrelevant here as it's adequately sourced with inline citations. At the time the AfD was started it had three sources including the Kuhn book. @ Chiswick Chap why are you discounting the Chinese-language articles? Chang Shih-Ying's article is entirely about the article topic, and the Su Ping article devotes about three pages to this incident. I've added a fourth, from Kyoto University, it has a DOI number but I can't tell if it's a journal article or a research paper. I can verify through Google Translate that it's about the 1768 incident, and notably it predates the Kuhn book by three years. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My understanding is that the non-Kuhn sources rightly look at ALL the panics, not just Kuhn's example, and that the notable subject is the set if them, not one instance. We'll do much better to follow the sources evenly, not give a near-COPYVIO Kuhnfest in UNDUE detail. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Su Ping talks about two panics, one in 1768 and one in 1876. That, plus some analysis, is the entirety of the article, and three pages (nearly 3000 characters) of Chinese text is not de minimis coverage. Chang Shih-Ying is about the queue generally and draws both on Kuhn and Su Ping as well as other materials (apologies for misstating this earlier) but we're talking about notability not verifiability so I don't see that as an issue. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The notable topic is the panics, plural, and there is precisely nothing stopping us from changing the scope to that. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 06:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Does seem to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn - Sounds like there are more reliable sources on this topic than I realized. I like @ Chiswick Chap 's proposal to make this article about all of the queue-cutting panics. After this is closed I plan to start a move discussion. SilverStar54 ( talk ) 16:08, 2 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 |
Broken Rules: The only WP:SIGCOV I could find was this article (not included in the article, ironically) that says it's an interview, but is more like a profile. However, one source does not notability make. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see. Well, first off, thanks for providing that article. Hadn't found it yet at the time. I've added it to the article as a reference, and from what I understand (am new here) it counts as WP:SIGCOV , not least because it doesn't look like it's written like PocketGamer.biz's actual company profiles (eg. [24] [25] [26] ) or published by a sponsored guest author, even tho it's not written in dialogue format like many interviews. As for further sources of the company specifically, I found a couple more articles (in German) that may qualify towards establishing notability ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). There's also a ~one and a half hour long video interview that goes over company history and developments, as well as a range of in-depth interviews/articles with developers of the studio about their games ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ). While the company itself isn't the main topic, some of these do include a summary of the background/history of the company up until that point, as well as other company details . I'm not sure if any of these contain enough info to constitute "significant coverage", as the WP:SIGCOV doesn't specify what's "more than a trivial mention" and how detailed the topic needs to be addressed, which is also why I included several of the ones I found for evaluation and further discussion, tho I am aware of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Scarfront ( talk ) 09:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm skeptical any of those are secondary or significant coverage besides the Die Presse one, which does seem like it's good enough. (The criteria for a secondary source is that the writer of the publication gives their own synthesis or interpretation of the information, rather than just asking questions to an interviewee). A lot of them seem like they'd be better off in the Development section of the game in question, like Gibbon: Beyond the Trees (which, ironically, is exceedingly notable, but has no article yet). But if you can find a source that devotes a significant amount to the writer's own views on the studio, like the aforementioned two, let me know since it's fairly close to passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are some fair points. I didn't know quite as well about some of the criteria, so thanks for clearing that up. And I agree, many of those sources would better serve articles about the games, Gibbon especially. Anyway, I did find some additional sources about the studio that I think qualify. One is an article about the studio in the November 2022 issue of Edge (magazine) , pages 94-97, written by Niall O'Donoghue. The issue is available both in print and online, yet behind a paywall, tho there's a preview of sorts. I also have a PDF file of the article. The other source is an in-depth German article about the studio in the April 2019 issue of the lifestyle magazine of Diners Club Österreich (Austria), pages 44-48, written by Angela Sirch. I couldn't find it anywhere online, but I have a PDF file of this article as well. I can provide the PDF files if they can be of any help or if you have need of them. Not sure how exactly this is usually handled here tho. Scarfront ( talk ) 00:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those sources seem perfect. I'm not exactly familiar with how scans are sent on Wikipedia, but I assume it would be via some kind of file-sharing service. Still, the Edge one seems like significant coverage and that alone would easily put it over the edge. The other magazine would just further establish its notability. Since I'm almost certain SIGCOV exists now, I will withdraw the AfD and give you a chance to get the scans posted on the talk page of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
2023 Battagram cable car incident: Fram ( talk ) 08:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Pakistan . Fram ( talk ) 08:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or at the very least, redirect to Aerial tramway#List of accidents . There's an analysis by Reuters published 6 days after the incident [51] and sustained coverage 5 days after that [52] , as well as this on Sep 5th [53] , which clearly shows at least some form of sustained coverage after the initial news cycle passed. S5A-0043 Talk 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, per S5A-0043, appears to indeed be sustained coverage. Garuda3 ( talk ) 10:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sustained coverage in media outlets all over the world. Clearly meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to major billing in global media, easily meeting WP:EVENTCRIT #2. {{u| Sdkb }} talk 13:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. | withdrawn |
The Political Machine 2020: WP:BEFORE turned up no critic reviews, Metacritic also shows nothing except one review from a non-reliable source (New Game Network). This game fails WP:GNG . λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . λ Negative MP1 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I was able to find a review from Common Sense Media - I think this combined with the PC Gamer and VentureBeat coverage meets WP:GNG . Waxworker ( talk ) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per source found by Waxworker. It shows the article passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:44, 23 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 |
Francisco J. Blanco: Uhai ( talk ) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Science , Biology , and Spain . Uhai ( talk ) 01:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 . Nominator is advised to carry out WP:before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Please do not make bad faith accusations that I did not perform a WP:BEFORE when this was a misunderstanding of arcane notability criteria significantly different than other notability criteria. Uhai ( talk ) 03:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
InsideOut US: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . Merge to parent article. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Companies , Germany , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 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 |
Independent Gay Forum: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . This article has been here since 2004. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Libertarianism , Organizations , Politics , Sexuality and gender , Websites , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 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 |
Ziarat Hissar Baba: I looked through a government database and the village did not appear. Sources seem sketchy, I see TikTok more than any villages. There is also no Cebuano translation which makes it slightly more shaky. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 02:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Found and added 2 references to the article – it's a village in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan with 408 households and a population of 3700 per 2017 Census of Pakistan shown on Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website. The other reference, Digital South Asia Library, Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 17, p.72 is for Utman Khel tribe living in Malakand Agency ... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nominator's comments above were taken in good humor. This article was created by someone in 2016. A lot of articles back then were accepted UNREFERENCED by Wikipedia, as we all know... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 23:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to new sources being found, I have struck out my nomination. However, if these sources are referring it as only Hissar Baba, the article should be renamed to reflect this change. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 01:43, 16 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 |
Erigo: Perhaps TOOSOON. LusikSnusik ( talk ) 10:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noticed this AfD where more sources were added. I withdraw my nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erigo LusikSnusik ( talk ) 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Fashion , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Motherless (disambiguation): A disambiguation page is not required ( WP:ONEOTHER ); the primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Where the primary topic redirect Motherless should target ( Single parent or Orphan ) is a matter for WP:RFD and does not require a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator with thanks to other editors for finding other entries for the page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 06:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed , certainly don't need this disambiguation page because at best it refers to only two topics. I don't think it needs to refer to Single parent anyway, as that article is looking at things from the perspective of the parent, not the state of the child, and if a link to Orphan is appropriate, that can be done by a hat-note. If more topics appear, then of course disambig can be reinstated. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Postpone this discussion until an RfD has decided where to point the Motherless Primary Topuc redirect (I support Orphan as better than Single parent ). Then we can agree to delete this dab page, once we know where to put the hatnote which replaces it. Pam D 22:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Postpone I've added three potential articles, and I'm sure our descendents will find many more. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 08:25, 23 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 |
Institute for Structural Research: No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Science , Economics , Mathematics , Social science , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 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 |
Pharah : Only these sources were usable [11] [12] . There's nothing more, most of them were just discussing her gameplay, thus failing WP:N . GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect A good chunk of the reception section was really development info about her outfits. There's next to nothing there to support a standalone article. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 12:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Keep per sources found.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect Soulbust did not do a complete enough job demonstrating Pharah can stand alone as a character. Fails GNG. Even any Scholar hits I might find haven't really been cited by anyone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't view it as my job to have done so, as this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Regardless, present sourcing covers her development history, as well as reception/controversy. It does enough to pass GNG. In any case, I'll look for more sourcing I guess. Soulbust ( talk ) 20:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've added a solid chunk of information and sourcing to all sections in this article including the Reception section, that I know often makes or breaks whether a character shows an ability to clear GNG. Further development/design info has also been added, which is another critical factor. The AfD nomination mentioned two sources as being usable. I'm assuming GlatorNator meant in terms of meeting GNG criteria, as all the sources included are obviously usable (as per... they're used appropriately and in line with guideline and policy). I fully agree with the latter one, though I think this source may perhaps provide a better example of a source helping establish GNG for the character than the former. The Red Bull and Kill Screen sources also provide a considerable amount of coverage. I'll look for more sourcing in the coming days, but I think those aforementioned ones in combination with the additional sourcing included in the article provide more than enough basis for a stand-alone article, and I also believe there presently exists a rounded reception section that discusses cosplay, the Indigenous-styled skin controversy, and other societal representation aspects. Soulbust ( talk ) 02:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All those sources are discussing her as a gameplay element, not providing notability as a fictional character. Even pointing out the below shipping commentary, they're not actually discussing the character, just that a ship exists. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. For the record, I don't play Overwatch . It's hard to find sourcing that doesn't just cover gameplay, but it's certainly out there. I found an article from The Mary Sue (which is reliable per WP:RS/P ) which discusses some information on the fandom's ship with her and Mercy . It's a well sourced article, but I understand most of that is probably because the game is popular ( WP:NOTINHERITED ). Still, the race controversy coverage definitely puts this over the edge for me. For that, I think it passes WP:GNG . – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [13] [14] [15] Looking at scholarly sources, I was able to find a few that discuss her in a significant capacity. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw with additional scholarly sources above, I decided to withdraw this nom. GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 11:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I heavily contest the withdrawal of the nom, scholarly source does not immediately mean it is reliable. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP . At least one is from a repository of self-published materials. Have these been proven to be vetted at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Horus article is published and by a biologist/paleontologist, and there's at least 2 standalone book discussions about her cited in the article itself to boot that aren't mentioned above, coupled with the conversation regarding her designs and cultural appropriation already cited in there...I mean do you really want to drag this out? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A controversy over a single armor set is tangentially related to a character at best. This isn't about her primary armor that she always wears. The Kill Screen article that talks the most about this by far is referring to the ethnic skins as a whole; it is better off as a section in the main "Overwatch character" article. Everything that is currently in the article is tangential at best. Seriously; where is the reception on Pharah's character traits, not just symbolism on her outfit? It doesn't seem like that exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The symbolism is directly tied to her character as its intended to include Native American imagery in the game, being that Blizzard developed (either from the beginning, or after the fact, depending on how some sources feel this part of her characterization exists as a way to quell the controversy) her as an Indigenous person. Kill Screen article doesn't talk the most about it either... as seen here and Kaplan had to directly comment on it as seen here . Tangential is a severe understatement when talking about the discussion of the Raindancer and Thunderbird skins in relation to how Pharah has been received. Soulbust ( talk ) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Chai Khang Chao : See prior AfD for arguments regarding notability. signed, Rosguill talk 00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Thailand . signed, Rosguill talk 00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until episodes are released and then notability can be reassessed, particularly as there will likely be more sources available at that time. Redtree21 ( talk ) 02:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This should just have been re-draftified per the AfD result, with an explanation and WP:trout stern reprimand to วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ. If anything, this is a behavioural issue on part of the user, not an AfD one. Rosguill , I would withdraw this nomination and move the page back to draft. I've already given วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ a warning, in English and Thai, as they do appear to be unwilling to communicate in English. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 08:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly support Paul 012's suggestion. WP:DRAFTOBJECT does not imv apply in the present case and rather : "Authors should try to understand and respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and then use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace." (unless either the article is vastly improved or something has changed in the real world that makes the status of the subject considerably different (just like in a similar situation treated in this essay ) (but the series has not been broadcast yet, as far as I know)). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 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 |
Émile (novel) : Could not find a single source in which this book is the primary topic. Aintabli ( talk ) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found after LEvalyn's through extensive digging. I believe this could better be covered as part of the author's own article, but that would be within the scope of a merger discussion. Aintabli ( talk ) 15:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France . Aintabli ( talk ) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I haven't found a clear NBOOK pass but I'm seeing reasons to keep looking. The sources are in French and it's hard to avoid Rousseau, but I think biographies of the author (about whom much is written!) will lead to sourcing. Here's what I've found so far: In Les idées politiques d'Émile de Girardin ( here ), this sentence: "il publie en 1827 un roman autobiographique, Emile, où il expose ses malheurs d'enfants naturel : le livre émeut les cœurs sensibles, et Janin lui consacre un article fort élogieux dans le Figaro." -- this promises an article by Janin in le Figaro, though I don't know how to actually find it. I also see maybe two pages of discussion of the novel in this article , Sondages dans le roman français du point de vue social (1789-1830) , p. 43-44, and I think it gets mentioned elsewhere in the article too. I would be tempted to count this toward NBOOK. The book gets a one-sentence mention with a quote in this article , Le gouvernement des portraits: Autour d'Émile de Girardin . This one isn't SIGCOV but indicates an awareness of the book among his autobiographers. As things stand, I can't make a good keep argument, but I'd be curious what someone with better French could turn up. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 01:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first source appears to be telling that Janin devoted his work to Girardin, not necessarily his autobiographical work. If the second one is a mere mention and nothing in-depth, it cannot be counted. Aintabli ( talk ) 01:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding the first, the antecedent of "lui" is "le livre"; it can't mean a general dedication to Girardin. Drawing on this thread, I was able to find the review by Janin in le Figaro , here -- this new source is clearly a substantive review, suitable for NBOOK. For the second, the article discusses Emile at length as an example of a book which presents a bastard as its sympathetic protagonist, much more than a passing mention. It gives a short plot summary and discusses the characterization of the protagonist. It's not fully clear to me at a glance at what point the author changes their focus back to the more general idea of books about victims, but there is more detail about the book than will show up in the average Kirkus review. I think it's a borderline but plasible NBOOK option. Now that I've determined that the book was published with the subtitle "Fragmens", it will be easier to search without getting a bunch of false positives. I will take another look for more coverage. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : At the least, we should redirect to Émile de Girardin , the author. That said, he appears to have been notable in part for this book, so I strongly suspect there are sources out there on the book. Do ping me if any more are found. I'll try to have a look later but wanted to at least suggest this obvious WP:ATD . -- asilvering ( talk ) 03:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Still talked about 100 yrs later [3] . It's also discussed here [4] . I think with the period reviews cited in the article, it's notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] psst, that's 200 years later -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zut alors! Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The 21st-century coverage Oaktree found has convinced me without need for further sources, but I do still think many more exist that haven't been turned up so far. The Le Figaro review is absolutely WP:NBOOK -relevant coverage, and the second edition published 15 years later is strong evidence for lasting or recurring impact. It might make more sense to cover this on the author's article than in an independent article, but it doesn't need to be redirected/deleted for lack of notability. -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I haven't turned up a second proper review yet but I am increasingly sure that there's enough out there. (I did turn up a 19thC paper saying that they'd have a review in their next issue, but the next issue was not scanned!) If we want to look through the lens of NBOOK, I think either the article Sondages dans le roman français or Oaktree's find in Le Livre could be considered NBOOK-worthy "non-trivial published works" since both are more than a page of scholarly analysis. I also think there's a good GNG case: of the 8 sources in the article, 6 are independent & secondary, and I haven't added Oaktree's great Le Livre find yet. So overall, it took a fair bit of digging, but I now think keep is the right call. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:26, 13 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 |
Nicolas Samuel Lietzau : Part of the development team for Enderal , but notability is not inherited. PROD was contested on grounds of there being a German Wikipedia article, hence the listing here. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . Cannot find any amount of independent coverage that confirms the significance of this person's collaborative role in the creation of the notable works they've contributed to. As such does not meet WP:V . A proper independent source could change my mind. . Edit: Vote retracted, my concern is addressed by Mitumial's Eurogamer source below. — siro χ o 21:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - the only WP:RS that's listed in the article is this one from the Münchner Merkur , a major Bavarian newspaper. Besides that, everything else is cited to a Reddit thread, Lietzau-Schreiber's own website, WP:IMDb , and several MobyGames databases; which, while appearing to be more reliable, I'm not exactly sure grants too much nota-points to him, considering its effectively just an online credits page. Maybe there's more sources for him in German? - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lietzau is a known games writer and narrative expert in Germany. He has been interviewed several times by Gamestar, a major German games outlet ( Example 1 Example 2 3 ) Example 2 also provides proof for his involvement in the SpellForce series. He has appeared as an expert on various games-related German podcasts, and, more recently, is set to speak at a storytelling panel at HFF (a major German film school) whose expert speakers were selected by Games Bavaria, a government-funded games program. ( Link . ) MobyCredits is a reliable source for game credits, but (aside from Example 2 above) his name appears in the credits of SpellForce 3 in the indicated role. Credits I am happy to provide more sources if needed. Mitumial ( talk ) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mitumial : on English Wikipedia, interviews do not count towards notability. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 23:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Knightoftheswords281 , I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources , and they list MobyGames as an unreliable source due to it being user generated (like iMDb). Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 10:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is considered a reliable source of credits? Are the credit video and the Gamestar article linked above considered sufficient? Mitumial ( talk ) 12:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The YouTube video is showing up a HTTP 404 error for me. The gamestar interviews seem fine, but as I said, they are primary sources and cannot be used to show that Lietzau is notable (see Wikipedia:No original research subsection). Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 12:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the working link https://youtube.com/watch? v=1ZE1IEjyCL8 Also, here's a recording of the video podcast about Spellforce 3 Soul Harvest with Gamestar. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8bur0p Mitumial ( talk ) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gamekult , says they are "one of the project leaders". IgelRM ( talk ) 20:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry: all I'm seeing here are passing mentions to Lietzau's participation in a notable game, nothing that shows that he himself is notable. That is my concern here. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By WP:CREATIVE .3 the notability of a work can establish notability of the creators. However, it's especially to do that here hard cross-language. The Gamekult article seems promising but it seems to be partly an interview, which wouldn't necessarily verify the fact that this person was deeply involved in creation? Really tough call here. — siro χ o 21:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. As the interviews are coming from Lietzau, I would say that they shouldn't be used to gauge his impact on the project. Would be interested to hear others' thoughts. Schminnte ( talk • contribs ) 22:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's another article from gaming outlet Eurogamer that mentions Lietzau as the Lead Writer of the project, but isn't an interview: Link Mitumial ( talk ) 14:55, 19 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 & Bell : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Companies , Illinois , and Indiana . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:58, 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 |
HMF Engineering : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Engineering , Technology , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 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 |
Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership Foundation : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , United States of America , California , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 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 |
Dazzle (video recorder) : The best I could find was a CNET review of one of the models and some trivial mentions in books that amount to "it is recording software that you can use." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Found a litany of sources from over the years. Sustained significant coverage exists. DigitalIceAge ( talk ) 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : per DigitalIceAge . Checking on ProQuest and Newspapers.com returns many results, indicating WP:SIGCOV throughout the years. The article was just never expanded upon, which DigitalIceAge has now done. B3251 ( talk ) 01:55, 19 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 |
Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Organizations , Medicine , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:00, 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 |
Eli Kowaz : Schierbecker ( talk ) 02:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine I’ll just merge most of it into his current employer since that’s what he is known for. Keizers ( talk ) 03:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions . Schierbecker ( talk ) 02:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No evidence of notability. Marokwitz ( talk ) 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Redirect to Israel Policy Forum#Eli Kowaz where I added the relevant content. Keizers ( talk ) 21:22, 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. | withdrawn |
Flick of the Switch Tour : However, I believe that there may be enough notability that the article can be kept. These are a few sources that go into some detail for the article: Perkins, Jeff (2011). AC/DC: Uncensored on the Record . Warwickshire, England: Coda Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-908538-54-3 . Masino, Susan (2015). AC/DC FAQ: All That's Left to Know about the World's True Rock 'n' Roll Band (Paperback ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 978-1-4803-9450-6 . Popoff, Martin (2017). AC/DC: Album by Album (Hardcover) . Minneapolis, Minnesota: Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-5374-5 . Apter, Jeff (2018). High Voltage: The Life of Angus Young, AC/DC's Last Man Standing . Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-0-89733-047-3 . Masino, Susan (2020). Let There Be Rock: The Story of AC/DC . Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-1-913172-14-5 . I think there are enough sources that in my opinion, the article is a keep. I won't object if anyone says otherwise. HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events . HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 18:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator Taking suggestion from Relisting comment, as sources are provided. HorrorLover555 ( talk ) 06:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If you want to Keep this article and you are providing sources, I have no idea why you nominated this article for Deletion. You should consider withdrawing this nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Google APIs : Unambiguous promotional material. All sources are primary. I cannot find any significant independent coverage discussing the APIs themselves; if there exists some controversy or coverage then notability could be met. If such a story does exist though I imagine it belongs on other google related articles. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator due to new sources discovered and causing confusion due to combined nomination. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 01:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following page as it is also google software, a stub, also has only primary sources, and appears to have no significant independent coverage. I did find [1] but it is only routine news reporting of an update. Google Web Designer ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I found some things here: [2] , [3] , and [4] Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 and 3 are good, 4 is arguably only significant coverage of the malware itself. I think WP:PRODUCT could apply here, specifically, "Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article article unwieldy." For example, it seems more logical to me personally to have the google maps API in source 2 covered in Google Maps , and the privacy API discussed by source 3 in Privacy concerns regarding Google , rather than grouping unrelated APIs in the same article. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a fair point. Most of the news sources are on the variety of APIs that Google offers, rather than the API itself. However, there are educational sources on the subject: [5] ISBN: 0-7821-4333-4 [6] ISBN: 978-1-84969-436-0. That might be something worthwhile? Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding the sources. 5 refers to the APIs collectively as "Google Web Services", perhaps we should have the article renamed to match that term? 6 seems to be about a separate set of APIs for visualisation, it only specifically refers to google web services once, but there does seem to be some overlap about web integration. Currently, 2, 3 and 5 are sufficient to establish notability in my opinion, and there are plenty more sources covering google web services, eg. [7] , [8] which could be included also. If sources establishing notability for Google Web Designer are found among these sources they could easily be added in summary style too. Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, but TNT I think this article serves better as an educational resource. In its current format, it reads as an advertisement. However, if it were written in an educational format based on the several books I found, then it would be a very useful article. As for Google Web Designer , delete . There is nothing I found that indicates any particular usefulness towards WP:GNG . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, TNT and rename as per sources found by Conyo14, rename to Google Web Services. TNT is needed to clean up marketing language. (note to closers: I am the original nominator) Darcyisverycute ( talk ) 11:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . AfD is not cleanup . I'm also not sure why Google Web Designer was thrown into the same nomination when it is nothing similar to Google APIs . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I chose to nominate because I believed the articles did not meet WP:NPRODUCT , because I could not find sources with significant, independent coverage, so I thought AfD was the best forum for determining notability. I do appreciate the sources Conyo14 has found. I chose to nominate both articles together because the articles are both about closely related google software with only primary sources and both appear promotional. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding, if you see issues with my personal choices for AfD nominations please post on my talk page to discuss. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting because I'm finding the comments here confusing. Typically, in my experience, TNT means blow to smithereens, Delete, so I don't understand what "Keep but TNT" exactly means. An AFD closer is not in charge of editing an article under discussion so, specifically, what does TNT mean in your arguments? Also, there are two articles that have been bundled together. Some editors have specified different outcomes, which is what should be done, but not all. Also, the nominator, User:Darcyisverycute who initiated this discussion to Delete (which is what AFD is for), is now advocating Keep! If you have changed your stance this radically, it would be appropriate to withdraw or at least strike your nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Liz here, Darcy, you may want to just withdraw nomination. Cleanup of the article can commence. If you still feel strongly about Google Web Designer , put it in AfD as its own thing. Conyo14 ( talk ) 00:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies Liz and Conyo14, I will explain my thought process. What I meant by keep and TNT is that I can't see anything worth keeping in the article as-is (so it needs TNT to completely wipe it and restart with better quality sources), and the current title of the article doesn't seem like the right one, that it should be called 'google web services' instead. So one option is to delete this and make the correctly named article, but doing so would erase the article history, so it would be better to rename (ie. move) the article alongside TNT. Whether to say that at the AfD now that new sources have been found, or to withdraw the AfD and make a separate request at WP:RM , I was not sure. I thought it was better to post it here, but I can see I was not very clear about that intention. With that being said, I am not sure if there is consensus to move the page to 'google web services' without opening a move request, but I will close withdraw the AfD nomination on your recommendations. Sorry for making a bit of a mess about this. I do not feel strongly about either article so I will not open a second nomination for google web designer, but I can see that grouping the nominations in this case has caused more problems than it's helped, as I didn't expect divergent responses. (edit: I will not close the nomination yet to avoid disrupting any potential replies) Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm pretty sure Google Web Services are now called Google Cloud / Google Cloud Platform -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 00:41, 12 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 |
Hydra Ventures : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Health and fitness , Business , Companies , Sports , and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 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 |
Hire Association Europe : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Business , and Europe . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 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 |
Let Go (KMFDM album) : Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NALBUM . Multiple SIGCOV reviews in the first page of Google results: [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] . Reminder to nominator to check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Jfire ( talk ) 15:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I did check for sources days ago, and the number of reliable articles was close to none. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] More reviews: [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] . Jfire ( talk ) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - The PROD was contested without immediately adding sources to the article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient reviews to meet WP:NALBUM . I've added some of the reviews to the article in case that is a sticking point. Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : KMFDM is one the most popular industrial bands in the world. Sufficient reviews exist to meet notability. Will expand the article. StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This nomination is illegitimate because there is no evidence that the nominator put sufficient effort into a WP:BEFORE search upon PROD'ding the article (8 Feb), this AfD appears to be purely an act of disagreement with the removed PROD, and the nominator did not acknowledge the possibilities offered by WP:ATD (in which the accepted procedure for a notable band's album is to redirect when necessary) or WP:NEXIST or WP:NOTCLEANUP . Regardless, this entire time the album has had plenty of reviews from reliable music publications as seen above. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination - Though I actually did look for references when the album first came out and came up empty, I support withdrawing this AFD. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 15:53, 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. | withdrawn |
Destiny Navaira : Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment given the detailed article and sourcing, I'm concerned about BLP issues, but haven't fully evaluated. — siro χ o 09:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment she was nominated for a Latin Grammy award, which is why I drafted the article. – jona ✉ 14:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Appreciated, but a nomination doesn't confer notability. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Got it, I wasn't sure which is why I didn't create the article outright. I'd actually prefer it to be redirected to a sandbox rather than to be deleted so that I have a starter draft to work on if, or when, she becomes more relevant. – jona ✉ 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are no votes on this AfD, so if you like I can withdraw it and send the article to draft? The only thing is, you'll need to edit it every 6 months to stop it being deleted, but if that works for you it would seem elegant to me! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Appears to be a fan page sourced mostly by websites. 128.252.154.9 ( talk ) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Apparently, we are waiting for the page creator to say they are okay with draftification so the nominator will withdraw this deletion proposal. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AJona1992 Do you want us to move this article to your sandbox so that we can close this discussion now? Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Userfy per the creator. Good faith attempts by experienced user. Okoslavia ( talk ) 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz , can we close this and draftify the article even though there's a 'delete' vote now? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alexandermcnabb that delete vote is by Single purpose IP. Okoslavia ( talk ) 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, you're right at that. Liz is right, too, I was waiting on @ AJona1992 . Happy to withdraw and anyone can close/draftify. Not comfortable closing it myself, not entirely sure that's appropriate... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the late response, yes please send it to the draft space. Thanks – jona ✉ 15:32, 12 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 |
The Gift (2007 TV program) : Nothing reliable found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018. PROD removed because it "may" meet WP:NTV , which is an essay not a policy or guideline. It did air 2 seasons, but I found nothing substantial for either season that would pass even WP:GNG . Sending it here for others to weigh in. Donald D23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Health and fitness , and Australia . Donald D23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two seasons on Channel 9 at 9pm I think is sufficiently high profile that this subject is likely notable. Issue to me is the lack of references establishing those facts. In the absence of references my view is delete Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a possible reference: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/the-gift-series/25904 Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. The West Australian . The Sydney Morning Herald . WikiVirus C (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am satsified with the sources provided. Thanks. Donald D23 talk to me 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Where does the sources go on the article that you are talking about now, @ Donaldd23 ? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page ) 21:55, 10 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 |
Adam Graessle : He went undrafted in 2009. A review of Newspapers.com and a Google search shows only transactional articles. Thus, there is no significant coverage establishing notability, failing WP:GNG . « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football . « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Apple Jack (video game) : It got a decent piece from Digital Spy, but Eurogamer is very brief and not substantial. There's seemingly a review from Edge magazine somewhere, but it's nowhere to be found. All other reviews provided in the article are unreliable per WP:VG/S . Nonetheless, with the little substance provided from Eurogamer and lack of coverage overall, I don't believe a substantial article can be made with the material available even if WP:THREE is technically met. λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . λ Negative MP1 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [3] This should satisfy WP:THREE . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nom themselves said it would be notable if the Edge magazine review were tracked down and lo and behold, Cukie Gherkin tracked it down. Therefore it is clearly article-worthy. Potential length is not a criteria for deletion, as long as the key facts can be described, and they certainly can. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said anything about article length. Length ≠ article substance. My concerns on the coverage from Eurogamer being slim and on the fence of whether or not it passes WP:SIGCOV are also not yet answered. λ Negative MP1 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's some coverage by Retro Gamer : [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] . Even though none of those aren't that substantial, and Eurogamer review is short, I think it's just enough to pass GNG. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 10:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG is met with Digital Spy , Edge , Eurogamer , and Retro Gamer sources (I consider the Eurogamer and Retro Gamer ones ( this one specifically for the latter) significant coverage). Skyshifter talk 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is apparently a review from Official Xbox Magazine (UK) at issue 64, but I couldn't find the issue. On another (related) note, Apple Jack 2 might be notable with reviews from IGN , Eurogamer , and Edge . Skyshifter talk 03:25, 25 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 |
Indxx : Not enough WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , Delhi , Czech Republic , Florida , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 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 |
Dudebro II : IgelRM ( talk ) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Failed video game, but there was enough coverage about it in RS, should be ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Failed" is irrelevant. I'm recommending a merge (of what is mergeable) because it fails WP:NSUSTAINED IgelRM ( talk ) 18:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is not a place for merge proposals, see how to start a merge discussion at WP:PAM (mainly the "How to propose a merger" section). Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 18:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but merge is still a common for AFDs and a merge would require condensing the article. IgelRM ( talk ) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It won't have sustained coverage, it's dead. It meets GNG requirements with what's given already. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm doubtful on GNG for a separate article with the sources about its NeoGAF origin. But I added Bitmob and RedBull articles mentioning "Dudebro" as a meme in gaming communities, which might have GNG outside NeoGAF. IgelRM ( talk ) 04:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game might be cringe and also in development hell and/or cancelled, but it got WP:SIGCOV and that will never change. Wikipedia has never restricted games from having articles simply because they "failed" (otherwise, stuff like Hyenas (video game) wouldn't exist). Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball and games can be restarted and finished at any time (see Metroid Dread) so it is not in our purview to cast judgement on whether a game is truly "dead" or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And because I missed what the nomination was actually saying, yes it did get WP:SUSTAINED . Two sources are two years apart. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see the Verge source is from 2012. Although that is still more about the NeoGAF origin than the game, right? But it might be better to trim the article and perhaps consider a normal merger (like suggested above). IgelRM ( talk ) 12:50, 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. | withdrawn |
Juvenilia Press : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 06:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:57, 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 |
Google and Wikipedia : The article fails to provide unique or verifiable content regarding the relationship between Google and Wikipedia, and its inclusion adds redundancy and offers little value to readers. There isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia . Interstellarity ( talk ) 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't follow the nominator's argument, at all: This article has a limited scope – this is usually a good thing? [...] insufficient sourcing , fails to provide [...] verifiable content – as of writing the article cites 16 sources. There is one unsourced passage (which I've just tagged), everything else is supported by at least one inline citation. duplication of information , there isn't anything this from article that can't be covered by the articles Google and Wikipedia – a truism that applies to any article about the relationship between two independently notable entities. We could write about the relationship between Wikipedia and Google in Wikipedia and Google , but we don't (because it would be undue in both), and if we did it would arguably be more duplicative (because we'd need sections in both). The article fails to provide unique , its inclusion adds redundancy – appears to allude to WP:CFORK , but there isn't an article that duplicates this article's scope (i.e. Wikipedia and Google ), and redundancy is sometimes a good thing lack of maintenance – WP:IMPATIENT , though this doesn't seem particularly un-maintained compared to the average article So in the absence of a coherent argument for deletion, I default to keep . – Joe ( talk ) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites . – Joe ( talk ) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The multiple reliable secondary sources over many years establish the relationship in a verifiable way. Also, no need to try to shoehorn much of this information into other articles. In fact, one can also think of this as an WP:OKFORK from both articles. (We would not want Google's relationship with Wikipedia and Wikipedia's relationship with Google growing as separate) — siro χ o 08:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - joe and siroxo have pretty much covered all there is to it - no reason to delete, and very much reason to keep around. Frzzl talk · contribs 09:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If page closes, it's no consensus BMarGlines ( talk ) 19:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sufficient secondary coverage --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but article could use improvement, for example many of the references are WP:PRIMARY . Should probably also be moved to another title such as Google-Wikipedia relations . - Indefensible ( talk ) 21:22, 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. | withdrawn |
Cote, West Sussex : It appears to be a name given to an area by someone but this has no sourcing or any other verification to support such a neighbourhood or suburb actually existing. Yes lots of pictures are on wikicommons but that is not evidence or viefication. PicturePerfect666 ( talk ) 16:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well this makes a change from the GNIS mess. Interestingly, this is on the Ordnance Survey maps at exactly the coördinates that GeoHack passes through. It's in the same typeface as Clapham and a larger typeface than Clapham Common (which is not Clapham Common ), whatever that signifies. ( Mangoe ?) So it does exist, at least. It's going to be difficult to find history with a word like that, though. Hmmm. Victoria History, maybe. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And indeed Victoria History it was. Uncle G ( talk ) 18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, or merge with Worthing . It really does exist, even if you want to ignore the Commons photos of it, or its name on the OS map. It was not big enough to be notable in the 19th century, because Worthing was still small, and not yet the town that it is today (so no mention in VCH ), but there may well be mentions of it in 20th/21st-century newspapers, whose archives are not yet online. So this one is a waiting game, with no improvement to WP if its existing information and links were deleted. Whatever we do, we should keep the location, information, details and links. Storye book ( talk ) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: Now that some authoritative evidence has been added to the article (thank you, Uncle G ), I believe that there is now no case for deletion. Storye book ( talk ) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That says "coates" and is next to a place called "holt". Does this place actually exist today, or is this singular map actually authoritative and where is the rest of the sourcing for this place to exist? I understand a map is great but is is accurate? Where are the sources of this place being mentioned and where is the evidence it exists today? PicturePerfect666 ( talk ) 19:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (prompted partly by local knowledge) I will leave it to those familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions to make the final decision on this, but I can offer the following: As per the Victoria County History sources added by Uncle G , Cote was historically a hamlet within the parish of Durrington ; if "Merge" is the outcome, the Durrington article should be the destination . Care should be taken not to confuse it with the nearby village of Coates, West Sussex . It was sometimes known as "Walcote" in the medieval period (see VCH reference): this may assist with source-finding. The 1898 OS map shows its extent and its relationship to Durrington parish. The number of buildings has not really changed since then. I have thoroughly reviewed all my Sussex and Worthing book sources: 10 Worthing-specific books and about 25 Sussex-related including the likes of Lucas 's Highways and Byways of Sussex , the West Sussex Village Book , An Historical Atlas of Sussex , Worthing − From Saxon Settlement to Seaside Town , Worthing − Aspects of Change , Church and Parish of Durrington and Millennium Encyclopaedia of Worthing History , each of which is very comprehensive. Sadly there is very little indeed. Millennium Encyclopaedia of Worthing History states (in the "Place Names" section, p111) "Cote (or Walcote): Home of William de la Cote c1266 or atte Cote 1296". An Historical Atlas of Sussex notes in passing (p32) the placename element "cote" without referring to this Cote specifically. The 65-page Church and Parish of Durrington , a comprehensive parish history since Domesday, mentions nothing; nor do any of the others. On request I can supply further details of the books I have consulted. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have a look for the flint pits. I haven't yet found a good source for the flint pit excavation at Cotes Bottom, just hints. I'm working from zero knowledge of any of this, by the way. I keep checking the Ordnance Survey map to ensure that what I'm turning up in the histories is the right place. ☺ Uncle G ( talk ) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Worthing − From Saxon Settlement to Seaside Town has quite a lot of detail (pp8–10) about the flint mines in the area, but Cote is not mentioned. Representative quote: Flint mining clearly became an integral part of the activities of these early farming communities. The flint mines at Church Hill (Findon), Blackpatch, Harrow Hill and Cissbury, estimated to have been in existence prior to 3700 BC, are among the earliest in Britain. An extract from the Yeakell and Gardner map you have cited in the article is also shown, although only a section east of Cote. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have passing mentions of "Gaster's Pit 17, Cote Bottom, Durrington, Sussex" and there's obviously a archaeological/geological report out there somewhere to be had. Uncle G ( talk ) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Looks like it was once a recognised hamlet, so meets WP:GEOLAND . Whether it is a separate settlement today or not is utterly irrelevant. Once notable, always notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
William Maldon : After further searching, unable to find additional sources to establish notability . It is missing Encyclopedia biography information such as Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. Created on 6 August 2013. I did ask for help on the article's Talk page. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 18:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thankyou to all who helped improve this one. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and England . Karnataka ( talk ) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I'm finding occasional reference to the subject in some contemporary and modern sources on the English Reformation . I believe it is this "William Maldon" who shows up in Foxe's Book of Martyrs (see here ). Foxe's is not exactly a strictly reliable source, but it does suggest notability. Additionally, the official Seventh-day Adventist publication Liberty has also referenced Maldon's writings (see here ). Maldon's account appears to have also been recorded in a book published by Cambridge University Press , A History of the Bible as Literature (a review that mentions Maldon's account can be found on JSTOR here ). It's only occasional coverage, but there are instances of SIGCOV. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 20:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Release (Angel) : I only found blog reviews in a BEFORE. Probably should be a REDIRECT, but it was redirected in 2022 and was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. Should it be kept, deleted, or redirected? Donald D23 talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy , Television , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this one to Angel (season 4) or directly to it's subsection #Episodes . Can't find any reviews in usual places. WikiVirus C (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AV Club has a good review mentioned below and has now been added into article. Changed from redirect to keep. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reviews in the usual places are really hard to find with such short generic titles--and I think 'release' is about as bad a title as can be imagined when looking at popular media--nevertheless, there are a couple: AV Club , Screenrant . The last one focuses on Faith's transformation across multiple episodes, so one could argue it isn't in depth on the episode. There are a number of other questionably reliable reviews, and it did get mentioned in a Slayage article. There's probably more somewhere, but again, the title is a real hindrance. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn , I am confident that the reviews found by Jclemens are enough to establish notability. Donald D23 talk to me 10:50, 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. | withdrawn |
Young-min Kim : Improperly sourced. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Distinguished professor with national awards passes at least two of the WP:PROF criteria (only one needs to be met to keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The nominator is in good faith mistaken in describing this as a disputed draftification. It was not moved from article space to draft space. It was first moved by its author from user space to project space, which was another good faith error. User:Liz moved it to draft space because it didn't belong in project space. Its author then moved it to article space. There was no dispute, only a roundabout movement. User:Timtrent also doesn't say what is wrong with the sourcing. The article has been reference-bombed , but that is not a reason for deletion or draftification. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article should be tagged as making statements in the voice of Wikipedia that should be attributed to other scholars. That is not a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 02:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR : It has been brought to my attention that I misinterpreted the revision history, form which I apologise. All ! votes are to keep and withdrawing is thus valid 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Confusion Bowl : All sources are expectedly routine coverage that any college football games get – just because someone made up a cute nickname does not mean it's a notable topic or even a "series" as described in the intro. Reywas92 Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football , Florida , and Ohio . Reywas92 Talk 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This was kept at an AfD closed roughly 90 days ago. I voted "keep" then and still believe the SIGCOV supports that result. The coverage goes well beyond that which "any college football game gets." The bad feelings between the two Miamis dates back to the founding of the Florida school in the 1920s (a century after the Ohio school), and I added some of the context on that. Cbl62 ( talk ) 02:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 27 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 |
MissJirachi : WP:BEFORE shows no reliable/sigcov about her mainly. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : what's wrong with the sourcing now? Source 3 and 4 are RS. Should be ok to keep. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : also briefly mentioned here: [16] Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Internet , and France . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "WP:BEFORE" should include reading the references section, or explaining why it is insufficient. rspεεr ( talk ) 16:55, 19 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 |
IFChina Original Studio : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts , Film , Theatre , Photography , History , Organizations , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 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 |
Artha Woods : Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Women , Georgia (U.S. state) , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found some coverage for her [1] [2] . She seems notable and I'm sure there's more sources for her in Newspapers.com. MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk ) 01:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The obituaries [3] [4] and this article [5] are significant reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG . Flurrious ( talk ) 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided by MoviesandTelevisionFan and Flurrious. Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 17:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | withdrawn |
Industrial Fasteners Institute : No WP:SIGCOV found on a WP:BEFORE . WikiOriginal-9 ( talk ) 03:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Engineering , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 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 |
Slacks (disambiguation) : Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination . I'm just going to boldly redirect there. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:46, 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 |
L. K. Samuels : The references are generally passing mentions, and not always directly to the subject, and are with frequency neither independent of him nor reliable. This is, in short, an autobiography of a non-notable person. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 21:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 21:45, 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. | withdrawn |
Eden (Korean musician) : Sources are mostly unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR or primary sources. Could not find more sources in WP:BEFORE search in Korean and English. Lightoil ( talk ) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , Korea , and South Korea . Lightoil ( talk ) 02:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/Question . Is this subject actually one of the main producers for both Ateez ? If so, they would probably meet WP:PRODUCER . However the editor that created this article added that information to those articles, so I am not sure if it's over-represented. — siro χ o 03:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo : He is the main producer for Ateez but I could not find any sources about him if you could I will withdraw this nomination. Lightoil ( talk ) 04:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. Being the producer for such a group is a strong signal, but if there's no reliable verification then it will be tough. For an SNG like WP:PRODUCER , we don't need the full WP:GNG , just enough reliable coverage to verify. — siro χ o 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose, A quick search on Naver returns 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and 7 , which should be sufficient as reliable secondary sources. ⇒ Luminous Person (talk) 19:11, 25 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. | withdrawn |
Akshat Tyagi: I cannot find reliable, independent coverage of the subject and his company. Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 07:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India . Fancy Refrigerator ( talk ) 07:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete per WP:G5 . A sock of someone created the article, but I can't for the love of me remember who it is. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 16:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just remembered who I was thinking of - | speedy delete |
SCH Phase Display: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete as CSD:G12. The text seems to have been lifted off a 2007 textbook . Owen× ☎ 15:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete for copyright violation. The textbook was published in 2005, the passage was added here in 2007, so it's clearly a copyright violation rather than citogenesis. DFlhb ( talk ) 13:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete: per WP:G12 . Clearly a copyright violation, while it may be possible to have something here on this subject it'll have to come from a WP:TNT . User:Let'srun 22:08, 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 delete |
2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final: Typically, World Cup semi-finals don't warrant a separate article from the parent article, this is no different. Besides which, it goes on about a match from 2011, between two cricket rivals (which warrants greater notability). Only the final should be covered in any greater detail. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and Cricket . StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Agree with the nom, not notable in its own right. Not opposed to a redirect though if there's a good target. Jenks24 ( talk ) 21:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing is here to suggest that this meets WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 22:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a semi-final match in a major tournament is generally not independently notable unless something very notable or unusual occurs within the game, which does not seem to be the case here. I oppose a redirect because “2023 Cricket World Cup 1st semi-final” is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan , India , and New Zealand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obvious delete . This is an obvs fork and unnecessary. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 06:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. | speedy delete |
CI4thePro (Record Producer): No sources found; what's used in the article are youtube videos and a Google search result (neither of which prove notability). Gsearch goes straight to social media and streaming sites. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:31, 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 delete |
Teleperformance Albania: Teleperformance Albania is a subsidiary of Teleperformance which already as its own article. Gnkgr ( talk ) 00:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Albania . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete non-notable part of the main business, no sourcing found in RS. What's given is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not in line with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ADVERTISING . Teleperformance Albania started with an initial capacity of 100 workstations, and we grew exponentially by roughly doubling that number every six months . We? I have never seen an Wiki article saying "we" in wikivoice. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, "we" should have read NPOV before creating an article about themselves. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No indication of notability and page is basically written like an advertisement . Kpg jhp jm 04:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above. Also notice that the page creator is a sockpuppet of a blocked account, and that User:Teleperformance Albania has contributed to this article. Suspicious. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete . Tagging it for G11, G12 of the profile posted at "best places to work for", no need to spend 7 days on this. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:48, 30 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 delete |