Datasets:
hsuvaskakoty
/
wide_analysis

Dataset card Viewer Files Community
1
text
stringlengths
40
160k
label
stringclasses
8 values
Miles Murphy: all i could find was a namedrop , another namedrop , yet another namedrop , another , and so on . ltb d l ( talk ) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia . ltb d l ( talk ) 13:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Several instances of significant coverage contemporary to his era of activity . Connormah ( talk ) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A multi-time national and world champion 400 m sprinter, and appears to meet GNG with trove and newspapers.com sources. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sport of athletics . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG ( talk ) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Forest, Washington: Please remember that post offices back then did not always use the same name as the place where they were, in alot a cases that place didn't exist.The fourth reference (jtenton) is a semi unreliable source that also says it was post office, and the sources used to make that claim are basically also the story of a post office, a school district, and election district named forest. It was also earlier a grange district. As you might imagine such things appear in newspapers but you want find any of those news papers that ever say it was a town. The remaining sources are of no use, and I haven't found anything further than those that actually give any substance on it. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . James.folsom ( talk ) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Forgot this part, Washington State place names [41] couldn't be bothered to mention it and it was published in the '70s. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the explanations at the article's talk page, Talk:Forest, Washington . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Please see the Talk:Forest, Washington for my sourcing research. Forest, though never large, has existed as a community in some form or fashion since the late 1890s. Instead of deletion, we simply expand the article, fleshing out the details. I volunteer to do so. Shortiefourten ( talk ) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Shortiefourten's comment on the talk page. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Michael MacConnell: Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia . Natg 19 ( talk ) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it is unsourced and that is certainly bad. I would not know how to source it, but it certainly looks as if it could be. I suggest we let this discussion go on for while to let other editors source it. Bduke ( talk ) 07:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . From Ebscosearch/Proquest there seem to be multiple reviews of Maelstrom (Redlich, Julie. Woman's Day (Australia Edition). 10/152007, Vol. 59 Issue 42, p104; and Clayton Smales. Townsville Bulletin. 11/03/2007; and [short] Reading room. Australian Women's Weekly, 00050458, Oct2007, Vol. 77, Issue 10; and from Proquest [short] A mayhem of murderers - CRIME FILE: Blundell, Graeme.  Weekend Australian Canberra, A.C.T.. 05 Jan 2008: 10. [short] Tense tales of uncertain action. The Canberra Times. 27 Oct 2007: 16. ) and also several for Splinter (Author spies a top novel idea By: By BROOKE NEWSTEAD, Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), JUL 14, 2008; and [short] Max Tennison. You're booked. MX. 07/30/2008 and [short] Thriller Brunetti, Frank. Sun-Herald; 06 July 2008: 11). Proquest also finds a two longish profile-cum-interviews with quite a bit of biographical detail (Killer instinct; PROFILE: McCarthy, Joanne. Herald; Newcastle, N.S.W.. 22 Sep 2007: 2) and (Crime and publishing: THE INTERVIEW. Michael MacConnell talks to Keith Austin.  Sydney Morning Herald.; 05 July 2008: 28.). Maelstrom was also longlisted for Ned Kelly best first crime novel award by the Crime Writers' Association of Australia. Seems just about enough for my interpretation of WP:Author. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 09:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as the sources found by Espresso Addict are enough to clear the bar. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Espresso Addict . Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:19, 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.
keep
The Adam Friedland Show: No significant coverage in any of the reliable sources, only passing mentions. Brycehughes ( talk ) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Brycehughes ( talk ) 03:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . References seem adequate for this show under its current and its previous titles. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not only adequately noteworthy, but becoming moreso. Just saw a major podcast discussing his interview of Chris Cuomo , which is why I was looking up this article. — Kaz ( talk ) 15:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I think apperances of Cuomo and Neil deGrasse Tyson, along with references to the show in relation to Matty Healy and Taylor Swift in the Independent [25] , Forbes [26] , GQ [27] , BuzzFeed [28] , and I am sure others, is enough to keep. 123popos123 ( talk ) 03:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Aigner-Schanze: Doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have a good WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 15:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it is a World Cup venue and as such notable. The article, of course, need improvements. Withdraw nomination Tone is absolutely right, I was concentrating too much on how much I was struggling for decent references rather than the level of events. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Patrick Dumont: Looks like promotion Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Finance , Games , Basketball , Nevada , New York , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The majority shareholder of an NBA team seems like a notable figure. The article doesn't seem blatantly promotional, and it cites several valid sources. Zagal e jo ( talk ) 23:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the majority shareholder of a franchise in the NBA, one of the top sports leagues in the world, this person is notable and it can be presumed GNG-appropriate sources can be found about him. Even if no such sources are found, this would be a clear case to apply WP:IAR . Frank Anchor 02:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Fulfills WP:GNG . Vague reasoning for deletion by nom. \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 15:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article meets the criteria for notability and should be kept. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets GNG. Not sure where the nom sees WP:PROMO . Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Portland Men's Roller Derby: A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , and Oregon . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found barely enough RS for notability, but the sourcing is still admittedly thin. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure the coverage passes WP:AUD here . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aren't sports teams exempt from WP:ORG (and thus exempt from AUD)? The second sentence of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT , which says, in boldface, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right about that, my mistake, thought Roller Derby was more like WWE than it is. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Grand'mere Eugene. Thanks for improving the entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:38, 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.
keep
Beijing Shuren Ribet Private School: Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl ( talk ) 09:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and China . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 09:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ) Sources Yin, Yin Fei 尹菲; Han, Xinhui 韩欣惠 (2020-11-06). "择校直通车：邂逅近30年校史的北京市私立树人·瑞贝学校" [School selection through train: Beijing Shuren-Ribet Private School has a school history of nearly 30 years] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . Archived from the original on 2023-04-15 . Retrieved 2023-04-15 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Beijing Private Shuren Ruibei School (formerly known as "Beijing Private Shuren School") was established in 1993. It is one of the earliest private primary and secondary schools in Beijing and has a school history of nearly 30 years. The school has kindergartens, primary schools, junior high schools and high schools. It offers 15-year bilingual excellence courses, international experimental courses, and artistic creativity courses. It also enrolls Chinese and foreign students. ... The school is co-founded and led by university professor Wang Jianchao, the former principal of the Experimental Primary School of Beijing Normal University, the former principal of the High School Attached to Renmin University, the former principal of the High School Attached to Tsinghua University and other well-known domestic principals and educators. Since 2006, it has maintained the joint management of Chinese and foreign principals." Hung, Fan-Sing; Liu, Yang (2011). "School Privatization in Relation to Development Goals" . In Lee, John Chi-Kin; Caldwell, Brian J. (eds.). Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization . New York: Routledge . p. 112. ISBN 978-0-415-99330-2 . Retrieved 2023-04-15 – via Google Books . The book notes: "One illustrative case is that of Beijing Shuren-Ribet Private School (北京市私立树人•瑞贝学校), established over a decade ago as a collaboration between Beijing Shuren Private School and Los Angeles Ribet School. The school offers preschooling to Year 12 education. It has a Chinese and an international section, both of which accept international students and students from Mainland China. The goal of the school is to educate intellectuals trained in both Chinese and world cultures. The international section, called the American School, is unique in that it aims to prepare students to progress to an American educational setting and then into the U.S. college and university system. Study in the American School is essentially an American curriculum program, conducted in English and using American textbooks for grade-level course work based on the North Carolina EFL guidelines and on California state standards. The school evaluates students using the comparable American high school standard. The American School's program does not aim to take students to the level of graduation, but to place them in an appropriate sister school in the United States (or other Western countries as appropriate) to complete the last 2 to 3 years of high school." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beijing Shuren Ribet Private School ( simplified Chinese : 北京市私立树人•瑞贝学校 ; traditional Chinese : 北京市私立樹人•瑞貝學校 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS . (added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH , with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. One of the sources is also WP:PROMOTIONAL and not WP:INDEPENDENT , failing WP:ORGIND . As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , the sources does not establish WP:ORGSIG . In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV , so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject. Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? 1 Sina Finance No, the tone of the article is entirely promotional and written as a school profile for a career fair hosted by the company. (Translated) ".....the " Sina 2020 International School Autumn and Winter School Selection Tour Exhibition (Beijing Station)" sponsored by Sina Education Channel will be held ..... Beijing Private Shuren Ruibei School will participate in this exhibition . Next, follow the editor to learn about the private Shuren Ruibei School in Beijing" Partially, Sina is generally considered to be a tabloid/low quality. No, only provided a brief introduction, for promotional purposes. No 2 Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization Yes Yes No, only a single brief mention as part of a case study. No 33ABGirl ( talk ) 17:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The characterization of #2 is incorrect. "One illustrative case is that of Beijing Shuren-Ribet[...]the last 2 to 3 years of high school." is a long paragraph about that school's United States curriculum division. That would qualify as WP:SIGCOV . As for the first source, it is true Sina (which itself is the newspaper) sponsored the event, but the writing seems to be independent of the school itself (so long as the school did not sponsor the article or pay Sina). As for relatively tabloidy newspapers, they may be OK if the topics are not biographies of living people, medicine, etc. Honestly, though, Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization is much stronger. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 21:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While source #2 is a long paragraph, it is still only a single paragraph, which essentially only introduces the fact that the school uses the US curriculum. As no further analysis is offered, I maintain that this source does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV . 33ABGirl ( talk ) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's look at the text of source #2: "The international section, called the American School, is unique in that it aims to prepare students to progress to an American educational setting and then into the U.S. college and university system." (I added emphasis to show the author is using deeper analysis, and in my opinion it does fulfill WP:SIGCOV). WhisperToMe ( talk ) 02:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - SIGCOV demonstrated in Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization , and there would be no reason that a comparable Chinese language source would not exist. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 21:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 02:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some more experienced AFD regulars. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of schools in Tongzhou District, Beijing . Sina source is unreliable per an RFC , and a possible advertorial. The School Privatization book's coverage of this topic is only one paragraph, that is a tad below my threshold for WP:SIGCOV . The youth.cn source might pass WP:GNG if it's not an advertorial, it has enough WP:SIGCOV . Overall, probably not enough GNG-passing coverage. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 10:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The consensus in the discussion you've linked is that Sina is an aggregator, and reliability must be judged based on the original source. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 13:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good catch, thanks. I've updated WP:NPPSG . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization constitutes SIGCOV. As a somewhat scholarly book the information within that paragraph is pretty densely packed confirming a lot of basic information and offering a deeper understanding of what makes that school "interesting". It's not as long as, say, a newspaper article, but it conveys as much information as a good medium length article generally would. — siro χ o 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and also per Cunard's outstanding work above. I think that SIGCOV has been adequately demonstrated. In addition, a Google Books search suggests that Changing Schools is not a one-off and that there are other moderate-depth sources in Chinese. (And although I am in no position to evaluate them, that one at least is from a publisher whose books are fairly widely cited on EN.) The ZH article in this case also appears to reflect an independent judgment that the subject is article-worthy, which is certainly not decisive but should weigh in the balance as an independent perspective. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò: More like looking to get hits to their website but has links. Doing this on their behalf. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 20:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As the nominator I put on the pages, I do not feel after reading the sources this entry is justified to be here. It is a 23-24 year old someone working now as a professor who wrote 2 books and did some interviews. I do not feel it meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTABLE . Seems more like an ad trying to get more hits on their Twitter as that is the only link to them and two or three of the sources show he is a professor. The others don’t prove much to meet the criteria. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 20:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . As the nominator, you do not get to ! vote. It also appears that the nominator has not carried out a search for additional sources per WP:BEFORE . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle I did and also this had to be put up by someone else since I only edit via IP so I am allowed to add my reason in full. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, have simply struck your ! vote in bold, so it isn't double-counted by the bot. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 22:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his two books have been widely reviewed and he passes WP:AUTHOR . A rare exception to the general rule that assistant professors are not notable. Jahaza ( talk ) 22:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jahaza I would have to disagree with you. The sources are small (a paragraph mentioning his book), the second is an interview (nothing to do with being an author, as anyone who writes a book can be interviewed by anyone and posted), the third is a reprint from a newsletter that recommended it be read (think book club), and the 4th source for his books is yet another interview. I fail to see how it would pass WP:AUTHOR under any of the 4 bullet points it has to meet as a few select sources is no where near widely reviewed. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources aren't small. Rather you haven't looked for the sources. For deletion, we don't rely on what is currently in the article. Anyways, for Reconsidering Reparation , I found academic reviews in Mind , Ethics , Philosophical Quarterly , Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , Race & Class , and the British Journal of Educational Studies and popular reviews in Bookforum and The Friend . For Elite Capture , I found reviews in The New Yorker , Bookforum , Austrailian Book Review , Lateral , Jacobin , The Point , and the European Journal of Social Theory among others. This was all easily found with Google. Jahaza ( talk ) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As for me (I kinda nominated it on behalf of another user, after all)... not sure . WP:BEFORE was a bit hard considering another professor with the exact same name (with the same article creator!), but it seems like this professor may go either side of the GNG pass criteria. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 22:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] yeah no nvm keep , seems like that IP made this nomination in bad faith. I can't really close as I voted keep, but this sounds like a WP:SNOW situation. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you used Wikipedia Library yet? Looks like you qualify. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 22:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle Why don’t you use it and add to it? You are allowed to if you feel you can get it better than it is? I did what I can do but then you put it on someone else after accusing me of not doing WP:BEFORE . 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is so much content in the sources already cited, as well as the articles that turn up in Google, that it will take a very long time to add. This AfD discussion is a waste of time. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 22:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle Then don’t participate and please don’t edit other users comments. That violates the rules. Vote how you want and we will see which way it goes. That is what this process is about. If you don’t want to add to the article “with all of these sources” on a 22/23 year old who has a PhD then don’t do it. That is up to you. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was only trying to help. You seem unfamiliar with the rules. And I like to promote Wikipedia Library to users who qualify. Have a good day. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cielquiparle Helping does not include telling someone how to do research, I too ran him through Google and all the pages that came up are not qualified sources. The edit you just did on the page is not exactly correct either but that is a different story. Striking out others comments in an AFD is not allowed. It’s actually not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. I do know the rules. Calling this “a waste of time” and the edit comments you have made can also be taken as a personal attack but I’m going to assume you “know all the rules” since you assumed “I don’t know the rules”. You too have a good day child. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It is practically impossible to earn a PhD without being at least being 27 years of age. Take in 4 years for Bachelors, 2 years on Masters and about 3-4 years to earn your PhD. 18 is average on graduating high school, 22 to get your bachelor’s, 24 to have your masters and 27 min to earn your PhD. Granted their are very rare rare cases where they can get it a year or two earlier. But the article states that this year he would be 23 or 24 years old. So he has to be much older than that. I cannot find any sources of his actual age or date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 22:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well... the article makes it seem like he is 33 , not 23. So that argument's out of the window. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 23:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's nonsense, anyway. I received my D.Phil. when I was 24, and there was nothing unusual about that. Lots of people of 24 or 25 did as well. Athel cb ( talk ) 08:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ LilianaUwU You are correct. Math escapes me sometimes. I have struck out my comment. Thank you for politely correcting me. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD ( talk ) 23:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plainly notable – sources already cited include The Chronicle of Higher Education and New York magazine as well as Jewish Currents and Grist , while others include The Nation and openDemocracy . The animus expressed here toward the article subject by IP editor(s) is jarring and seemingly baseless, and carries the unfortunate implication that its creator wrote it in bad faith, which is very unlikely. ezlev ( user / tlk / ctrbs ) 00:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR , his two books were both only published in the last year or so but they already have 99 and 71 citations respectively on google scholar , which indicate that he's widely read and cited. - car chasm ( talk ) 00:59, 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.
keep
Optimist International: I can find no secondary sourcing that does anything more than mention the club. There are two books on the topic, but one is for sure published by the organization itself, and the other seems to be. Update: I just saw the first AfD, where I found no actual evidence of notability, except for one minor article. Drmies ( talk ) 20:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Kentucky , and Missouri . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article may need work, but the organisation is significant, see e.g. this [2] dml ( talk ) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:THREE : [3] [4] [5] . Article definitely needs a solid cleanup though! Merko ( talk ) 01:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
La Hoyada massacre: No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG and also per wp:notnews. Neither the English Wikipedia article or the corresponding Spanish Wikipedia has in-depth coverage of the event. All of the sources are about broader topics and just make mention of the event. North8000 ( talk ) 18:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Peru . Shaws username . talk . 18:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Significant in Peru's LGBT+ history and also as an example of an atrocity for which revolutionaries rather than the country's security forces were responsible. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems to be a valid argument that it should be covered somewhere . The question really is; "should it be a full separate article?" North8000 ( talk ) 21:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG : [32] [33] [34] . While the number of deaths does not determine notability, this is not common and as such is not WP:NOTNEWS . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 03:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . NoonIcarus ( talk ) 03:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I created this article on the assumption (flawed) that if there was a Spanish-language article it was probably a notable event. North8000 may be correct that there aren't enough sources, it's hard for me to evaluate since I don't speak Spanish beyond a very basic level. If we're looking for other places where this event could be covered, some options are https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campa%C3%B1a_de_la_lista_negra (which doesn't have an English-language article), the main Shining Path article, or social cleansing (about a much broader phenomenon). Prezbo ( talk ) 12:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst ( talk ) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets notability requirements, excellent sourcing has been provided by NoonIcarus . I am struggling to see why WP:NOTNEWS has been invoked here by the nom. What part of that guideline is relevant here? Is a massacre of LGBT people "routine news"? I can't see a single word in WP:NOTNEWS of any relevance here. AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . The article could be expanded and improved, but the event itself is notable. TH1980 ( talk ) 01:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow Keep , easy WP:GNG pass. 23.156.104.104 ( talk ) 05:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The three sources NoonIcarus identified seems to indicate something happened at La Hoyada, but whether it was the "La Hoyada massacre" seems more up in the air. I grant that my not knowing Spanish may be hindering my ability to parse these sources, but I find myself feeling concerned that my attempt to search for both the English article title and the Spanish article title on Google search and GoogleScholar got no meaningful hits. [35] [36] [37] [38] P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk ) 05:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A big part of WP:Notability is existence of coverage from which to create an article. After all of this discussion, and all of the months this article has existed, the entire coverage of the topic in this article is one "it happened"sentence and IMO this is due to the lack of GNG coverage. The other sentence is basically saying "three other events like this happened". IMO this is best covered in a broader article, doubly so because such would inherently provide the context which seems to be the crux of many opinions posted here. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Spanish article is way more extensive. The main issue is that it currently depends on a single source, but it doesn't mean that it fails WP:SIGCOV . -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
List of Palestinian suicide attacks: Most of the entries are uncited, and most of the entries are red linked, leaving it unclear if pages were created for these events and deleted for want of notability, or simply never created in the first place for want of notability. (NB: Red links since cleaned up.) Any notable or significantly covered events will have found a home in the year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict , which is the appropriate place for them, and where they are better contextualized in the conflict in a manner that does not simply present one-side of a two-way street. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Military , Israel , and Palestine . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - for all the reasons mentioned above. And also because the list creator is a confirmed sock master with 119 confirmed sock puppets. ( Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim ) — Maile ( talk ) 02:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The fact that the creator is a sock master is irrelevant if the topic is notable enough for inclusion (see W:NOTESAL ). If Obama's article was created by AndresHerutJaim, would you nominate it for deletion as well? Don't delete an article because you disagree with its contents. EytanMelech ( talk ) 11:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Suicide Attacks during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are a notable and unique facet of the conflict that have warranted a massive amount of specific and separate attention by the news media and academia. (See ref box below) The attacks are considered a standout element of the conflict, and the fact that this page has remained more or less unbothered by deletion claims since 2009 I think not only points toward a silent consensus of the page’s relevance, but as well points a critical eye at the small group of editors who have surreptitiously attempted to either modify linked pages (seemingly on non-neutral political grounds), or have the entire page deleted to bury the lede on the matter entirely. To rebut the assertions made in the deletion request: This list is a mixture of unsourced and unverified information. Most of the entries are uncited The list of suicide bombings in the conflict is well covered and documented in both news media and academia. For this reason alone, there have been no vocal or consistent concerns on the page regarding verification. There are already sources in the page that cover the master list of attacks, and pulling citations for each individual attack is just a matter of putting the work in. most of the entries are red linked, leaving it unclear if pages were created for these events and deleted for want of notability, or simply never created in the first place for want of notability. Thank you for noting that red links have been cleaned up already. I disagree with the charged interpretation of these red links. It merely appears that an earlier page editor either mistakenly believed certain page articles were pre-existing, or intended on returning to the page to create those articles. Regardless, all major incidences of violence during the I/P conflict (most especially suicide attacks) are well covered in media, and if individual articles need be created to push the issue of notability, that won’t be an issue. It’s just a matter of putting the work in. Any notable or significantly covered events will have found a home in the year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is the appropriate place for them Disagree. Suicide attacks are too unique a phenomena that warrants detailed information and analysis to only reside in a generic conflict timeline. …where they are better contextualized in the conflict in a manner that does not simply present one-side of a two-way street Disagree. Assembling a list of categorically similar events (that represent a distinct and unique conflict trend with a beginning and end date) does not in any way present a one-sided view of the conflict. Here’s where I’m confused. This deletion request was made alongside deletion requests for Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada , which includes Palestinian casualties. While I agree that these articles need a great amount of clean-up and citation work (and also agree with your WP:NOTMEMORIAL assertions - which can be addressed with the removal of victim names, not the entire article), I’m not sure how the triple deletion of these pages helps ease any perception of one-sided treatment of elements of the conflict. Mistamystery ( talk ) 07:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Refs: [6] https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1187.html [7] https://nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/Suicide%20Terrorism%20sheehan-are-suicide-terrorist-suicidal-a-critical-assessment-of-the-evidence.pdf [8] https://academic.oup.com/book/10950/chapter-abstract/159242218? redirectedFrom=fulltext [9] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles? id=10.1257/jep.21.3.223 [10] https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1172&context=etd [11] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-062813-051049 [12] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20203051 [13] https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/553419 [14] https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/112/1/99/3642/The-Fanonian-Specter-in-Palestine-Suicide-Bombing? redirectedFrom=fulltext [15] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/suicide-bombing-strategy-and-interaction-case-second-intifada Mistamystery ( talk ) 07:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Important information documenting suicide attacks, a characteristic feature of Palestinian terrorism. It's useful to have a list mentioning suicide attacks by year and casualties, just like for rocket attacks per year. In addition, before this article there were several others with more specific 'List of Hamas suicide attacks', 'List of Islamic Jihad suicide attacks', 'List of Fatah suicide attacks', etc. It wasn't created by some sockpuppet back in 2006 or so. Rather than deleting the article under spurious excuses (such as claiming there are no sources when they are all in external links), we should improve it. Dovidroth ( talk ) 07:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:NOTESAL Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources . This topic has been discussed a lot by independent reliable sources. Alaexis ¿question? 08:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Palestinian suicide attacks have been much-discussed in reliable secondary sources. The list could use more sources, but it should not be deleted. Zanahary ( talk ) 13:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . All keep-sayers above made valid points. Although I wouldn't say suicide attacks are unique to Palestinians attacking Israelis. Has become characteristic over the years probably describes the situation better. gidonb ( talk ) 06:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:NOTESAL , as previously noted by User:Alaexis . I even believe a Suicide bombings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is warranted to provide greater depth and context, given the extensive scholarly research and analysis on the topic. The article needs some work but there are no valid grounds for its deletion. Mooonswimmer 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Obviously notable. G5 does not apply if there are significant edits by other editors, which there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closetside ( talk • contribs ) 15:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Pace Center for Girls: Bedivere ( talk ) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida . Bedivere ( talk ) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could've been softdeleted though. Bedivere ( talk ) 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another closer might chose to do that. But I don't like to delete an article based on one editor's opinion. L iz Read! Talk! 06:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough Bedivere ( talk ) 06:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Multiple newspaper articles are already present as references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which goes in detail into the center. Bedivere ( talk ) 01:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think any WP:BEFORE was performed. A quick look at Google Scholar will show that their are many, many publications that talk in-depth about the orginization. Of the references in the article: PNJ and JJIE has significant coverage about the organization. And a search on google news will show many, many more. (Note, I am the creator of the article). -- Mike 🗩 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I went to Proquest via the wikipedia library, and found a lot of information. Some of it, like this is definitely significant coverage . So is this journal article. There are more. Pick your notability guideline , this meets it. I guess WP:NCORP is probably the right one, maybe WP:NSCHOOL ? In any case, I would say the notability is clear, no matter how you classify the article. Jacona ( talk ) 17:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to have sufficient references for support. - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Zimbro halt: The article says nothing of substance, and neither do the cited sources; this should be redirected to Sabor line . The author already contested my notability tag, so I am not going to redirect myself as it will surely be contested. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Portugal . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This station holds the same level of significance as all the stations along the Sabor Line , a fact that cannot be overlooked. If we were to systematically eliminate smaller stations with limited coverage from every railway line article on Wikipedia, it would lead to chaos. It's crucial to distinguish between notability and coverage; while this halt may not have garnered extensive coverage, it still serves a meaningful purpose. Deleting, merging, or redirecting this page would be unwarranted and wouldn’t bring anything positive to the website. Additionally, it's worth noting that this page is a partial translation of the original Zimbro halt article in Portuguese, which exists since 2014. V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 10:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've seen ten plus year old hoaxes get deleted. We held an RfC on train stations which closed with a strong consensus that they must meet GNG. All keep votes here ignore that in favor of made-up reasons. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Context is not a "made up reason", and while the abstract discussion about stations did indeed state they must meet the GNG every discussion since (that I'm aware of) has formed a consensus that verifiable stations should be blue links. Either the stations have been determined to meet the GNG, or the content has been merged to an appropriate broader article (if it wasn't there already). This is entirely predictable given that this is what happened in most deletion discussions before the RFC. Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pending a broader discussion about all the stations on the line as it doesn't make sense to treat them individually. Ideally the Sabor Line article would contain a summary of all the stations on the line with individual articles for those where sufficient sourcing exists to sustain them (and at first glance it seems likely that this will be at least most of them). Deletion is definitely not warranted for any of them though, as they should all be blue links either as individual articles or as redirects to the line article where the content has been merged. Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This nomination makes intuitive sense as a halt is a lesser station. A closer look at the Sabor line , however, reveals that the halts are an intermediate level and some of the halts had a quite elaborate built-up. The stations of least significance in Portugal are stops. There is an article on one stop along Sabor line . It would seem a reasonable AfD target. In fact, it's the only article on a stop in Portugal. The stations and halts are best kept as consequential in function and structures and with these sources. gidonb ( talk ) 00:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
List of theatres in Bangkok: Does not seem like a necessary list to have as a standalone article. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Theatre , Lists , and Thailand . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . If you click on the bluelinked items in this list, most of them appear not even to be theatres. Certainly the redlinked items cannot be listed without sources, and the bluelinked ones could only be listed if there is a source that states that they are, or even were, working theatres. Nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this article. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Needs clean-up, not deletion. Per WP:LISTN , "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Theatres in Bangkok, as a group, have been discussed by scholarly sources such as this SPAFA Journal article , this Chulalongkorn University PhD thesis , and this Thammasat University master's thesis . While the grouping of theatres is discussed within the context of a wider topic, the discussion is in-depth enough to warrant a list dedicated to the subtopic, given that no Theatre of Thailand article currently exists to which the content could alternatively be merged. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Paul. It could easily be converted into a sourced table list with information. Theatres are an encyclopedia topic, but perhaps it should be moved to List of performing arts venues in Bangkok as Ssilvers has a valid point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A typical list for a big city. Per Wikipedia:LISTN , sources have to have discussed the grouping or set in general ("theatres in Bangkok"), but the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. This version of the article could certainly use more sourcing, but the sources are surely there. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 15:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources found covering this. A table format like other articles of this type Category:Lists of theatres by city would be allow more information to be shown. D r e a m Focus 17:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can talk about creating List of theatres in Thailand instead. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 15:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or rename this article and add to it. D r e a m Focus 16:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Needs clean-up, not deletion. AasifShrestha ( talk ) 06:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per improvements by Paul 012. Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
FIFA Two: It was, like any other small scandal, covered by some press coverage, but not nearly enough for it to be anything significant to have its own article. The article is basically all just copy-pasted from other sources, with potential copyright violations, and does not provide an in-depth analysis of what happened. It is also not written in accordance with most Wikipedia standards. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To my read, the applicable guidelines here are WP:NEO , WP:SIGCOV , WP:LASTING and WP:COPYVIO . In terms of NEO, there are more than a few reliable/verifiable sources which refer to the term "FIFA Two". (Including The Times (UK) , RTÉ , Irish Times , Irish Examiner , Irish Independent , Wales Online . ) So I don't think we can delete on the basis of the term being a neologism. In terms of SIGCOV, there are more than a few reliable mainstream news sources which deal with the topic in some depth. ( Irish Examiner , Belfast Telegraph , Irish Times , RTÉ , ESPN , etc.) So I'm not sure I could support deletion on SIGCOV basis. In terms of LASTING, to counter any WP:NOTNEWS concerns, there appears to have been sustained coverage (after the fact) of the "FIFA rule change" that was precipitated by the events. In terms of COPYVIO, I don't understand this argument. Not only could any content issues (like the questionable editorialsing in the "precedent" section) be fixed rather than the article deleted , a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that the only materially "copy/pasted" text is the two extracts from the FIFA rule book. Both of which are quoted text. That doesn't really fall within the scope of COPYVIO. Personally I'm not seeing (or perhaps just not following) the argument for deletion... Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to something like 2007 Cork City transfer delays . If there were a better redirect target than Cork City F.C. , I would support a redirect. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Guliolopez . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Giuliolopez. Giant Snowman 19:29, 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.
keep
Michelle Zacarias: She was a guest opinion piece writer on some of the sources listed, but the ones she actually works for don't have Wikipedia pages. It's also missing significant biographical information. I'm not sure how to correctly nominate a page for deletion this way, as the rules prevent me from doing it the usual way given how this is an appeal of a nomination removal with which I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brobbz ( talk • contribs ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Journalism , and Women . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Currently looking like a résumé isn't a reason for deletion, as long as sources exist that could allow it to be rewritten more encyclopedically; that's a matter for editing, not deletion. People's World , where Zacarias was a staff writer from 2015 through 2019, has an article here. (As do Teen Vogue and Latina [24] , as well as The Indypendent — not mentioned in the article, but Zacarias has written there [25] . Ditto the Chicago Reader [26] .) So, the claim in the nomination appears erroneous. That said, right or wrong, it's not relevant. Whether an author's primary affiliation has an article or not doesn't have an implication one way or the other about whether that author is, individually, notable. On the face of it, "missing significant biographical information" would be grounds to keep the article, i.e., it's saying that there's more to say. However, looking at the page history, the "biographical information" to which the nominator refers appears to be a BLP violation, so that doesn't really factor in either way. I'm tempted to suggest that WP:CSK#3 applies. XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - I agree with the above. The sources demonstrate notability. The page can be improved DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think the subject is notable enough to keep the article and improve it. I tried to add sources and expand the article, sorry if it sounded too much like a resume but I'm sort of new and I tried my best. I welcome good-faith edits to improve the article to make it more encyclopedic. I think that the subject was nominated to the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame makes her notable. I contributed to this article because I believe in decreasing the gender gap on Wikipedia (like the Women in Red WikiProject) and coverage on subjects that identify as LGBT, disabled, or other identities that are often overlooked. NatFee ( talk ) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- She won the Saul Miller Excellence in Journalism Award, given by AFL-CIO for excellent coverage of union issues. This along with the arguments made by my colleagues above seems to me to be sufficient to meet the GNG. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to meet notability even if the article needs to be improved. Also, she has received a major award and other significant recognition. Rublamb ( talk ) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Bruce Meyer: Fails WP:GNG . Possible autobiography. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Canada . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Radio , and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to be a distinguished and recognized Canadian Poet. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] That doesn't appear in sourcing. Canadian poet, yes, "distinguished and recognized", unclear. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see much for him as a poet, there is a person with the same name who worked for the player's union in Major League Baseball, but I don't know if it's the same guy. The only connection I see here is a lifetime pass to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, which is almost mentioned in passing, and is in no way notable... Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He is a poet, not a footballer or an economist. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Baseball guy, not a football guy (soccer or Super bowl). Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article has improvement opportunities. I haven't found news sources but found him as a several award winning reputed author from Canada. Here are some of the websites I found him. opportunities https://www.springpulsepoetryfestival.com/winners-2019.html https://www.nunum.ca/blog/brucemeyer#:~:text=Bruce%20Meyer%20is%20author%20or,He%20lives%20in%20Barrie%2C%20Ontario . https://www.thewoolf.org/competitions/ https://www.montrealpoetryprize.com/2015-competition https://www.thewoolf.org/2018/12/01/meet-the-poets-2018-poetry-competition-shortlisters/ https://www.blakejones.southshorereview.ca/news/contest-results/ https://southshorereview.ca/interviews/an-interview-with-bruce-meyer/ https://www.georgiancollege.ca/blog/newsroom/spotlight-on-prof-bruce-meyer-for-national-poetry-month/ https://edmontonpoetryfestival.com/headliners/bruce-meyer/ https://www.comares.com/media/comares/files/toc-113708.pdf https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/meyer-bruce-1957 There are more available. Yolandagonzales ( talk ) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, keep based on unreliable sources about non-notable prizes? This isn't wikipolicy. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Um, poetry festivals, his employer (Georgian College)'s blog, an interview and prize wins, aren't notable. I'm not seeing any of these as helpful. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't see a listing in the Canadian Encyclopedia [39] , pretty much a go-to source here for obscure Canadian biographies. I don't think this person is important enough at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep He published books in the 1980s and 1990s, into the early 2000s, so I had to dig to get references. Here's a book review from 2001 [40] , a review from 1985 on an anthology [41] , a brief one here (scroll down to the bottom) [42] , and a partial discussion in the Atlantic from 2000 [43] . And briefly mentioned in a 2018 article about "good books to read" about an anthology [44] . These are the type of sources we need for published authors, not those given above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Beyond what Oaktree lists above, I found that a Spanish literature professor, Juan de Dios Torralbo Caballero, has written an entire book on Meyer, The Poetry of Bruce Meyer: The inaugural poet laureate of the city of Barrie , and that book in turn has at least two published reviews doi : 10.24310/Entreculturasertci.vi7-8.11506 and hdl : 10396/14118 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused by the relist User:The Herald . Six comments, of which 4 are keeps, with no deletes or even a redirect. But you relist it? How is this not consensus? Please either remove your relist and step out of the discussion. Or close it now. Nfitz ( talk ) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of those four comments, Oaktree's ! weak keep and David's ! keep are only helpful in the discussion and helps in building a consensus. The links provided by Yoland is not helpful and doesn't make the case. Xxanthippe comment is just a WP:ILIKEIT . Based on these, clear consensus is not developed and furthermore, additional discussion is needed to evaluate the new sources brought up by Oaktree and David. Hence, I relisted. If you disagree, you may close the discussion yourself but IMO, it warrants one more week of discussions and a source eval. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do the source evaluation yourself and become a participant rather than pretending to be a closer, if you're so keen to have that be part of this AfD. In particular, include all 11 of Yolanda's sources in your evaluation rather than sweeping them aside based only on insubstantial remarks by other participants. Perhaps you can also dig up a copy of the entire book about the subject and then include it in your source evaluation. Or read the reviews of the book to find what it contains, at least. They also contain some coverage of the subject, not just of the book about him, so read them anyway. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS Oh, look, here's another academic article entirely about Meyer's poetry: Resonance in Bruce Meyer Sonnets , Language in Different Contexts 2016. And another group review of work including Meyer's: ProQuest 1307870648 , PN Review 1991. And another: ProQuest 218811976 , "War of Words", Canadian Literature 2002. And another: ProQuest 915659603 , "Equine, Bovine, Divine", Canadian Literature 2011 (the divine is one of Meyer's books). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided in David's initial comment are excellent. We don't have to do a source analysis to see the obvious. Nfitz ( talk ) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Lists . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Pac-12 (formerly Pac-10) football rivalries are widely covered as a group or set: for example USA Today , ESPN , The Press Democrat , Salt Lake Tribune , Arkansas Democrat Gazette , and an entire 7-page chapter of this book . Left guide ( talk ) 11:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Left guide's well researched deep dive. Was there a "before" search done on this topic? Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe a WP:BEFORE search wasn't done in this case, as this clearly passes WP:LISTN and has received a plenty of coverage. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above reasons - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Tensei Kono: Having created one or two possibly notable works does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR . Also fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. First off, the Japanese Wikipedia entry for this author has a lot more detail about this author's life and career along with some citations. Tensei Kono won the Mystery Writers of Japan Award and was a finalist twice for the Naoki Prize , which strongly proves notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people) additional criteria #1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). Sadly, it appears this author has not had much work translated into English but he does have stories in Speculative Japan: Outstanding Tales of Japanese Science Fiction and Fantasy , The Best Japanese Science Fiction Stories and The World Treasury of Science Fiction . I also found some citations about this author in places like Moderne japanische Literatur in deutscher Übersetzung and a 1983 issue of Extrapolation (where he is called an important science fiction writer). Add in all this with the other awards the author won or was a finalist for and this author meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nominated for the Naoki Prize twice twice, so meeting ANYBIO point 1, and had three of his works adapted into films, meeting point 3 of NAUTHOR. CohenTheBohemian ( talk ) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've now added more information and citations to the article, using the Japanese Wiki article as a guide.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR from award wins/nominations. There's also at least one film of his works ( Black Sun (1964 film) ). [28] . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 14:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY ( [29] ) and no WP:BEFORE attempt (looking at other wikipedia entries, especially the one in the subject's native language, should be the bare minimum before starting an AfD). C avarrone 07:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Thank you SouthernNights for expanding this. The nom should have done a better BEFORE by looking at the JP article, although the end result here seems to be a win-win (article improved, passes GNG clearly now). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Sigma (Mega Man X): His stated rationale is: "Character's whole article is held up by short mentions or lists, doesn't really meet notability". As one of the article's authors, I disagree with its soft deletion, therefore I am nominating it to go through a full discussion to see if it's really non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm confused why you led with pushing it to AfD, or chose to open a AfD on my behalf instead of a talk page discussion. I would have preferred that as AfD is not for cleanup. That said, ref [26] is the strongest one here. But then there's stuff like Ref [24] which is just bizarre (comparing Sigma from Overwatch to this Sigma) to use because it's not really commentary and closer to a bad Valnet article? Not to mention [22] which is also...really not saying anything. In any event, I would've been down for a discussion if you felt I overlooked some sources instead of "you can't BLAR you must AfD!"-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a "bizarre" source is not a disqualifier except apparently in your opinion. It's a legitimate comparison, that may indicate some inspiration, and an example of significant coverage. And I was forced to create a procedural AfD, as you went beyond the BRD cycle by reverting twice. The alternative would have been attempting to edit war. I would have preferred to discuss after a single revert, but I had no choice in the matter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean I have a talk page, and as I stated on your talk page , I misunderstood the situation. It has been a trend of editors forcing BLAR's to go through AfDs instead lately. I honestly just request this be Withdrawn .-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I oppose withdrawing, as I feel like it can just lead to another BLAR down the line. Its notability has been questioned, in no uncertain terms, ensuring it is notable is important to maintain the article's stability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reception section has commentary on varied aspects of the character by various secondary sources, thus fulfilling WP:WHYN /notability requirements. We have a not-so-short article with lots of non-plot information. So I see no reason for deletion, nor an advantage in a merge to a character list. Daranios ( talk ) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm not voting at this stage, but I wanted to share the assessment I made of the sources listed to gather other editors' views / challenge my assessment first: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? 1 - 2: Sigma Voices (Mega Man) (Behind The Voice Actor) ✘ No 3: X Characters (Mega Man Homepage) ~ Authorized by Capcom ~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert 71 words ✘ No 4: Mega Man X (Mega Man Homepage) ~ Authorized by Capcom ~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert ✘ No 5: Mega Man X (Capcom) ✘ No 6: E3 2017: Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite Has Infinite Potential (Hardcore Gamer) No analysis of Sigma ✘ No 7: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Trailer Unleashes DLC Fighters Black Panther and Sigma (WCCF Tech) Excluding the press release excerpt ✘ No 8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15: Mega Man X Official Complete Works (UDON Entertainment Corp) Capcom identified as author ✘ No 11: Inafune Denies Cataclysm Theory+Answers Your Questions! (Rockman Corner) ~ Primary source (Q&A) ~ Self-published website / blogger 70 words ✘ No 16: This Mega Man X Sigma figure is absolutely amazing (Destructoid) ✘ No 17: The Brutal Lessons Gaming Taught Me About Revolutions, Robots, And War (Kotaku) Incidental mentions ✘ No 18: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia (DK Games) Despite being licensed/authorized by Capcom, author is separate from Capcom One page (150-200 words), same as 200+ other Capcom characters ✔ Yes 19: Bless the Never Ending Bug Robots That Help Me Beat Sigma in Mega-Man X (Destructoid) ✘ No 20: Best SNES Bosses Fights Ever All Time (Den of Geek) ~ More a discussion of Mega Man X's game design ~ Partial 21: How Mega Man X rewrote the player/character relationship (Eurogamer.net) ✘ No 22: Why The Mega Man X and Minecraft Crossover Is Cool But Ultimately Upseting (IGN) No analysis of Sigma ✘ No 23: Playing God: The ever-changing morals of Mega Man's sci-fi allegory (The A.V. Club) 76 words (being generous) ✘ No 24: Sigma vs. Sigma: The Comparison We Had To Make (Kotaku) ~ A case of editorial discrection - From the tone of the article, this is clearly intended as humour, not a reliable analysis - Does this prove notability? Weakly unless there are other articles mentioning the similarities between Sigma (Mega Man X) and Sigma (Overwatch) ~ Partial 25: Bonus Stage Magazine. No. 19 (Bonus Stage Magazine) ~ Limited outside of plot recap ~ Partial 26: O pós-humano, cyborgs e a (re)evolução do corpo em Mega Man Maverick Hunter X [The post-human, cyborgs and the (re)evolution of the body in Mega Man Maverick Hunter X] (Literatura e Autoritarismo) ✔ Yes 27: 《洛克人 X》系列人設水野佳祐專訪 以小短褲側馬尾等元素描繪原創人物「RiCO 莉可」 (GNN Gamer) ~ Q&A with a Capcom staff member ? ~ One answer, unclear how this corresponds to 100 words in English ? Unknown 28: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite's Story Demo Feels Like Awkward Fanfiction (Kotaku) Incidental outside of the plot recap ✘ No 29: Destructoid: Review Marvel vs Capcom Infinite (Destructoid) ✘ No 30: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Review (Den of Geek) Incidental outside of the plot recap ✘ No 31: Best Fighting Game Final Bosses Street Fighter Mortal Kombat Tekken (Den of Geek) ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . I'd also note that in my opinion several of these should be considered primary sources, in particular 20, 25 and 31, which cover Sigma as part of the critic's emotional response to the subject, not as part of a broader discussion or commentary on the themes the character expresses. Shazback ( talk ) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of those sources as 'primary'? I have never seen anyone define a primary source in that way. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's my understanding based on the following policies, emphasis mine: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations : Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author , but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces. The last sentence references Virginia Tech , which notes that: Opinion reviews give the article's author's opinion about the book . The review will typically include a brief summary of the book, and could include discussion on writing style, audience level and the book author's area of expertise. Opinion reviews are published in newspapers, popular magazines and specialty publications like the New York Times Book Review. Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources : Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. This is expanded upon in a footnote Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-8 : Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires [...]. There are essays discussing the articulation of these concepts, however as non-policy they can be disputed freely: Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Fields_other_than_history : In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. [...] Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece . As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material. Wikipedia:Frequently_misinterpreted_sourcing_policy#Editorials,_columns,_and_blogs_are_categorically_primary_sources : Reviews (in the book, film, etc. sense; this doesn't mean academic literature reviews) are by nature subjective; a work cannot be said by WP to be "derivative", "thrilling", etc., based on them. Reviewer speculation about inspirations for, influences on, and meaning of a work are wholly subjective and unreliable, absent statements from the creators of the work, or numerous notable reviewers all concurring . For opinions on the tone, style, and characteristics of a work, we can quote/paraphrase reviewers with attribution in a due and balanced manner. If there are specific other policies, guidelines or consensus elements I should be aware of, more than happy to take them into account. Shazback ( talk ) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shazback : I think it's important to point out that reviews, with all their subjective elements, are an important and expected basis of articles on topics of fiction and should not be discounted (emphasis mine): WP:ALLPLOT : articles about fiction [...] should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis WP:INDISCRIMINATE : Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) : Information that may help provide the real-world discussion necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional topic includes reception, analysis, significance , development, legacy and influence, and relationships with or comparisons to other media . Wikipedia:Notability (books) : The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews . Wikipedia:Notability (video games) : A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer. Published sources include any reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Daranios ( talk ) 11:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm in agreement with Darianos. I see several good sources already used in the article. This doesn't warrant a merge. MoonJet ( talk ) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the circumstances of this AFD are strange to me, a procedural nomination on behalf of someone who does not want the article deleted, an editor who AFDed to avoid "another BLAR down the line", and an unclear discussion on WP:PRIMARY . This probably should have just been a merge discussion in the first place. As for my keep vote, the source analysis above proved there is a decisive WP:THREE here with other reliable sources as well (I do think they were a bit harsh on source judging). (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : far from a delete, merge (ehh) im in agreement with the source table above. Password (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Hermoton: Rationale to come. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft , simply described as an ort ("location"). Macedonian imperialism and the Hellenization of the East (1924) names it as one of a number of locations Alexander marched through in his campaign in Mysia. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004, pg. 986) describes it as a frontier marker of Kyzikos. Could find no other descriptions, so it appears to be some sort of non-notable geographical feature. If it was a town, only its name has survived. Generalissima ( talk ) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agreed. Completely non-notable ancient location. TheBritinator ( talk ) 10:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . On the assumption that either could be the correct name, and since the linked page is just an index to PW , I checked the actual entries for both "Hermaion" and "Hermoton", in alphabetical order. PW has somewhat more to say than "a location": Place in Mysia minor, known for the race and outwitting of the Parians on the Propontis and the Lampsacenes on the Hellespont in their dispute over the border of the territories on both sides. The name probably means a border marker made of stones or hill earth. It was 70 stadia from Parium and 200 stadia from Lampsacus. Presumably Hermaion from R. Kiepert's Map of Asia Minor B. 1, 13.5 km south of the ruins of Parium, 39 km southeast of Lampsacus, near Karajaly on the Karapunar (Black Fountain) Dan. It is very likely that Hermaion was called Hermoton in later times. The article cites to Polyaenus for the race and outwitting of the Parians, and to Arrian for Hermoton. Here's what Polyaenus has to say in Strategemata , vi. 24: The Lampsacenians and the Parians, who had a dispute about the boundaries of their respective territories, agreed each to dispatch a certain number of persons from one city to the other at an early hour of the morning; and wherever the two groups met, that spot should be the common boundary between their territories. The Lampsacenians persuaded the fishermen, who were employed along the road where the Parians were due to travel, to cook some fish on that morning, and make libations of wine, as a sacrifice to Poseidon; and then they should ask the Parians, as they passed by, to share with them in the sacrifice, in honour of the god. The Parians agreed, but one mouthful of fish, and one glass of wine, induced them to take a second, and so on; until so much time was lost, that the Lampsacenians arrived first at the Hermaeum, which is seventy stades from Parium, and two hundred from Lampsacus. By this trick, the Lampsacenians gained a large territory from the Parians, and the Hermaeum was established as the boundary between the two states. Under "Hermoton", PW has this to say, citing Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander , i. 12. 6: Place (small river, see Hermotus) in Mysia minor, station of Alexander's train from 334 BC. BC, between Colonae and the Granicus, probably the same as the Hermaion in Mysia minor. And checking Arrian, there's not much to add, apart from Alexander sending out scouting parties ahead of the army, which are described in some detail, although whether this should fall under the heading of Hermoton or is simply adjacent to its mention is unclear. For transparency, I used Google Translate on both articles, then edited them for spelling and grammar in English; I also omitted some internal citations and technical abbreviations. Neither of these sources expressly state that Hermaion or Hermoton was a town, although one might infer that from the way that it's mentioned in Arrian. The Barrington Atlas evidently regards it as a village or town. But irrespective of whether it was a permanently settled place, it does appear to have some significance of its own that wouldn't be fully covered under say, Parium or Lampsacus, to say nothing of Alexander. Certainly there's enough for a short article, just as there is in PW —where it's actually split between two articles. I'm not aware of any policy that says that the subjects of Wikipedia articles must be more notable than those in other encyclopedias; as our space is practically unlimited and we have the potential to combine material from different sources—such as what Polyaenus and Arrian actually had to say, how the Barrington Atlas or other archaeological resources regard the place, etc. we should presumably have a lower bar for inclusion, not a higher one. An assertion of non-notability despite the above articles, and particularly the mention in Polyaenus, seems arbitrary to me, and contradicts the plain statement in our policy that notability is not temporary; locations that had some notability in the Greek world do not become non-notable because they have no importance to the modern world, or because our information about them is limited to what a few surviving passages in Greek writers have to say, and what can be inferred from them. P Aculeius ( talk ) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mentioned alongside another 'small town' called either 'Priamus' or 'Priapus' in several bios of Alexander (see 1 , 2 , and others). I agree with P Aculeius that the two entries in the Pauly-Wissowa (a first-rate specialist encyclopaedia) are evidence that this topic has encyclopaedic value. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 04:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Article has no information of any value. killer bee 05:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Geography , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on discussion above, seems to meet WP:GNG and possibly the first criterion of WP:POPULATED but that's harder to establish. Being included in a respected specialist encyclopedia is also a good inclusive criteria considering WP:5 . And I'll also echo P Aculeius's implicit reference of WP:NOTPAPER . — siro χ o 10:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've expanded it a bit using the material I cited above. I thought about quoting it, but that's a Google Translate version of the text from PW and Polyaenus, edited a little by me for clarity—so I figured it'd be easier to summarize than trying to figure out how to cite as a translation. I didn't include all of the details, including the map citation, which mentions several locations I'm not sure whether to identify with the more recent geographical references. So there could be more material here—including whether the river mentioned with the map under "Hermaion" is the same as the Hermotus mentioned in PW . P Aculeius ( talk ) 05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the article should probably be moved to "Hermaion", with redirects from "Hermoton" and "Hermaeum". But that can wait until after this discussion is closed. P Aculeius ( talk ) 05:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
North East Rugby League Premier Division: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and merge useful info from North East Rugby League Regional Division and rename North East Rugby League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida): Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I created this because one of the other two synagogues in Brooklyn were founded in memory of the same person and part of Brooklyn's larger Aleppan community who also founded the famous Shaare Zion on Ocean Parkway . But then again notability is not inherited so this could go either way. NYC Guru ( talk ) 07:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Judaism , and Florida . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the only source in the article is to the synagogue's own website. Appears to fail WP:GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think. Here is a half-page feature in the Miami Herald, here is a book with about 40 words on point but lots of helpful context, here is a South Florida Sun Sentinel article with about a paragraph on point. I wouldn't call this an abundance of source material, but these all appear to be reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and to provide sufficient information on the article subject that no original research is required to extract the content , so it seems to me that the GNG is met. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The half-page feature is okay, but I don't think the other two get over the GNG line. If there's anything else out there I'd be persuaded to change my ! vote, but right now it just looks like an article on a local place of worship. SportingFlyer T · C 14:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Stalemate over whether GNG is met with sources available. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but add references as there seem to be plenty of references, there just not added to the article El Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK – The Grid ( talk ) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree. the page should stay but they it needs to be significantly improved. Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 04:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment following relist: there seems to be a sticking point here, as in other discussions, over whether WP:SIGCOV should be interpreted subjectively (coverage that we would personally call significant) or objectively as provided in the actual guideline (coverage that addresses the article subject directly enough that no original research is needed to extract the content ). While recognizing that all rules including this one should be interpreted flexibly in the service of our encyclopedic purpose , I don't think that a subjective definition of sigcov is reasonable in view of the guideline text. You can certainly make the argument that we should ignore a source that doesn't meet some particular personal threshold of significance, but IMO such arguments should not be presented as SIGCOV-based. -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Under your definition, two paragraphs of coverage would make something "significant." It's always subjective, otherwise we'd just all fall in line here at AfD, and considering the sources currently available are a local news feature article, a very brief mention in a book, and a paragraph in an article about a family, it doesn't matter that there may be enough information for a blurb - it simply has not been covered significantly by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T · C 14:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the point is that there is a rough consensus on what it means for coverage to be significant, or at least on a test for significance. If the sources pass that test, it's significant coverage, even if there's not a lot of material to write an article from. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 12:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The newspaper sources identified are sufficient to establish notability. gidonb ( talk ) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree that the sources we have pass WP:GNG . There's certainly not a lot of material, but significance of coverage is roughly defined in WP:SIGCOV , and by that definition, it's enough. Just barely, but enough. In this kind of super-borderline case, I think an argument from WP:NEXIST is also reasonable; I'm sure there's something on this synagogue that we haven't found, and that something may be enough to put it over the line if you think what we do have here does not suffice. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Rhadi Ferguson: Lots of fishy primary refs, dead links and a general sense that this is a COI/vanity page. Nswix ( talk ) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Martial arts , and Florida . Nswix ( talk ) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 15:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep After reading what BeanieFan11 brought up below. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 10:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Does not appear to meet any current notability criteria. The most notable thing he did was compete at the 2004 Olympics where he won his first fight and lost his next two. I don't see significant independent coverage from reliable sources to show he meets WP:GNG . Papaursa ( talk ) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I want to thank BeanieFan11 for his efforts and finding those sources. Ferguson doesn't meet any SNG, but I think the GNG is met. I've certainly seen other AfDs closed as keep with poorer sources. I went looking for more evidence of his U.S. championships, but USA Judo only shows the 2023 results on their website. Papaursa ( talk ) 01:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . @ Lethweimaster and Papaursa : The article might not be in the best shape, but there's extensive coverage of Ferguson available, see for example: "Muscle and Mayhem; Ferguson Takes No Holds Barred Pursuit of Judo Gold" , a 1,200 word feature from The Washington Post (national coverage); "COURAGE OF THE FIGHT; Armed with the best America has to offer in judo, Rhadi Ferguson will accept nothing less than gold in Athens." , a 1,300 word feature from the Los Angeles Sentinel (more national coverage); "Ferguson getting an education at Games" , 700 words from The Gazette ; "Judo Olympian ready for the cage" ( part 2 ), an in-depth feature story from Florida Today ; "Judo master sharpens skills for Athens" ( part 2 ), a feature story from The Palm Beach Post ; and "Titusville black belt will guide Bahamas in World" , from Florida Today . Ferguson passes WP:GNG . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per BeanieFan11 . Scorpions1325 ( talk ) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Beanie, checked myself and it seems that there is enough of WP:GNG being applied for an article to not be deleted. Kline | let me clear my throat! | (contribs) 20:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
LGBT rights in the post-Soviet states: No reliable source treats LGBT rights in the states within the territory of the former Soviet Union as a single topic. We do not have articles like LGBT rights in the post-Austro-Hungarian Empire states or LGBT rights in the post-British Empire states, or even LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations states. Kpratter ( talk ) 13:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions . Kpratter ( talk ) 13:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources look fine to me to pass GNG. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep or delete an article. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Macktheknifeau none of these sources describe LGBT issues in the post-Soviet states as a whole; they only address them separately in Russia, Ukraine, etc. Kpratter ( talk ) 19:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Kazakhstan , Uzbekistan , Azerbaijan , Belarus , Georgia (country) , Russia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kyrgyzstan , Tajikistan , Turkmenistan , Armenia , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania , and Moldova . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If an article contains notable subtopics that could be split into separate articles, that seems to mean there is not a reason for deletion but possibly a split (which I personally do not favour). If the nominator thinks the subtopics are too disparate to coexist in a single article they should refer to Wikipedia:Splitting . Thincat ( talk ) 04:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A 30-second web search easily proves there are sources giving this topic significant coverage (e.g. [14] [15] [16] [17] ), so the article meets WP:GNG . Before proposing deletion please refer to the WP:Deletion process and relevant guidelines, and cite them in the nomination.   — Michael Z . 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a keep because this is a legitimate topic. There are common themes across various post-Soviet states that stem from their histories within the USSR, and the Russian Empire before that, which make it logical to have an article about the post-Soviet states as a whole. That doesn't mean that the article is in great shape. What we have here is a big section on LGBT rights in the USSR and nothing more than a table summarising the rights in the post-Soviet states. I would like to see the USSR part split out and merged with the proposed new LGBT history in the Soviet Union article, if that goes ahead. The table is good but a table alone is not an article. We need some text to explain things. The sources found above should help with that. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 14:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
East Cobb Baseball: Boleyn ( talk ) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I think the sourcing, while less than ideal, is enough to get it over the edge. If not, support merging and adding a sports section to Marietta, Georgia where it merits mention. Star Mississippi 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Non notable regional amateur sports league. There are thousands of these all over the country and this one does not have special significance. Spanneraol ( talk ) 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - The sourcing, though not ideal, provides enough coverage to meet the threshold for notability. If not considered standalone notable, merging and adding a sports section to Marietta, Georgia where it merits mention would be a suitable alternative. The regional significance of East Cobb Baseball is evident, and its inclusion adds valuable content to Wikipedia's coverage of sports in the area. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above, particularly looking at @ Star Mississippi comment. The first sentence is just a rewording of Star's first sentence, and notice the duplication of "merits mention". See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga ( talk ) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Spanneraol's reasoning. This is a run of the mill youth club baseball league and there is nothing outside much in terms of coverage outside of 2 local newspaper articles and the obit of the guy who founded it (which itself appears to be a reprint of the one provided by his family to a funeral home). Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Verducci, Tom (2010-04-19). "Legend Before His Time" . Sports Illustrated . Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 . The article notes: "Since 1985 East Cobb has won 146 national titles and produced 150 pro players, including 21 drafted and signed last year alone. It has grown to 85 teams for ages eight through 18. You might see as many as 600 scouts and college coaches at the complex at a time; they're engaged in the baseball equivalent of catching fish in a barrel. Among the major league stars who have played at East Cobb are McCann, Jeff Francoeur, Jeremy Hermida, Nick Markakis, Micah Owings, Matt Capps, Stephen Drew, Dexter Fowler and Gordon Beckham—and that doesn't include the 14 first-round picks in just the past three years." Murray, Lynn (2013-02-01). "God's Little Acre of Diamonds: Observations on Travel Ball in Cobb County, Georgia. The Cathedral" . Illustoria . McSweeney's . Archived from the original on 2024-01-27 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 . The article notes: "East Cobb is the cathedral of baseball in Cobb County. It’s High Church baseball. ... The story of East Cobb Baseball goes something like this. Back in 1983, a baseball team from Cobb County won the Little League World Series. That World Series. The one on ESPN every August. ... East Cobb Baseball eventually grew to an eighteen-million-dollar, 30-acre complex, and now it fields around 75 travel teams for ages eight to eighteen. Over the years East Cobb has won more national titles (181, according to its website) and trained more future major league players than any other organization in Georgia. It is generally recognized as among the top baseball programs in the country. More than 150 East Cobb alumni have gone on to play professional baseball; more than 800 have earned college scholarships. A 2010 Sports Illustrated article puts it this way: “What Silicon Valley is to computer chips, East Cobb is to youth baseball: the heart of the sport’s research and development.”" Shanks, Bill (2005). Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team . New York: Sterling & Ross. p. 254. ISBN 09766372-1-9 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "The best system in Georgia is also perhaps the best in the country, East Cobb Baseball in Marietta, just north of Atlanta. They take kids starting at the age of eight and teach them the specifics of baseball, and then the kids play teams all over the country. In the mid-80’s and before, traveling baseball was non-existent. Kids were lucky if they picked up a few summer league games after rec league or the high school season. But now, kids can play a hundred games in a calendar year. East Cobb’s success has produced better talent that has bled into the high school ranks, making that level of ball better as well. And most of the kids in Georgia high schools have grown up not only watching the Braves, but watching the Braves win." Williams, Pete (2011). Baseball: How To Play The Game . New York: Universe Publishing . p. 303. ISBN 978-0-7893-2218-0 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "There’s also East Cobb Baseball, which was created in the northern Atlanta suburbs in 1985, not long after a team from Marietta, Ga., won the Little League World Series. Guerry Baldwin, a Pony League coach in Marietta, thought it made sense for players to be grouped together based on ability rather than age or home address. A wealthy benefactor helped build a 30-acre, eight-field complex that has since become the most prominent year-round facility in the country, producing such Big Leaguers as Jason Heyward, Brian McCann, Jeff Francoeur and Corey Patterson." Simpson, Allan, ed. (2003). Baseball America Almanac 2003 . Durham, North Carolina: Baseball America D. p. 450. ISBN 0-684019299 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "The powerful East Cobb baseball program from Marietta, Ga., added to its bulging trophy case by winning four more national titles in 2002. The 16-year-old East Cobb Astros stood out, winning 19 straight games to capture two major national titles in a 20-day span. They went 10-0, beating the Bloomfield Hills (Mich.) Wolves 18-0 in the final, to win the 24-team Continental Amateur Baseball Association (CABA) World Series, played at East Cobb's own new $9.8 million complex in Marietta. The Astros then went 9-0, beating the Arlington (Texas) Wizards 4-1 in the final, to win the 48-team Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) Junior Olympics national title in Knoxville, Tenn. East Cobb's victory in the Junior Olympics marked the sixth time in the last seven years that it won the gold medal. It finished second in 2000." Crater, Paul (2007). Baseball in Atlanta . Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing . p. 25. ISBN 978-0-7385-4380-2 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "In the Atlanta area, organizations like the Northside Youth Organization, the Cascade Youth Organization, the East Cobb Baseball Program, and various Dixie Youth leagues foster competitive environments and provide boys and girls the opportunity to play the game on an organized level. The East Cobb Baseball Program, located north of Atlanta in the city of Marietta, is one of the finest youth leagues in the country. It operates a multimillion-dollar facility and has produced dozens of collegiate and professional baseball players over the last 20 years." Edgerton, Les (2009). Perfect Game USA and the Future of Baseball: How the Remaking of Youth Scouting Affects the National Pastime . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 86. ISBN 978-0-7864-3408-4 . Retrieved 2024-01-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "East Cobb baseball has long been recognized as one of the premier youth baseball organizations in the country and probably the premier program in most baseball insider's eyes. Ford talks about how they teamed up." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow East Cobb Baseball to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 12:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Mission Beach USA: Donald D23 talk to me 22:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . My own WP:BEFORE has thrown up at least a few sources which seem to deal with the subject in some detail. I've added these to the article and updated the text to reflect. While not "cut and dried" (as indicated by the previous AfD (s)? ), I'd err towards a keep. Granted some of the coverage is about the participants in the reality show (rather than the reality show itself), they seem at least contributory... Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- the implemented article improvements show that it meets the GNG. matt91486 ( talk ) 14:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM . Sources in the article are promo and about other toics where the subject is mentioned. Nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Souce eval: Comments Source Promo, not IS, Souce states, "when I was asked if I wanted to work on an RTE Young People's television show called Mission Beach." 1. "Reality TV's new wave of Irish stars". The Herald. 21 October 2010. Article about another series, subject is mentioned, "Rival Media have previously produced ‘Mission Beach USA’ for RTÉ," 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "RTÉ Surf Series 'Big Wave Bootcamp' In Pre-Production". iftn.ie. Irish Film & Television Network. 17 May 2012. Rival Media have previously produced 'Mission Beach USA' for RTÉ, which [..] has run for two seasons on RTÉ Two Article about another subject, subject is mentioned, "Other new shows include Super Crew, a search for Ireland’s hottest teenage hip hop dancers, and Mission Beach USA, where eight Irish teens undergo junior lifeguard training" 3. ^ "Bye, bye Den after 25 years on the small screen". Irish Examiner. 14 September 2010. Other new [TRTÉ] shows include [..] Mission Beach USA, where eight Irish teens undergo junior lifeguard training in Florida 4. ^ "Foxford teen features on RTÉ 2's Mission Beach". Mayo Advertiser. 14 October 2013. Mission Beach is produced by Rival Media for RTÉ Promo about another subject involved in the show 5. ^ "TRTÉ » Mission Beach USA Gallery". RTÉ. Archived from the original on 11 March 2015. Retrieved 15 March 2015. Promo 6. ^ "Swim Stars". Sligo Champion. 4 November 2010. progress can be followed every week on the TV program called Mission Beach USA, RTE 2, Mondays at 5pm Press release 7. ^ "BBC Switch announces activity for Autumn 2008" (Press release). BBC. 21 August 2008. Retrieved 15 April 2023. Mission Beach is an eight-part observational documentary [..] lifeguard programme [..] Mission Beach USA is produced by Rival Media Promo Article about another subject, mentions subject 8. ^ "Life's a beach for Limerick rower Dylan". Limerick Leader. 18 October 2011. one of eight 16 year olds who [..] was selected from a total of 5,500 applicants to take part in the show Promo Article about another subject, mentions subject 9. ^ Wyman, Scott (10 August 2010). "Irish Baywatch: TV reality show films Irish youth training as Fort Lauderdale lifeguards". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Press release 10. ^ "RTÉjr and TRTÉ". presspack.rte.ie (Press release). 5 November 2011. Retrieved 15 April 2023. Annual report, primary, not about subject 11. ^ RTÉ - Independent Productions - Annual Report - 2011 (PDF) (Report). RTÉ. p. 6. Series returning by popular demand included teen reality series Mission Beach USA Routine promo article 12. ^ "Irish reality show about teen lifeguards returns to Fort Lauderdale". Sun Sentinel. 21 July 2011. Archived from the original on 29 June 2021. A fresh set of eight Irish teens have been in town this month [July 2011] filming "Mission Beach USA" for that country's RTE 2 network BEFORE showed nothing but more promo, mentions such as the above, but nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Hi TimothyBlue . While I'd noted in my own ! vote that some of the sources weren't great, I'm intrigued (in particular) to see the Sun Sentinel articles described as "promo". And, in the case of the "Irish Baywatch: TV reality show films Irish youth training as Fort Lauderdale lifeguards" [4] article, to see it described as "promo about another subject". Perhaps this isn't labelled as intended? Separately, I'm personally unsure as the intent of linking WP:RPRGM - which seems to deal primarily with radio programs. While RPRGM does link to WP:NTVNATL , that essay suggests that "an individual television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on [..] cable television channel with a broader regional or national audience". And, while that essay doesn't "trump" GNG/SIGCOV, it is worth noting that RTÉ is a national station and RTÉ2 a national channel. Anyway, I just wanted to raise as I'm not sure that table is perhaps laid-out fully as intended. (And, perhaps, a different essay/guideline was also intended?) Guliolopez ( talk ) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No real opinion from me, I would say however that almost all TV shows in Ireland will mainly come from promotional material either from press articles or from the broadcaster themselves, it'd be very difficult to write much of anything with out such press regarding any Irish TV programme. IrishTV ( talk ) 16:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In general I've found the recent trend to label anything that amounts to informing people about things, as opposed to deep analysis, as "promotional" to be an unconvincing reading of PROMO. Press releases are promotional -- if they are reprinted as is, this applies. If newspapers independently cover a media release, and write their own copy and have their own byline, it is not PROMO. matt91486 ( talk ) 05:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems notable. By necessity, the coverage albeit in legitimate newspapers, is not going to be in-depth investigative journalism, even if this show had a bar higher than MILF Manor . -- Milowent • has spoken 13:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Essential Workers Monument: Labor Day, and Cuomo's tenure as governor, came and went, and two years later, there is no memorial nor any sign there will be one. I don't see any viable merger target in Category:COVID-19 pandemic monuments and memorials , and I don't think it would merit discussion in the Battery Park article nor in COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#May_to_August_2021 or COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Timeline where the parade is mentioned but this isn't. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , COVID-19 , and New York . Star Mississippi 00:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the fact that something that has been cancelled doesn't inherently diminish its notability. Furthermore, something that may have been cancelled was planned at some point, without exception, which may provide extra notability. As long as the article is well-sourced and edited to clarify that the monument has been cancelled, then we can keep the article. IncompA 00:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Social_impact . This should be mentioned somewhere but I don't believe we need a whole article for this sort of proposal that did not come to fruition. Reywas92 Talk 01:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Just because there hasn't been a monument built doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on the subject. The topic meets WP:GNG via coverage from multiple secondary sources. While it is true that the topic hasn't been broached since 2021 (at least as far as I could find), and appears to be dead (per a passing mention in the NY Times) [ [84] ], I did uncover press coverage regarding what the current governor of New York had to say about the proposal [ [85] ]. This article should be expanded, not deleted. User:Let'srun 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but if consensus doesn't exist for that, at the very least, merge to COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City#Social_impact per WP:ATD-M . This certainly passes WP:GNG . For now it also meets WP:SUSTAINED , noting Let'srun's sources, and, for example, a 2023 journal article that references the proposed monument in a discussion of essential workers [86] . In 10 years it may turn out to not meet WP:SUSTAINED and we might have a different discussion, but deleting based on that right now would be more in violation of WP:CRYSTAL than keeping it, because for the moment, the subject still notable. I could see a move to Proposed Essential Workers Monument or something like that, but MOS:AT may prefer the existing shorter title. — siro χ o 07:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Let'srun and Siroxo. Passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 20:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion and Adams Memorial (a similar stalled project in Washington, D.C.). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Ninja of Heisei: No newer sources (unless someone can find in Japanese) about a conviction, so not sure this passes WP:SUSPECT or even WP:BLP1E . Longhornsg ( talk ) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . It's not BLP1E as it doesn't meet criteria 3 -- the individuals role was both substantial and well documented. Now, it's pretty well-reported that the suspect willingly confessed to the crimes (eg. [37] ), so a minor rewording and it would almost certainly not violate WP:SUSPECT . Moreso, it is line with a criteria of WP:CRIME For perpetrators ... The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual . The only real concern is sustained coverage. Given that the subject is Japanese, I'll lean towards it being likely we're just having trouble finding them in English. — siro χ o 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - has coverage including https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/japan-s-ninja-cat-burglar-umasked-as-74yearold-man-a3667581.html and https://time.com/4997946/ninja-of-heisei-thief-japan/ to establish notability and verifiability. Interesting subject whose inclusion contributes encyclopedic information. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Japan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , famous crime. Fulmard ( talk ) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Timothy K. Blauvelt: Google Scholar shows 436 citations. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Georgia (country) . Mccapra ( talk ) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this person squarely meets the criterion of "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Having hundreds of citations is A LOT, since this is an area of study that only has a few dozen people studying it, and almost no endowed chairs. It would, I cannot find another word, highly discriminatory against smaller countries if this kind of scholarship gets deleted. Please withdraw this. Hundnase ( talk ) Hundnase ( talk ) 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] have you been involved in contacting Mr. Blauvelt, pretending to be an admin? This is super dodgy. There is some scam. Please respond. Also, there is ZERO justification for deleting articles of people who are widely published in their field. Hundnase ( talk ) Hundnase ( talk ) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ll assume that the question is directed at me as the nominator. No I have not contacted Mr Blauvelt, or pretended to be an admin. I don’t need to be an admin to nominate an article for deletion. As I said to you on my talk page I am happy to follow consensus with my nominations and if the consensus is to keep, that’s fine. Now I will ask - since you seem to know that someone has contacted Mr. Blauvelt, have you been in contact with him yourself, and what is your relationship with him? Thanks Mccapra ( talk ) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a standard scam. The scammers contact the subjects of Wikipedia biographies, pretending that either they can unilaterally delete the article or that they can save it from deletion, and demanding money. They are generally not the people they claim to be, and have no such power. Ignore them. Because they are not actually Wikipedia editors, we cannot prevent them from making these false claims. At worst they can flood this discussion with opinions that the closing administrator is also likely to ignore. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . The "this is a low-citation field so we have to accept low citations as evidence for notability" argument does not convince me; for one thing, a significant part of his work is in cultural linguistics, which is not actually a low-citation field. Anyway, I do not see the citation record needed to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 . The best shot at notability appears to be through book authorship, published reviews, and WP:AUTHOR . I found and added to the article five reviews of a single authored book, and two reviews of an edited volume. That's barely enough for a weak keep, for me, because there is only one authored book and the edited volume doesn't count for as much. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] thanks -- agree with the Weak Keep, as an approach. Also, to be clear, his main work is in Georgia Soviet history, including Soviet archives, and specifically Georgia squarely IS a low citation field. (I work in this field also, and have worked to increase coverage on Wikipedia. I think if we want to have good coverage on Wikipedia, we should not knock out fields simply because the countries are small.) Thanks for highlighting that the scam is unconnected to this specific discussion. Hundnase ( talk ) Hundnase ( talk ) 09:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As someone else who has worked in this specific, and indeed small, field, I can also attest that Blauvelt is not an unknown scholar but someone who has credibility. I've added some more of his publications to further confirm that, though also must disclose that I do know him somewhat informally. Kaiser matias ( talk ) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as stated above, and here more formally put, having 400 citations for a field of Caucasus & Georgia history is a lot. (The rector of the leading local university has about 25 citations in total, for comparison.) The study of the Caucasus is a fairly small field, with established scholars fitting into a bus. So in this context, his work in my view is notable. I am the article creator, and have worked to bring more of Wikipedia to Georgia, and more of Georgia to Wikipedia, and so obviously have an interest, but also think that Wikipedia should absolutely pay attention to things that are not just mainstream. (Separately on my comments above, it seems that scammers jumped on the discussion, which indeed I should have ignored in this discussion. My apologies for mixing this into it.) The deletion discussion has led to more citations/work being added, so I think this was a good result. Hundnase ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Timothy K. Blauvelt is a well-known expert and a person who contributed immensely to a number of fields. He has more than 400 citations for a field of Caucasus & Georgian history - that's a lot for a field represented so little. -- DerFuchs ( talk ) 14:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Caribbean Lowlands: Same as Southern Caribbean and Caribbean South America . Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD . NLeeuw ( talk ) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latin America and Caribbean . NLeeuw ( talk ) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are a lot sources in Google Scholar that use the term, mainly in giving the location of animals or plants being studied as a region of specific countries, but I couldn't find anything that actually defines it beyond a general term for the lower-elevation area between the mountains and the Caribbean Sea, nothing that describes it as a whole. Most use a descriptive lowercase "lowlands" rather than as a specific name. Nor are there other articles on here that list it as a Central American region or even something that would be a good merge target. Therefore without usable sources or substantive content to include here, delete . Reywas92 Talk 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's lots of sources that use the term in scholarly articles and physical geography books, mostly in the Costa Rican sense, such as [4] [5] . Needs expansion, not deletion. SportingFlyer T · C 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added sources to the article. SportingFlyer T · C 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep although consider userfying. a simple search ("caribbean lowlands" -wiki) here shows lots of sources both about the biome and the cultural area. The current stub is pretty bad, so I would not mind adopting it and working on it after my students' prom and finals are over. Bearian ( talk ) 14:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It is significant that we have an experienced editor asserting that they are willing to work on improving this article if it is Kept or if editors believe it should be moved to Draft space. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep valid notable geographical object, plenty of hits in books. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough definition in sourcing to pass GNG. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
'Til Death Do Us Part (American TV series): Tagged for notability since 2019 Donald D23 talk to me 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Law , Canada , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs broadcast by TruTV as an ATD (and yes, knowing it's an incongruent mess of two networks' unrelated programming). Surprised this John Waters show doesn't have many sources remembering how it was a big deal at the time (though his segments wrapped around a generic true crime show so that may be why). Nate • ( chatter ) 16:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per below and the new sources, Keep and retitle ; glad to see we're able to save this rather than leave it to a redirect (though I'll note many Canadian shows in the 2000s were made as co-productions with American networks to get them Canadian content credit, but it still originated in Canada and should be retitled as such). Nate • ( chatter ) 01:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Filucci, Siera (2022-03-01). " 'Til Death Do Us Part" . Common Sense Media . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "Finding humor in real-life tales of abuse and murder is tricky and not for everyone. Some will find 'Til Death Do Us Part sick and deplorable, while others will treat it like any fictional thriller. The acting and writing is mediocre, but it does the job, and you don't expect much more from a show like this anyway. The sexual elements are played up dramatically, and they're definitely not for kids." Bellafante, Ginia (2007-03-19). "Love? Obey? These Vows Are to Nag or to Shoot" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "The tone is high camp, with Mr. Waters’s influence always present even when he himself is not. Few architects of popular culture have made the habits of heterosexual life seem sillier, and here the mere sight of Mr. Waters’s fixed smirk reminds us that smug marrieds have no real claim to their smugness. The show makes fun of striver partners, supplicant partners, old men who chase young flesh." Kronke, David (2007-03-19). "Show Fails at Mocking Deadly Failed Marriages" . Los Angeles Daily News . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "John Waters, who hosts Court TV's new docudrama series {'}}Til Death Do Us Part , isn't a mogul, and he's not really an animatronic ghoul, either. But he's an inspired choice to host this docudrama series based on real-life crimes of passion -- or, more precisely, crimes when all the passion has seeped out of a marriage.  Unfortunately, the series isn't written sharply enough to fully exploit Waters' dry sense of humor. He plays the Groom Reaper, who introduces and closes each episode with snide insights into the pitfalls of betrothal." Meyer, Norma (2007-04-23). "For oddball Waters, art exaggerates life" . The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "Every Monday night, Waters stars as the Groom Reaper on Court TV's " 'Til Death Do Us Part," a scripted half-hour series based on true cases about wedded bliss gone so bad one spouse offs the other. (The violence is inventive -- one hubby bludgeoned his better half with their kid's lunch pail). Much like Rod Serling or Alfred Hitchcock, a campy Waters pops in at the beginning and end of episodes, which have titles like "The Pond Scum Murder."" Heldenfels, Rich (2007-03-18). " 'Til Death' Is Dark - John Waters Comedy on Court TV Inspired by Murderous Spouses" . Akron Beacon Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "The writer-director of Hairspray, Cry-Baby, Pink Flamingos, Serial Mom and other films plays the "Groom Reaper," the host and narrator of Til Death Do Us Part, a 13-episode dark comedy premiering at 10 p.m. Monday on Court TV.   Inspired by true stories, the series presents tales of married couples, one or both of whom decide that "happily ever after" involves putting a mate in the grave. " Simon, Jeff (2007-03-25). "Court TV's " 'Til Death' is a crime" . The Buffalo News . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "That's why I rejoiced -- not too strong a word -- when I heard that Waters was going to provide commentary for a Court TV series called " 'Til Death Do Us Part." There, I said to myself, is a media marriage made in heaven -- Court TV and shock auteurist Waters, the possessor of one of America's truly unique brains. ... And then I saw the show.  It's, hands down, the most wretched TV waste of talent in the new millennium thus far. The show is a godawful crime-fiction series about homicidal marriages in which Waters, with his 1954 pimp mustache, plays the "Groom Reaper," an inane variation on the Crypt Keeper in those old "Tales of the Crypt" numbers. The show is like something profoundly awful from the '50s but without anything even resembling the screwball camp twist Waters would have given it. It needs, frankly, to never see light of day again." Werts, Diane (2007-12-21). "Waters, Dark Tales Make Perfect Union" . Sun Sentinel . Newsday . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "Never quite real, yet uncannily authentic, Waters cuts just the right bloodless figure to host 'Til Death Do Us Part. He's got that walking-corpse-like aura so down pat.  Court TV's first scripted series is an anthology of ironic half-hours purportedly based on real-life stories of wedded ends. (The show premiered Monday with back-to-back installments that will repeat at 11 tonight.) ... No, it's an ever-shifting blend of duplicity, wit and, at times, even PG-13 slasher gore. The stories are plainly written and somewhat cheaply filmed." Hughes, Mike (2008-07-02). "John Waters still believes in ' 'Til Death Do Us Part' " . USA Today . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "The first season had 13 fun episodes, but they may have used the best of the spousicide tales, Waters says. "It's hard to find something that is intriguing and has plot twists. " Besides, the original show was on Court TV. Now that channel calls itself Tru TV and avoids anything that requires actors. So the original series now is a being treated as a one-time event.  The 13 episodes have been packaged into a three-disc list, including outtakes of the elegantly macabre John Waters at work." Boedeker, Hal (2007-03-19). "Much 'I Do' About Quirky John Waters - As the Groom Reaper, the Film Director Brings the Right Touch to ' 'Til Death Do Us Part.' " . Orlando Sentinel . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "The Groom Reaper opens and closes `Til Death Do Us Part, an anthology series that debuts with back-to-back episodes. First up is "The Airplane Murder," explaining how one spouse has trouble disposing of the other's body. That episode screens in the show's regular 10 p.m. Monday slot. Then "Funeral Parlor Murder" premieres at 10:30 p.m. Law & Order takes a serious approach in telling stories ripped from the headlines. 'Til Death Do Us Part travels a darkly comic route." Brooks, Caryn (2007-04-06). " ' ' Til Death' not guilty enough pleasure" . Times Union . Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "The absence of his usual in-depth participation clearly shows.The program doesn't quite hit the marks one anticipates from the Waters brand. When he pops up at the wedding scene that starts each show with his arch double entendres and mischievous gleam, the anticipation mounts and the danse macabre begins. But the show that follows offers rushed scenarios, flat characters and obvious twists - all hampered by its half-hour format." Cohen, Aryeh Dean (2007-09-12). "Enjoying the murderous waters" . The Jerusalem Post . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "Waters, with his trademark pencil-thin moustache and by now gaunt face, is the perfect host for the ghoulish goings-on, which begin with our host attending a wedding. ... That's just the opening of this tongue-in-cheek production that has one of the more brilliant commercial break graphics: A lovely rose fading quickly, then covered in blood, with the graphic: "I Love You to Death," while The Wedding March plays briskly in the background, then is suddenly silenced." Hedgpeth, Steve (2007-03-18). "Awfully wedded life" . The Star-Ledger . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: ""'Til Death Do Us Part" presents stories inspired by true cases of marriages gone bad - very bad - with each episode bookended by introductions and sign-offs by Waters in the guise of the Groom Reaper, a spectral figure on hand to kiss the bride. Unfortunately, it's a kiss of death. " Garvin, Glenn (2007-03-18). "To tell the truth, murder can be quite entertaining" . Miami Herald . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The review notes: "'Til Death Do Us Part, which debuts on Court TV at 10 p.m. Monday, is the perfect vehicle for his macabre glee. An anthology series with fictionalized scripts based on real cases, every episode starts with a wedding, then skips forward to the exact moment the marriage irretrievably breaks toward homicide. The fun comes in guessing who's going to murder whom: the greedy, lecherous old doctor or his gold-digging trophy wife? The creepy undertaker or his cheating spouse?" Ostrow, Joanne (2007-03-16). "Television - Killer couples in "'Til Death Do Us Part" " . The Denver Post . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "This "'Til Death Do Us Part," not to be confused with the short-lived Carmen Electra reality series of 2004, checks in with a different set of newlyweds each episode. Happy couples may be all the same, but unhappy to the point of murderous couples are unhappy/murderous in their own ways. That's what makes an anthology. " Schoolcraft, Sarah (2007-03-19). "On 'Til Death Do Us Part' it's all about the groom" . The Daily News . Zap2it . Archived from the original on 2023-10-22 . Retrieved 2023-10-22 . The article notes: "The network's first-ever original scripted series, premiering 10 tonight on cable channel 41 in Batavia, features an inspired performance by Waters as The Groom Reaper, a wry harbinger of incidences of marital bliss doomed to unholy homicide. In each of the series' 13 episodes, Waters' Reaper weaves these twisted, true-life tales from wedding to morgue, giving his two cents -- and then some -- to the camera. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ' Til Death Do Us Part to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in addition to the references listed above, there's also one in the Hollywood Reporter ]. Though I'd support renaming it to 'Til Death Do Us Part (Canadian TV series) . Time and time again, I see User:Donaldd23 nominating Canadian TV shows for deletion - which invariably fail. And when they don't fail, Redirect is a better outcom. Perhaps they should be avoiding this topic area. I don't see that redirecting a Canadian TV show to a foreign network is appropriate. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : With the extensive sourcing given in the above !vote, notability is established. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Oaktree. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
A Change of Heart (TV series): And the story introduction part in the article is too cumbersome and has insufficient references. HE YUNONG ( talk ) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . HE YUNONG ( talk ) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Zheng, Weizhi 郑惟之 (2013-06-05). Louisa (ed.). "TVB《好心作怪》万绮雯耍心机赢好评" [TVB's "A Change of Heart" Joey Meng's scheming wins praise]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . Wang, Jianfan 王击凡 (2013-06-06). "《好心作怪》收视不俗 中生中旦也养眼" ["A Change of Heart'" received good ratings, Zhongsheng Zhongdan was also eye-catching]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . Shan, Shui 山水 (2013-06-17). "《好心作怪》当坏人换上好人心" ["A Change of Heart" When the bad guy gets a good heart]. Information Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . "《好心作怪》收视达三十 主演比基尼外穿" ["A Change of Heart" hits 30 ratings, the lead actor wears a bikini]. New Express [ zh ] (in Chinese). 2013-07-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . Xu, Shaona 徐绍娜 (2013-05-27). "苗侨伟《好心作怪》接档《金枝2》挽收视" [Michael Miu's "A Change of Heart" takes over from "Beauty at War" to gain ratings]. New Express [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . Zheng, Weizhi 郑惟之 (2013-07-16). "《好心作怪》狗血收场 观众吐槽是穿越剧" ["A Change of Heart" ended in blood, and the audience complained that it was a time-travel drama]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Sina Corporation . "《好心作怪》热播 贾晓晨遭遇婚姻危机" [JJ Jia's marriage crisis in "A Change of Heart"] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . 2013-07-11. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07 . Retrieved 2023-04-07 . There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Change of Heart ( Chinese : 好心作怪 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NEXIST ; article could be improved with the above sources and clearly meets WP:GNG . The article is in a bad state but requires improvement not deletion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the multiple reliable source coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Silverlight (disambiguation): LOOKSQUARE ( 👤️ · 🗨️ ) talk 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : hatnote from Microsoft to Terry is all that is needed. Pam D 08:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep with the addition of "Silver Light" entries. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Clarityfriend's addition of two related articles supported by convention of style . I think it remains a useful enough DAB page that it is not necessary to delete it, given the term does have various unrelated uses. I may suggest that Silver light (disambiguation) could be created as a redirect also, given the above additions are not a single word. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and add Silver light (disambiguation) as a redir, per Bungle . Owen× ☎ 15:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as improved. BD2412 T 19:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Drag panic: JustAPoliticsNerd ( talk ) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nom. Félix An ( talk ) 02:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Conspiracy theories , Fashion , Popular culture , Sexuality and gender , and Social science . Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article describes a well-documented phenomenon involving opposition to drag. The nomination disputes the article title and characterization of the phenomenon, which is a valid discussion but not a reason to delete the entire page. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do agree that the general theme of writing about "opposition to drag" or something along those lines could be done neutrally, though this would take such substantial rewriting that it may be better to start from scratch, or incorporate elements of this page into a "criticism" or similarly titled section on the article about drag. JustAPoliticsNerd ( talk ) 03:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not taking a position on whether the characterization should be changed. If it were to be changed, only the first sentence would need substantial rewriting; the rest of the article mostly describes protests and events. The word "panic" only appears 7 times in the article (besides the title) and only once outside the lead. If there is a consensus that the terms are non-neutral (the consensus doesn't exist now), what is wrong with renaming the article to, for example, "Protests against drag" and removing the terms in the first sentence? Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the outcome of this AfD is Keep, I strongly agree with the Helpful Racoon's proposal, and I think a move discussion should be started to move the page to a more neutral name. However, I will still maintain my Delete ! vote. Félix An ( talk ) 05:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Off-topic, but after a bit of thought I believe "Anti-drag movement" might be an appropriate title if "Drag panic" is found to be non-neutral. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as by above: subject is clearly notable, and arguments about article quality, POV, or title are irrelevant. Also, consensus for the article name already exists on the talk page: Talk:Drag_panic#Move_to_"Criticism_of_drag" . Complaints about that should follow the requested moves process, not the AFD process, and should be done there. See the statement of Daniel Rigal in the linked discussion. Further discussion of this should be done at the talk page. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the name stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS ). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this way is sufficient evidence that it's reasonable to characterize it that way. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 08:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Lewisguile ( talk ) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes notability, and WP:IDONTLIKEITis not a valid reason to delete, nor is WP:FALSEBALANCE , by claiming no on has proved it is not a threat, it is down to those who claim there is a threat to prove there is one. Slatersteven ( talk ) 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep obviously notable topic. Skyshifter talk 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . Even if the claims in the nomination were correct, which they are not, bias is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable. The hits in Google News and Scholar linked above are sufficient to demonstrate notability even before adding in synonyms. If there was a bias problem then that would be one to be fixed in editing, not in deletion. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 09:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep this is clearly a Notable topic, and has good enough sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article is pretty notable and it points out the opposition of drag, hence the name "drag panic" which is a moral panic . Obviously, the article is a bit opposed rather than neutral, but it doesn't mean the article should be up for deletion, it's just need a cleanup from various WikiProjects that are involved in it. Please know the editor is still new to this, remember it's a privilege to edit on Wikipedia. Now, for the name of article, @ Félix An requested to rename the article to "criticism of drag" in which I disagreed, because no one else calls it that. Although, other editors from that discussion pointed out it's "overly broad" or "would be a completely different topic" since the article is about the opposition of drag. With the name not being suitable for the article, I do agree with @ Helpful Raccoon 's proposal to rename it "anti-drag movement". If the outcome is keep, it just need a cleanup and a name change so it doesn't be opposed and stays neutral. — JuanGLP ( talk / contribs ) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep: OP hasn't outlined convincing argument for deletion. Any problems outlined can be resolved with edits, if they exist. Topic clearly notable from looking at Google Scholar and media usage alone. Lewisguile ( talk ) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will note that sometimes an article is so Broken that deletion is the only way to fix it (or to put it another way, there is nothing worth saving), but this is not one such article. Slatersteven ( talk ) 13:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . This is really disruptive and clearly "I don't like it." An old article may need improvement, but this one clearly passes GNG. -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Topic seems to be notable judging by media citations, and even ongoing laws. Maybe there exist some responses/pro-advocacy to add some or more WP:UNDUE. Although it is part of a deeper ongoing moral panic, perhaps, it can be retitled to "Criticism of Drag", "Drag hysteria", "Anti-drag movements" or "Drag and social responses". Regards, -- Apoxyomenus ( talk ) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This deletion attempt seems disruptive and driven by personal preference rather than objective criteria. I believe the article's content is factually sound. Even if minor revisions are needed, deletion is not the answer. Waqar 💬 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are more than enough reliable sources to make this notable. --- Cat12zu3 ( talk ) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also if there's such WP:REQUESTMOVE to a bland tone Anti-drag movements I would concur it too. --- Cat12zu3 ( talk ) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the topic is clearly notable, not only for the number and quality of the sources, but also the fact that they document a phenomenon that is widespread enough that there are sources from many countries around the world. Mathglot ( talk ) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] this is heading for a snow close. Slatersteven ( talk ) 08:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Masaili: Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete - Mass-created article by Dr. Blofeld. The location given in the article is an empty field . Only two sources are provided in the article - a link to a UN map of village development committees in the Sarlahi district, and a link to the Nepalese census website. The UN website is a 404 link. The Nepalese census website lists a location called Masaili as a Village Development Committee in Sarlahi district. Clicking through the various boxes gives you a text-file output such as this: Nepal Census Data 2001: Population 1991 vdc_id 3486 vdc_name Masaili district_name Sarlahi total_house 528 total_pop 3072 This fails WP:GEOLAND as sourcing for the following reasons - 1) WP:NGEO explicitly excludes tables (and maps) from supporting the notability of geographical entities. 2) Including this content, the only content that can be reliably supported here, violates WP:NOTDATABASE . 3) Writing an article based on this article content would result in a geographical dictionary entry, which would violate WP:DICT . 4) There is no evidence that a "village development committee" is a populated place having legal recognition. It appears to be a low-level census-taking area which is excluded from WP:GEOLAND . Nothing further was found in my WP:BEFORE , so Delete it is. FOARP ( talk ) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Flip to Keep based on Aymatth2 's Nepalese news sources. Whilst I maintain that pure statistical sources are not sufficient to show notability under NGEO, this does appear to be an actual village that is legally recognised rather than just a statistical-counting unit. The article should be edited so as to recite a village as well as a (former) VDC. FOARP ( talk ) 13:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A Village development committee (Nepal) was similar to a municipality but with greater public-government interaction and administration. Each VDC was divided into wards . In 2017 the VDCs were reorganized into rural municipalities . Some merging and splitting was done in the process. Masaili VDC was reduced in size and downgraded to a village. Nominator, who was blocked on April 29 , must understand this. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A verifiable populated place with over 4000 people verifiable in book sources like this . This was a former VDC, an official subdivision of a country, not some tiny hamlet in the middle of nowhere. It has its own mosques and schools. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . This a frivolous nomination. Per WP:NPLACE , Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. A search on मुसैली shows plenty of results, as one would expect of a place of this size. Even the village pond has been in the news: [3] , [4] , [5] . Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep appears in 2011 census with population of 5,190 [6] (p.28). As above, passes WP:GEOLAND . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND . Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Clivina jodasi: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES . Discussions are underway to put this criterion on a firmer footing, but as for now, all properly configured stubs on validly described species are kept. (Just out of curiosity, what do you consider an "independent" source for a species...?) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , taxonomy articles and their notability sure are an interesting topic. But when you think about it, it can be pretty clear: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://eurekamag.com/research/023/531/023531466.php I have no idea either, it's not like a species is owned by anyone original description of species I won't pay 30 dollars for that one, but these tend to be multiple pages ✔ Yes https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/5ZB4D assumably reliable dataset the whole page is about the species ✔ Yes https://www.gbif.org/species/8426863 per above per above ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . But you're correct on the fact that adding detailed descriptions about beetles can be hard, if the access to the original publication isn't bought. But it does exist. NotAGenious ( talk ) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article subject does not "require" additional text to become (more) notable. A description paragraph will be added whenever a future editor decides that they wish to do so. Current sources as provided are independent and subject is covered in multiple venues. Loopy30 ( talk ) 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NSPECIES . Jfire ( talk ) 04:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The first half of the nomination amounts to saying that the article is too short and so it shouldn't exist at all, and the second half is belied by the table above. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Johan Santos: Fails WP:NACTOR . UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Philippines . UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He won Best Actor in the Star Awards, the Philippines' major award-giving body for television which is the equivalent of the US' Emmy Awards. That alone should merit a keep for Filipino actors. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 13:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep per Tito Pao's argument. I stumbled upon some news about part of his personal life and his near-death experience . SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Tyler Laubscher: JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and New Zealand . JTtheOG ( talk ) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's this and this along with lots of other coverage in national and Manawatu local media. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT . Paora ( talk ) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sufficient for WP:SPORTCRIT alongside significant coverage in Stuff (website) . Coop ( talk ) 09:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Lynn Minmay: Recently prodded per WP:NPLOT and WP:NCHARACTER ; taking it to AFD to see whether the rest of the participants agree with my decision to get it merged into/ redirected to List of Macross characters or List of Robotech characters . On a related note, stay tuned as I pitch a potential decade-old (and Waybacked) source that the page on the 1986 tie-in movie --a.k.a. Megazone 23 's first go at U.S. licensing--could sure benefit from. Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Music , and Anime and manga . Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 17:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note The character first name is alternatively spelled Lin, and last name Minmei, and I can see additional sources (that I have not evaluated for appropriateness) under those variants. She is the antagonist of the first arc (a la Jenny from Forrest Gump) and a pretty major character. If not retained, this should be merged to List of Robotech characters which uses alternative spellings for the name and does not link here. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have certainly never been a fan of Minmay, but describing her as "the antagonist" of Macross seems a bit harsh! In any case, I would say that List of Macross characters be the more appropriate Merge target, as that was the original version of the character, and this page is focused a lot more on the Macross version of the character, including her roles/influence in later Macross series. Though, that page would obviously have an appropriate redirect to List of Robotech characters to direct people to those versions of the characters as well. I took a quick look at the Japanese Wikipedia's article on the character, but it seems like most of the references being used there are primary, largely being official Macross publications/products. Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Minmei hate aside (which is purely tongue-in-cheek on my part), this is one good reason to maybe maintain an independent article: We have the same animated figure, with similar name, associated with two stories, both Macross and Robotech. How do we best represent that: at the character level o/r show level? No comment on primary sourcing--I haven't really done a search yet. Jclemens ( talk ) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . This is a classic and I'd think reasonably famous anime character. While I have not done an in-depth source query, Google Scholar returns 48 hits for the primary spelling. That said, the article is bad and I'll see if I can start a reception section or such. Ping User:Daranios (as I am a bit busy right now). Anyway, I am pretty sure this meets WP:GNG (if not in the current fancrufty form). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The current version of the article strangely elides what seems to be Minmay's main attribute of real-world notability: she was, as this Kotaku article explains , the first fictional singer to garner major real world success , before characters more familiar in the present like Hatsune Miku. The 1984 release of the song "Do You Remember Love?" (the Macross theme song) featured the character Minmay as vocalist, and the release reached #7 on the Oricon music charts. This is covered in the linked Kotaku article. Additional attentive coverage of the character appears in chapter six of the anthology Media Convergence in Japan , edited by Patrick W. Galbraith and Jason G. Karlin and (published under a Creative Commons license by the academic collective Kinema Club ). From a cursory look, a good deal of the GoogleScholar hits are similarly about Minmay's history as the first 'virtual/fictional idol'. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per Hydrangeans - I somewhat suspected that, even if sources regarding the notability of the in-universe character might be weak, there would be some regarding the real-life popularity and influence of the music attributed to her. I am not entirely happy with the English sources as none of them are super long - there's quite a number of reliable sources that all talk about her notability as one of the earliest examples of a "virtual idol" that gained popularity in the real world, but don't say much more than that. But the sources available, combined with the issues regarding the best way to cover the character in other articles as mentioned by Jclemens above, make me lean towards keeping. I would guess there might be some good Japanese-language sources regarding the topic of the real-world notability of Minmay as well, but unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the Japanese Wikipedia article is currently all made up of in-universe information attributed largely to primary sources, so no luck using that as a resource for more non-English sourcing. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Hydrangeans. The sources are borderline in terms of the coverage we need. I'm inferring that the amount of coverage in English implies that there's even more coverage in Japanese, even if the Japanese Wikipedia article is poorly sourced. I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV exists. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Teteringen Girl: One brief mention here [1] . Missing persons case gone cold it seems. Sourcing found in Interpol, then straight to the various websites and podcasts that deal with such things. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Women , and Netherlands . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there! This article is available in the Dutch wiki , and is not an article for deletion there - that's one of the reasons I created an English one, in addition to her being one of the 22 women listed in Identify Me (which does have its own page.) Is there anything I would need to do to make this page not recommended for deletion? If not, that's okay - but I did want to say my piece about why I made the article and why I thought it was notable enough. Thanks! Cincosechzehn ( talk ) 12:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have Dutch language sources that mention it at length? Newspapers, magazines, books? Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] News article: https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/3410804/meisje-van-teteringen-na-30-jaar-opnieuw-aandacht-voor-onopgeloste-moord Book published in Dutch: https://www.bibliotheek.nl/catalogus/titel.430036604.html/het-meisje-van-teteringen-en-andere-naamloos-begraven-personen/ Newspaper article in Dutch: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view? coll=ddd&identifier=KBPERS01:003091021:mpeg21:a00033 Let me know if you need more. Thanks for the follow up! Cincosechzehn ( talk ) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I used Google translate to understand the articles, but the first source listed above is a 2021 report of an announcement by the mayor of Breda about the installation of a sign with a QR code for the public to use to learn more about the unsolved crime, with quotes from the former journalist Theo Jongedijk about his doubts related to the adequacy of the previous investigation (also noting he wrote a book the previous year and has advocated to the mayor to request further investigation from the Public Prosecution Service) and quotes from the mayor. The second link is a listing for the book by Jongedijk. The third link is a brief 1990 news article with a headline that translates to "Walkers find murdered woman." I am considering these sources in the context of policy such as WP:NOTADVOCACY as well as the WP:NCRIME , WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E guidelines, without access to the book or secondary coverage about the book, but my sense is regardless of how in-depth the book may be, the other sources are brief coverage, not the multiple sources needed to help support a standalone article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Beccaynr ! This nomination is an obvious BEFORE failure. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, redirecting, or merger. See three LISTS of sources below. gidonb ( talk ) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi gidonb, lists of WP:GHITS are generally not considered strong support for notability, and my spotcheck of lists you added indicates top Google results are corpse photos, and at least some results are not about the case, e.g. [2] , [3] , or are brief announcements, e.g. [4] , including about the journalist who wrote the book [5] , [6] , [7] . But I have reviewed specific sources produced in this discussion, and I would be happy to review further sources that could help develop this article, and/or an article about the journalist's book. From my view, determining whether and when a topic should have a standalone article involves more than than WP:GNG , and includes consideration of WP:NOT policy, as discussed in the notability guideline. The WP:NCRIME section of the event guideline indicates sources should show an WP:EFFECT , e.g. a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance ; and per WP:GEOSCOPE , not just national or international coverage but also a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group . As to the WP:INDEPTH section, there is a book written by a former journalist, but so far, multiple in-depth sources do not appear to have been identified in this discussion. So WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy seem to apply to what mostly appears to be a collection of brief news reports, churnalism, and government sources, without much context beyond Operation Identify Me , which is why a redirect and adding the best sources to that article seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Becca, actually only the first of the three source lists that I provided was from Google News and it includes independent sources. The other two are from the Algemeen Dagblad , NL's second largest daily newspaper in readership, and Reformatisch Dagblad, one of the smallest national newspapers in readership. Since I used the Dutch term for the victim, these lists will include for the most part independent Dutch sources. Similar searches can be conducted for different lnaguages. More impact is in the Netherlands but the interest is international and raised and tied into debates on "honor killings" (a terrible concept but this is where our article is) within Muslim and North African societies in Europe. Finally, I will cast the insinuation that I engaged in Google Tests far from me. gidonb ( talk ) 03:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, I did not find the three lists helpful for finding sources to support a standalone article according to relevant policies and guidelines; I spotchecked all three lists without finding what I think would be further support, and I think it would be helpful to identify specific sources here that could help support a standalone article. I am open to changing my ! vote, have tried to find sources, and I am willing to continue to review specific sources if they are identified here. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A notable murder case in the Netherlands. Moondragon21 ( talk ) 13:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Operation Identify Me - available sources do not appear to support WP:GNG or WP:NCRIME notability guidelines at this time, and available coverage tends to report on her in the context of Operation Identify Me, e.g. the government sources in the article, Corriere del Ticino [8] , and a solid paragraph of coverage in this Dutch source cited several times in the article. At the Operation Identify Me article, this 2023 source is cited, mentioning Operation Identify Me with a limited summary of the operation's activities; this appears to be a questionable source based on its about page . The limited coverage, both in the number of independent and reliable sources, as well as the depth of information available about this subject, seem to support directing readers to the larger police operation article, where the best sources can be added to her entry. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Given the huge amount of sources, list 1 list 2 list 3 delete is not an option. Redirect and merge (I am big on these!) are irrelevant as this is a proper spinoff. Remains keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME . gidonb ( talk ) 12:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable case and coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources found about the murder case. It's a notable crime. Noneate ( talk ) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Keep this article, other editors are advocating a Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Easily Keep : meets WP:GNG . 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified above, which seem ample to meet the GNG. I do not read WP:NEVENTS as restricting the scope of notability even further beyond the GNG; rather, it provides some rough rules of thumb to guide in evaluation. In particular, contrary to some arguments above, it must be noted that a conditional statement such as Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable does not imply the inverse . -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:13, 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.
keep
DJ Patife: Only sources found are sources that are non-independent and interviews in Portuguese. Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil . Tails Wx 02:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:BASIC SIGCOV in an Australian newspaper [26] SIGCOV in UK paper [27] SIGCOV in a Time Out guide [28] SIGCOV in a Scottish paper [29] Couple reviews on allmusic that provide some coverage of the subject [30] [31] There seems to be a lot of snippets of coverage in Muzik and other dead tree sources of that era. Probably also meets WP:MUSICBIO#7 for Drum and bass per some of the above sources as well as NYT [32] . — siro χ o 04:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified by Siroxo. 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Meowth's Party: UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There's this dedicated IGN source is currently in the article but im not finding much else yet. This Nintendo World Report source was cited in the first AFD but that it doesn't say that much and kind of feels more like a collection of notes on "what will Pokemon look like on Gamecube" than significant coverage on the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge. The song (which appears to be the real topic of the article) charted nationally on Oricon for 13 weeks , which suggests this passes WP:NSINGLE . A WP:BEFORE performed in Japanese should always consider Oricon when applicable. As usual, most media coverage about Japanese music for the 1990s has always been offline. However, I think information on the song could be merged directly to Meowth if necessary. Dekimasu よ! 01:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per SIGCOV in here , here / here , and here . This mention in EGM seals the deal for me that it's notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. It meets WP:GNG and NSINGLE, so that pretty much seals the deal for me. – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 03:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just realized I copied the phrase seals the deal for me from zx. That's awkward. – MJL ‐ Talk ‐ ☖ 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep or merge the aforementioned IGN article is really good. Other than that, what ZX provided is pretty much partial coverage or routine mentions. Otherwise this could be merged to Meowth . Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I generally consider IGN a reasonably reliable source, and they wrote about this song twice. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep https://www.ign.com/articles/2000/08/24/meowths-party-impressions-and-shots https://screenrant.com/pokemon-canceled-games-fans-unknown-unaware/#meowth-s-party https://gaming.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/cancelled-canon-10-cancelled-pokmon-games/86669972/ D r e a m Focus 18:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Third source is unreliable: [4] . Though it's still likely to be kept. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:47, 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.
keep
Paulo Carvalho (rower): Searches in gnews only yields namesakes. LibStar ( talk ) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Uruguay . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Just a note that there was a recent AfD for a rower that turned up SIGCOV in Spanish language, for a rower. Perhaps User:TheCatalyst31 can check. — siro χ o 01:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, I don't have access to any older Spanish-language sources, and internet-based news sites aren't likely to have much on an athlete from the mid-twentieth century. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 01:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries! Appreciate your work on the other AfD. — siro χ o 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , he medaled in two competitions at the 1959 Pan American Games (bronze in single-scull, silver in double). While NSPORTS has no rowing-specific criteria, several other sport criteria provide either specifically for Pan-American medalists or generally for medalists in "elite international" competitions. In view of that, it seems reasonable to grant a Pan-Am medalist in rowing a presumption of notability. The antiquity of these competitions is likely making it artificially difficult to find sources. But given that his name comes up quite a bit in US coverage of the games, I have a hard time imagining that SIGCOV doesn't exist in Uruguayan sources. -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Visviva made a compelling case for keep. It would be great if someone could add this information to the article. gidonb ( talk ) 00:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and possibly add Visviva's findings to the article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Sitara (actress): I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:NACTOR . The subject appeared in the lead cast of several notable films like Direct Hawaldar (1985 Nigar Award winner film), Dulari (won 6 Nigar Awards including the best Punjabi film for the year 1987 [12] ), Silsila (1987), Janbaaz (a successful 1987 film [13] ), and others. Given a career in the pre-internet era, it is reasonable to assume that satisfactory offline coverage likely exists for them. Insight 3 ( talk ) 04:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Insight 3. Satisfies #1 of WP:NACTOR . I agree – we can find offline in-depth coverage about her whenever archives (especially from newspaper like Dawn ) become online. BookishReader ( talk ) 17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I've checkuser-blocked the nominator for socking. -- Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Danny Beales: I suspect this article was created with the expectation that he would become an MP. PatGallacher ( talk ) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Poor reason for deletion - seems to have WP:SIGCOV and looks like it passes WP:GNG , which is surely better than the "he's not very important" argument Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 06:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An WP:ATD could be a redirect to 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election . Curbon7 ( talk ) 09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep simply because the article started as a re-direct to a different by-election, and there is now another appropriate redirect target. If you have multiple redirect targets, the default is to keep the article to mention both. Obviously if Beales had had 500 more votes, this would be a snow keep, but it isn't. See David Kaff as another example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article started not as a re-direct to a different by-election. It was a redirect to 2022 Camden London Borough Council election#Camden Square where Beales was elected as councillor. The same style redirect was added for Tuckwell just before. The article was not created with the expectation that he ‘would’ become an MP, Tuckwell had been created just before. JamesVilla44 ( talk ) 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have had a look at the page history, and it was expanded from a redirect when he became the candidate in the Uxbridge by-election. PatGallacher ( talk ) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:BLP1E , known only for the bielection that he didn't win (the amount of coverage of his council work is minimal). Whilst [1] has significant coverage of him, most of the other sources do not, meaning that this article doesn't look to pass WP:GNG . Most of the coverage is of the bielection with mentions about him, which isn't significant coverage about him. Redirecting is inappropriate since there are multiple targets. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Poor reason for deletion. There are many candidates whose election losses did not trigger deletion of their articles, e.g. the article on the previous Labour candidate for Uxbridge & South Ruislip Ali Milani still exists despite the fact that he also lost the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.64.82 ( talk ) 19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not the best rebuttal - Milani has had sources write about him for a couple of things, whereas Danny's is all about him running for a political position. Skip that in Milani's and his notability is iffy. Skip that for Danny's and there's nothing left. Nosebagbear ( talk ) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now Given we are less than 18 months away from the next United Kingdom general election and he is pretty likely to be elected then, it feels wasteful not to keep the work that has been done now until and unless he fails to get elected next year.  — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk ) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SPECULATION isn't a reason to keep this. If he does win in 18 months, this could always be undeleted then. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 20:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if the article is made primarily about him as a councillor . He is notable as a high-profile councillor with significant coverage of him in that role. I oppose the logic above that he should have an article as a candidate in Uxbridge which seems to be speculation. So if the article is kept about him as a councillor, which I can help with, then keep it. Fosse1884 ( talk ) 12:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Rehan Zaib Khan: There is no justification to create a separate article for this candidate. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk ) 16:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - notable and has sufficient media coverage Abo Yemen ✉ 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not an expert in Pakistani politics, but I would suggest that we either keep this article or have one on the assassination itself (which this could be moved to). Alternatively, we could have an article for the 2024 election to the NA-8 Bajaur seat. We should have at least one of these, and this article is currently the only one that exists, so it should not be deleted until a viable merge target exists. Elli ( talk | contribs ) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Rewrite article to be about his assassination : The assassination of a political candidate during an election campaign smells pretty darn notable to me, and the variety of sources on the topic probably agree with this. However, it's fair to conclude that he's rather non-notable besides 'getting assassinated', so it could be worth rewriting the article to focus on that rather notable topic instead ( Assassination of Rehan Zaib Khan or something). 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep assassination of politcal candidates anywhere in the world will be a notable event in and of itself. Discussion of appropriate name for the article can continue on the talk page. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 06:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep should likely be rescoped to focus on the assassination and nota full biography but this is a fine starting point and deletion is not required. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Safdar Tawakoli: Fails WP:NSINGER . UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Afghanistan . UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. I enjoyed listening to his music, though. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 01:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep seems extremely likely to meet GNG and possibly WP:MUSICBIO .7 English sources are somewhat spare. Here's a passing reference in english [2] . Here's a possible source [3] . There's a lot of hits in other languages: [4] [5] — siro χ o 05:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sources like https://www.bbc.com/persian/afghanistan/story/2006/07/060731_ag-studio7-tavakoli and http://afghannews.af/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%82%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF seem to indicate some notability. - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and Indefensible above as meeting both NBASIC and MUSICBIO. It would be a bit surprising IMO if an Afghan singer with organic coverage on the FA, PNB and UR Wikipedias could not pass NBASIC. It would be even more surprising if a singer recognized by the government as the "sultan of dambura" and who was the subject of a two-day music festival at which his statue was unveiled did not meet MUSICBIO point 7 as a one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style . (At least, I don't think there's any question that Hazara folk music is a notable topic, even if we don't currently do a good job of covering it.) In any event the BBC festival link I posted and the AfghanNews link Indefensible posted above would seem to meet the NBASIC requirement of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . And given that I don't think either of us have much skill in searching in the local languages, I would venture that there are likely to be considerably more sources out there. -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Simple 8: I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added one reference, but cannot find any more to add, so do not think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG . Tacyarg ( talk ) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and United Kingdom . Tacyarg ( talk ) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Their website says: "We have produced seven productions to date". So, a short-lived company, producing short runs of plays in a small theatre, with no notable people involved. Not notable, per WP:MILL . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 01:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning to Keep . Article does need work. However - whether the company currently exists is not relevant to notability. What is relevant is that the The article now features a further 8 independent reviews from WP:RS covering 8 years of theatre productions from 2008 (including The Guardian , The Times , The Daily Telegraph ). Should meet WP:GNG , and WP:CREATIVE too if we take this as a grouping of artists. I welcome guidance on whether WP:NCORP applies to what is (evidently) a small theatre company - but there is multiple sigcov analysis of their output. Pinging @ Tacyarg and @ Ssilvers for reassessment. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've re-written my objections above, which still stand, as this theatre company is like thousands of others that have come and gone in small theatres all over the world. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have refactored and struck out text from my ! vote in response to Ssilvers edits to their original comment which created a disjoint in the discussion narrative. Further clarification would be welcome on the relevant Wikipedia policy which states thousands of small theatre companies are worthy of deletion - in contrast to known policies such as WP:GNG which require multiple independent reliable sigcov references. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I noted above, WP:MILL . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MILL is an essay, it has no status as a policy or guidance; and I disagree with your characterization. This theatre group is a verified recipient of notable awards, and been the subject of sustained coverage from reliable independent sources (at national&regional levels thus meeting WP:AUD ) over a 12 year period. They also must be doing something right and notable for independent reviewers to state phrases such as " the always impressive ensemble simple8 " [3] . The article now references 13 reviews of the groups productions - IMV meets multiple WP:SIRS . Resonant Dis tor tion 07:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Moved original article "Simple 8" to "Simple8" as there should be no space in the name. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in light of significant expansion and sourcing by ResonantDistortion per WP:HEY , as when the article was first nominated, it was essentially an unsourced stub with exactly one footnote. Notability is established per WP:CREATIVE , with multiple reviews in national newspapers for its body of work over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. Searches in Wikipedia Library and ProQuest turn up enough results that it seems very likely that adding all the content that belongs in the article (also from theatre industry publications) will take a lot more time (i.e., it's still a work in progress). Simple8 even has a significant differentiator from other small theatre companies, in that it had a stated commitment to sustainability from early on, as borne out by its productions (set design, power consumption in lighting, etc.). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw (as nominator), per WP:HEYMANing of article. Thanks, and apologies for not finding these sources myself when I Befored. Tacyarg ( talk ) 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Covenant House Toronto: Should be removed (W:NCORPT) Linkusyr ( talk ) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada . AllyD ( talk ) 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are already a few independent sources used as references. A ProQuest search yields numerous potential sources (including many from its founding in 1982 to the end of 1999), and various newspapers have numerous articles specifically about it; for example, at the Toronto Star , there are: A bright and bulletproof home for former sex slaves: Porter The Big Debate: Did Covenant House’s anti-trafficking campaign miss the mark? Sex trafficking victims to get special Toronto housing Sleeping rough for Covenant House: Jeanne Beker ‘There’s no plan at this point’: Toronto youth shelter raises alarm about feared April closure Burlington kids organize sleep out to raise money for Covenant House Covenant House launches campaign to spot signs of sex trafficking Suzanne Rogers has sleepless night during “sleep out” for Covenant House Suzanne Rogers to ‘sleep out’ for Covenant House kids There are probably many others. I have also found a few potential book and scholarly sources from a cursory web search. Mind matrix 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've struck a few of the above potential refs, as I cannot access the full articles and cannot determine if these are for the Toronto location or the parent organization, but they may still be useful refs. Mind matrix 17:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Multiple Toronto Star and CBC articles establish notability per NCORP. Owen× ☎ 19:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per the numerous sources found, it's ok. It's one of the most recognized social organizations in Toronto. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Easily passes WP:NCORP . Macbeejack ( talk ) 08:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above. -- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Meredith Perry: Subject has mentions in secondary sources but they are often just part of a list like Forbes 30 Under 30 or ELLE Magazine’s Genius Award. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople . Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is about the best RS I could find about her, [11] , basically an extended photo caption under a large photo. Forbes looks promising, but it's an interview... Just not enough sourcing to keep the article at this time. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, and that she lacks notability beyond the company SonicEnergy . There was a merge discussion for merging her to the company here , and although the discussion itself was inconclusive, David Gerald had already merged some of the material, so redirect to SonicEnergy is another alternative. Liu1126 ( talk ) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are 12 articles she is featured in or the primary subject: 1. USA Today , "The inventor who may kill the power cord": [12] 2. Fortune , "She's an inventor. She's 25. And she wants to make true wireless charging a reality." [13] 3. Fortune , "Is this woman the next elon musk?" [14] 4. NPR , "Young entrepreneur has a better idea, now what?" [15] 5. CNN , 15 Questions with Meredith Perry: [16] 6. Business Insider , "Open letter to Meredith Perry and uBeam": [17] 7. USA Today , "uBeam's Meredith Perry shows her stealth wireless charging technology really works": [18] 8. Fortune , "CEO Meredith Perry explain what uBeam really is": [19] 9. The New York Times , "Wireless Charging, at a distance, moves forward for uBeam": [20] 10. J. Craig Venter Institute , [21] 11. Philadelphia Magazine , "25 Year Old Penn Grad called "Next Elon Musk", [22] 12. The New York Times , "An inventor wants one less wire to worry about." [23] WikiEditor020575 ( talk ) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This should not be deleted per reply above citing 12 articles outside of "mentions in secondary sources and part of lists" WikiEditor020575 ( talk ) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also agree this should not be deleted per @ WikiEditor020575above . The subject meets notability requirements of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPROF. KnowledgeQueen89 ( talk ) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do Not Delete KnowledgeQueen89 ( talk ) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've reviewed the sources provided and I'm not seeing anything that would establish notability as per WP:ANYBIO . Also @ KnowledgeQueen89 , and @ WikiEditor020575 since you both appear to be new to AfD here's a little guide to help you understand the process WP:AFDFORMAT . Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? USA Today Reliable source Appears to be from an established journalist ~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention ~ Partial Fortune Magazine ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Unknown Fortune Magazine ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Behind a paywall and was not able to get access ? Unknown NPR Public Media Opinion Article Article covers the subject and their device ✘ No CNN Yes as per WP:RSPSS ~ There is not an author of this article and it's just a list of 15 questions ~ It's 15 questions and no indepth reporting ~ Partial Business Insider It appears that this article is independent ~ As per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. Also the article is more of a short form letter or pseudo correction ~ Article is about the subject but also about how the editor at BI underestimated them ~ Partial USA Today Reliable source Appears to be from an established journalist ~ Article covers some of a fraud allegations and is just a revisiting of the previous USA Today article ~ Partial Fortune Magazine ? Unable to determine if this source is independent or if they included this topic because they had just published an article on the subject ~ Interview doesn't appear to be in-depth and is only covering the device without indepth reporting on the subject ~ The article about 40% about her but it's mostly about the company and invention ? Unknown New York Times NYT is a reliable source NYT is a reliable source The article is about the device, the subject is only mentioned in the first two paragraphs ✘ No J. Craig Venter Institute ? Just a profile for a non-profit ? Just a profile for a non-profit Just a profile for a non-profit ✘ No Philadelphia Appears to have some independent content ? Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine Article is three paragraphs talking about them appearing in another magazine ✘ No New York Times NYT is a reliable source NYT is a reliable source Article goes in-depth about the subject ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Keep – Source table above is quite helpful. NYT is strong. An additional search on Google News brings up a bunch of good sources inc. Techcrunch , so notability is met IMO. TLA (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the source table above. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk ) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Margaret Adamson: Appears to fail WP:GNG . Uhooep ( talk ) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Bilateral relations , Cambodia , Pakistan , Poland , and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more. Lamona ( talk ) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A high office multiple diplomat professionally is notable. I disagree this doesn't meets WP:GNG as the nominator said. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Bearian ( talk ) 16:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't see anything resembling a HEY. Only two sentences has been added . Geschichte ( talk ) 21:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Akçakent District: Brief background: until 2022, all Turkish districts were handled in the same article as the town that was the seat of the district. Since then, despite my raising objections that Turkish districts in general don't meet the notability criteria separately, there has been a massive drive towards creating separate district articles. As such, I'm nominating this article for deletion as a "proof of concept" before we can discuss about undoing this recent drive with a mass deletion/mass redirect. Looking specifically at this article: there is absolutely no significant coverage of the district as a distinct entity from the town centre here in reliable, independent sources . Sure, there are fleeting mentions of the district in sources, but Turkish sources and encyclopaedias don't intellectually distinguish between district centres and districts at large, making it very difficult - and possibly original research - to create separate articles about the two. This is simply not a good way of presenting this information, and given the general scarcity of sources, would likely leave one of the articles as a permastub. As such, this article simply fails WP:GNG and there is no reason that the information about the district-at-large cannot be given in the context of the town centre; WP:GEOLAND isn't applicable as this article isn't about a populated place per se, it's merely about an administrative unit. There isn't any content to be merged here, simply because the different content here (the list of the villages, the district population) was just moved from the district article as a WP:CFORK . If the discussion is closed as delete, it would be as simple as reverting the last two changes on the parent article of Akçakent . I would also disagree that "Akçakent District" is even a bona fide plausible search term, so would think that a redirect isn't warranted. GGT ( talk ) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . GGT ( talk ) 20:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . GGT ( talk ) 20:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The idea to separate town articles from district articles has been discussed last December and January at User talk:Semsûrî#Separate Turkish district articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Infobox and districts . The districts, including Akçakent District, are described in reliable sources (Turkish Statistical Institute, Turkish Ministry of Interior), which are used as references in the articles. Since Akçakent District is in a non-metropolitan province, the district has a different, wider extent from the municipality of Akçakent . I think that WP:GEOLAND applies here, because the articles are not just about the administration, but also about the location, composition and population. All of which have some overlap with the municipalities, but they are not the same. But it's good to have a discussion about this, again. BTW there was no list of villages at the Akçakent article. Markussep Talk 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought districts are generally kept separate from the settlement though if there is a consensus for Turkey and it only contains 1 municipality then it may make sense to combine. See Stroud (town/municipality) and Stroud District and Braunau am Inn / Braunau am Inn District and Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: the district contains one municipality and 20 villages that are directly subordinated to the district, not part of the municipality. And indeed they have different populations: Akçakent municipality has 755 inhabitants, Akçakent district 3,519. Markussep Talk 18:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK then keep as it appears to pass WP:GEOLAND / WP:PLACEOUTCOMES and as noted its standard to have separate articles on districts unless there's a clear consenes against that for Turkey. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In the twenty or so years of our coverage on Turkey, we did not have separate articles; but over a few months these articles were mass created without seeking consensus (the few conversations that were had were because I raised concerns and mass creation went on regardless). The main issue is that it will be impossible to have viable articles for the district and the town centre separately for most places in Turkey, because this is just not how Turkish sources conceptualise things. I still don’t see how that concern has been addressed for this district, there just isn’t any coverage for the district as a separate entity in sources. My concern is that a mass creation of such articles will invariably result in a huge quantity of low-quality permastubs. GGT ( talk ) 22:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that is the consensus then I'd go along with that as I can see you're Turkish and if that is done on both tr and de and most other Wikipedias then we should probably follow suit, only it and nl (see d:Q13428856 ) have separate articles. That said as I mentioned while it is normal for low level municipalities that have the same name as a settlement to have 1 combined article it is normal for districts that cover other settlements or rural land outside the namesake settlement/municipality to have separate articles. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think practices of other Wikipedias should be considered, they may have different policies and guidelines. What's important IMO, and I think that's also what Aintabli means, is that separating district and municipality articles makes it much clearer what the information given in the articles (e.g. population, area, notable places, administration) refers to. Clearly, for this type of districts (and there are 454 of them), there is a big difference between the district and its capital. The situation is different for the districts of metropolitan provinces, where the districts coincide with the (second level) municipalities. Markussep Talk 08:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge this article into Akçakent . Turkish Wikipedia currently has an article on the district titled "Akçakent" (that includes a bit about the town). German Wikipedia also covers the district and town in one article. Neither have "District" in the page title and both articles are brief. I think it sensible for English Wikipedia to follow suit and develop one comprehensive article rather than two stubs. WP:GEOLAND should be applied with common sense. I agree with almost all the nominator's well thought through reasoning. However, deleting and merely reverting to the revision of the Akçakent page would omit some of the detail on the "District" page. I didn't see this article's list of villages appearing in the Akçakent article when checking its history. Rupples ( talk ) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other language Wikipedias are not relevant. Turkish Wikipedia doesn't even distinguish provinces and the towns/cities that are the administrative seats of the provinces, which is simply nuts. Not distinguishing settlements and administrative divisions is a great problem for a future addition of content. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the district and villages are distinguished and listed in a merged article. I don't see how it's a great problem for a future addition of content ? Please explain. Rupples ( talk ) 22:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aren't we talking about the district centers/towns? They are also merged in Turkish Wikipedia. Essentially, not distinguishing an administrative division and a settlement complicates everything from geography, demographics, culture, etc. If we were to add content regarding these, we would always need to be careful about what we're describing, the administrative division or the settlement. Aintabli ( talk ) 04:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Get your point. I've taken a look at some other towns where the district info. has been removed. With some there is a bit more narrative left than just the population, elevation etc, unlike this one. I'm unsure whether there should be 'automatic' district articles or whether it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For consistency, maybe the former is preferable. I'm changing my opinion from merge to neutral for this specific case. Rupples ( talk ) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples : See WP:UKDISTRICTS for England for example. Most districts like Maldon / Maldon District have separate articles even though the municipality (parish) is combined with the settlement unless the boundaries are similar or smaller than the settlement like Hastings and Reading, Berkshire . Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . New articles for districts and recognized villages and towns of Turkey were being created for quite some time. This AfD isn't just about one page but hundreds of other pages. A deletion/merge will revert days of work. Moreover, district centers and districts are distinct both officially and conceptually. Censuses do distinguish these entities. Aintabli ( talk ) 21:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable as per WP:GEOLAND . Klausness ( talk ) 13:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Brandenburger: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . listed in the International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds [68] , and described in Horses of the World [69] , and Wissenswertes über Pferde [70] , which notes, as French Wikipedia does, that the breed merged into the regionalized Deutsches Sportpferd, apparently in 2003, which is why you're not finding a current breed club or stud book, but notability is not temporary, and we don't have a Deutsches Sportpferd article yet anyways to use as a merge target. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Currently most of the article had to be removed due to a copyright violation. Are you familiar enough with horse breeds to be able to rewrite the article based on reliable soures? Traumnovelle ( talk ) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In light of that I'll change my stance to neutral although the article is in a semi-incomplete status due to the copyright violation. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly notable even if now merged into another entity, the Deutsches Reitpferd . I've rewritten the page with ten solid sources after removing the foundational copyvio. A further nine links listed on the talk-page in 2008 seem to be fairly comprehensively dead. There are mentions (at least) in older sources such as this and this , but I can only get snippets so not enough to add them to the article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my stance to keep but I'd like for this to have a consensus reached before closing it. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 23:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, Traumnovelle ! You can if you wish withdraw this, or indeed close it yourself – please see here . Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd rather have it closed with a clear consensus for the record, although if it's better to withdraw I will do so. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 17:43, 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.
keep
Girl Next Door (anime): Search results for both the anime and eroge show a bunch of anime with similar names but not exactly this one, except for Anime News Network's encyclopedia. Fails notability. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga . Neocorelight ( Talk ) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I searched for: "Girl Next Door" "anime" -demon and didn't find anything. Searching for "Girl Next Door" "eroge" showed nothing either. D r e a m Focus 12:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Nominator didn't bother to look at the talk page where you can see a bunch of reviews listed, all reliable sources per WP:A&M/ORS . 2 reviews by Mania.com (former AnimeOnDVD): [25] , [26] , review by THEM Anime Reviews , review by Animefringe , paragraph in an article by ANN . ANN is not SIGCOV but the other sites' coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 12:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't, sorry, because there's no hint at all that there's something in the talk page. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BEFORE says to check the talk page before nominating. Also when you're editing the article and the talk page has a "refideas" template, at the top of the page there's a note that reads: "There are suggestions on this article's talk page for references that may be useful when improving this article in the future." -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also might note that although the Hentai Jump is an unreliable source, the review is by Mike Toole, who later wrote for Anime News Network: [27] . -- Mika1h ( talk ) 13:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; based on the sources provided by Mika1h, this clearly meets WP:GNG since at least the Mania and THEM sources are reliable and significant coverage. Link20XX ( talk ) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reliable sources found giving it significant coverage. D r e a m Focus 14:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Yonatan Steinberg: There appears to little to no meaningful coverage of this individual as a subject before or after the one event involved, and all of the coverage on the en-wiki page is essentially obituary material and coverage. Based on this material as it is, as an encyclopedic entry the page devolves more towards WP:RESUME or WP:NOTMEMORIAL than anything else, with the material also largely coming from government and military obituaries, not independent RS. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks like a significant figure, and we have managed to write a significant biography about him. PatGallacher ( talk ) 14:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :delete: this is one of about a dozen articles that seem to be violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_7 . i've nominated those that i can, but many of them are additionally marked extended protected, which seems like an abuse of the designation in an effort to protect the pages from (rightful) editing and deletion. 814jjs ( talk ) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) not EC FortunateSons ( talk ) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The last comment may not have been encyclopedic, but I will reply anyway. These other articles may or may not be notable, but they should be considered on their own merits. If they are at the wrong protection level then I suggest raising this at WP:RPP . PatGallacher ( talk ) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet" [[{WP:GNG]]. This does not apply here. There are multiple secondary independent RS (Walla, Times of Israel) that provide coverage of the subject. Longhornsg ( talk ) 22:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Neither of the keep ! votes really address the BLP1E argument advanced by the nominator. Relisting for further discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Sadly October 7 made many people and events notable. What happened that day is already being denied. Don't whitewash the events of that day. Wikipedia needs to reflect what happened, by whom, to whom. Future generations need to be aware of the atrocities. Never forget. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In terms of WP:BLP1E he was notable before October 7, but the impetus to create the article only happened because of the events of that day. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The nomination is based in error as Steinberg received coverage also during his life. [24] [25] While BLP1E and NOTMEMORIAL are important policies, neither one applies here. For deletion that is. gidonb ( talk ) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all the comments above, and WP:SUSTAINED . I added a source from a few months later about his weapon being found, which demonstrates that his memory is still persistent in people's minds. Although maybe not the best comparison, Shireen Abu Akleh is another victim of the conflict who sadly was only recognised for her life's achievements immediately after her death, which is when her article was first created. Havradim leaf a message 12:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY and ongoing legacy. Whatever faults this article had at its creation no longer apply. Bearian ( talk ) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers: I did a search for news sources about the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, and couldn't find a single one that wasn't either a tabloid article, only mentioned the society tangentially, or both. The society doesn't seem to be independently notable. Cortador ( talk ) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , Politics , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are numerous sources on JSTOR. See here for one example. -- User:Namiba 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " Socialist Lawyer is the magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers" - it's another primary source. Cortador ( talk ) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Certainly meets WP:GNG . Very well-known and notable society. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability needs to be backed up by something. Just stating that something isn't notable won't do. Cortador ( talk ) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be GNG. Didn't you notice that? -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - neither the Society's website nor its magazine are independent of the subject. Didn't you notice that? Cortador ( talk ) 15:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG. The society has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in GBooks and GScholar. This would be an example from GBooks. If a society was formed in 1930, you have to look at history books and periodicals, and at historic periodicals and books. It is not enough to just look at recent news sources. James500 ( talk ) 02:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very visible within English legal circles, more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG, eg active in the abolition of the death penalty in the UK (see Politics of the Rope (Arena Books, 2012), pp 90-91 ) or more recently their rejection of the current Labour Leader . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Dokgo Rewind: And there is a lack of explanation for the movie. Other film pages provide details such as production process, inserted music, etc., but those pages only describe plots and casts. Hkm5420 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea . Hkm5420 ( talk ) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Perhaps the text and references in the corresponding article in Korean at ko:독고 리와인드 could be used to improve this article. The English article already seems to have a lot of references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added a few things. Seems notable enough. I did not search for critical assessment in Korean. If one can add some, that would help. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is now enough coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Walter Love: Fails WP:GNG . nearlyevil 665 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . nearlyevil 665 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - on the simple basis that the subject was conferred a Member of the Order of the British Empire by HM the Queen. Needs to remain while other sources are gathered and further notability established. There's a video interview with him at [54] and another short one at [55] . This would be a hasty deletion, IMO. Ref (chew) (do) 08:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Obituaries are independent reliable sources. Decent-sized articles in BBC News, Belfast Telegraph, The Irish News. I don't see the problem. Toughpigs ( talk ) Keep : Notable broadcaster in NI with a lengthy career, and independent sources to back that up. As well as being an MBE he was also recognised by the Phonographic Performance Ireland . This is Paul ( talk ) 22:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While an MBE is not usually sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO (that would need a CBE or higher), if awarded to a public figure like a broadcaster it usually is. And the obits confirm his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Qatari soft power: This current nomination has nothing to do with the tone of the article or its content or notability but per WP guidelines against blocked sock puppet accounts. Page creator is a confirmed sock puppet of TronFactor – the master of what looks like a well-oiled sock farm which has been blocked accordingly. Retaining this page will be a reward for unethical behavior and will encourage the sock farm to expand and create similar pages for whatever reasons they are creating them knowing that their accounts will only be blocked and the pages retained. In the last AFD, some of their socks participated and supported keep. When deleted, the article can be recreated by an ethical editor. Ludamane ( talk ) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Politics , Sports , Central Asia , and Qatar . Ludamane ( talk ) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't support deleting this article for these reasons. It may have been created by a sock, but it's since been edited by 30 other people. Personally, I've never agreed with the blanket deletion of sock contributions. While I understand WP:DENY is a thing, I also think it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face . Does the article stand on its own merits, regardless of the author? I think that should be the deciding factor. — Czello ( music ) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If sock edits and articles created are retained what then is the deterrent? It will only encourage socks to do more while discouraging anti sock puppet editors. Nothing prevents this article from being recreated by a different editor if deleted. Ludamane ( talk ) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose the question is which option, on balance, benefits Wikipedia. While I can support the deletion/striking of sock comments on talk page discussions, deleting what is otherwise constructive work strikes me as detrimental to the project. Deleting this article only for a legitimate editor to immediately recreate it (which it almost certainly will be as it appears to be notable) strikes me as needlessly bureaucratic . — Czello ( music ) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, it is somewhat satisfying to see someone pay for an article that gets deleted, then recreated for free. That's the whole point of a free encyclopedia, the "free" part. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Satisfying, perhaps – but not necessarily beneficial to the project. — Czello ( music ) 09:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Close - I actually agree with the nom. and argued in the previous deletion that this was a cynical expenditure of significant sock resources to get a paid article in place with a slant that would be hard to remove by a sock who would know that their article would be retained after their own removal. I stand by that, and think it would be better for the encylopaedia if this were gone. But the last AfD finished less than a month ago. It is too soon to relitigate this. AfD demands considerable editor time, and merely rehashing the arguments just weeks after the last close is going to waste that time. Rather than ! voting, I request someone speedy close this. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article should not have been re-nominated for deletion after the exact same arguments failed to produce a consensus for deletion quite recently. The topic is valid, and any issues with the contents can be addressed through the normal editing process. There's no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this article. P Aculeius ( talk ) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is mish-mash of sports, airlines, news reporting and a whole bunch of stuff.Sources used aren't about this topic of "soft power", but are used in OR to draw conclusions that aren't there. Fine if you want to create a separate article about each subsection here, but without some scholarly journal analyzing this "soft power" topic, you've got an article cherry-picking facts and mushing them together to draw a conclusion that isn't stated in any sources otherwise. At the very least Draft this thing so it can be sorted out... Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Source 57 appears to be in a peer-reviewed journal, but CiteHighlighter marks it as Red, so very likely a pay to play journal, or not a RS for some other reason. The rest are news articles, which will tend to be biased one way or another. I'd ! keep this if we had scholars writing about this and had peer-reviewed sources discussing it. Popular media is spinning the story one way or the other, and the fact that this is a paid article doesn't fill me with hope that this is in any way neutral. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Czello. \\ Loksmythe // ( talk ) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the facts presented by Oaktree b and also support moving it to draft and be properly worked on. Lagdo22 ( talk ) 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As we are all ! voting anyway, I'll re-affirm my view that this should be deleted as the cynical complete creation of a sock farm that expended considerable resource, almost certainly paid, to establish an article they knew we would be reluctant to delete. The page continues to represent the decisions and slant of the sockfarm creator. and per Oaktree b it is OR. I am inclined to believe some kind of soft power article is possible, but only if it is built on reliable secondary sourcing, which this article is not. At the very least it needs WP:TNT . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : much of the argument for deleting this article is unchanged from the previous discussion. We already addressed whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, but as the nominator here acknowledged, the topic is notable, the content of the article is okay, the tone is no longer at issue. And as Czello points out, a lot of other editors have worked to improve the article since it was created; it is not solely the product of a sockpuppet. Claims that the creator was paid to write it were made then, and not substantiated by anything; and they're still just somebody's guess, based on the above comment. The only thing new here is the notion that all of the sources can be disregarded, because they're "news articles, which will tend to be biased". This is a novel approach; since when are all news sources considered unreliable on Wikipedia? AfD is an evidence- and policy-based process; articles aren't supposed to be deleted for reasons that are plainly contrary to policy, based on mere suspicion of impropriety by an editor who hasn't contributed to the article in some time, and who is banned from doing so in future. If WP:TNT is the "very least" that should be done to it, what further, stronger measures can we take? Erase all mentions of Qatar, scour the internet for bad press, blow up the whole encyclopedia? Here we have a coherent article about a notable topic with verifiable claims based on reliable sources. Deletion based on nothing more than the suspected motivations of its creator is ridiculous; or as an experienced editor noted in another discussion I was recently involved in, this article may be in need of improvement through ordinary editing—as has been done by quite a few perfectly legitimate editors. AfD is not cleanup; it is the wrong process for this article. P Aculeius ( talk ) 13:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A reminder should not be necessary: there was no consensus whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockfarm, and no consensus as to whether the article was balanced. You made 12 comments on the previous AfD. How about we step back now, and let other editors see if they can find a consensus where we had none previously. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet, here we are, having the same discussion over the same issues. How about you step back and stop trying to maneuver the conversation the way you want it to go, by telling other editors whether they should or shouldn't be replying to all of the nonsense being posted in an attempt to show that no consensus is actually consensus? Even the nominator here isn't taking issue with the content or tone or notability of the article, but solely with the identity of the article's creator, even though two dozen other editors have worked to improve it since that time. What a pointless exercise this is! P Aculeius ( talk ) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agreed that AFD is evidence based and the evidence available shows that this article's sources do not support the topic. I am allying with Oaktree b. This is not a straight topic that requires only routine news coverage to prove notability but more of an invented topic that ought to have been covered or discussed extensively in peer reviewed journals or publications. The sources cited are mere news stories about several events that the subject had been involved and does not discuss the topic of this article itself. Wikipedia relies entirely on third party secondary sources to present a view, but that is not the case here as the creator merely invented the idea of what to write about and went ahead to use only news sources without presenting reliable sources to support the topic. The sources cited are reliable but their discussions not relevant to the topic of the article and should all be discarded. Ednabrenze ( talk ) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This just went through a long deletion discussion and resulted as "no consensus". What is the grounds for the new nomination immediately after? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging contributors from the last discussion (excluding those since blocked): @ Red-tailed hawk , IgnatiusofLondon , Rajoub570 , Cortador , MarioGom , Mr vili , and Rosguill : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close : I think it's silly for this to return to AfD so soon. The arguments here seem to be the same as the previous AfD, in which I ! voted Keep.
keep
Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio: The opaque bare URL sources are impossible for me to decipher. Many, if not all, towns/ cities have fire stations so it's not clear to me how these ones would be notable. A BEFORE search only revealed only materials from those fire departments, from Ohio government offices, or historical offices in pay of same so there is no independence from the subject. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ohio . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not particularly notable. All towns have fire stations so I don't see any reason why this list should exist. It also fails NLIST. There does not seem to be any significant in-depth coverage. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a drive-by comment with no real work put into it. You can find an insane amount of information on many of these buildings, and certainly there are news articles about each and every one. ɱ (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It would be nice if the article's creator had included the title, date and newspaper for each reference accessed through the Columbus Metropolitan Library, but the context suggests that they are mostly newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch . Fire stations often have architectural merit, and I see from the footnotes that at least one station is on the National Register of Historic Places . In addition to the massive amount of coverage from the Columbus Dispatch over the years, the book A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus: Finding the Past in the Present in Ohio's Capital City , is already cited as a reference. The Ben Hayes reference includes two newspaper articles from the Fabulous Short North newspaper. The first one doesn't deal with fire stations, but the second one is for "Fire! Fire! Fire! Ben Hayes Relates Area Fire House History". Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep it starts out ok, with a picture for each station and a small history. Then it's simply a "phone book" style listing. We need some context around why the stations are notable; either historic architecture or the like. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not the right reaction. This AfD process checks for WP:N / WP:GNG , which is established here with dozens of citations. This article meet's Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There are also complaints about the lack of citations and inappropriate format of citations. I sympathize with that, but also, formatting citations for this kind of content is a poor use of human labor. Realistically, no human is demanding these citations, because the only info that these citations provide is a claim of the existence of particular fire stations. Many of the citations here are behind a wall, but they are machine readable or bot verifiable, which is good enough considering that the claim of mere existence is so mundane. I am going to issue my own take: every city in the world of population over 50,000 should have a Wikipedia article titled "Fire stations in X". If possible, we should use Wikipedia article writing bots to generate these articles in English, the local language, and a few other languages. Verifying them with machine-readable sources or primary sources is okay. The information in these articles should be cross-referenced to Wikimedia Commons for pictures through Wikidata, and then Wikidata should exchange info with OpenStreetMap so that project can give map data to Wikipedia and Wikipedia can provide pics and more info when available to the map. Beyond fire stations, we should also have articles like this for hospitals, police stations, public parks, and other places which are essential to register for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management . I am not going to argue that every fire station or hospital is automatically notable, but I think that I am ready to say that we should expect city services are and that list articles like this seem like a scalable pattern for Wikipedia-style documentation of them. Another opinion: for list articles like this, photos count as sources. The goal here is to establish that this city has fire stations. We do not need to go into detail. Our custom is to treat published text sources as meeting WP:V , even if they do things like poorly describe the architecture or say something like "the mayor was there for the opening". Sometimes for some claims, like the existence of a thing, a picture is the best reference or source or authority. These pics are great, and I think we should treat all the entries with a pic as verified. For the entries with no pic, and with no citation at all, I think having a human simply point to a database or published list is enough verification for what this is. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as creator. Unfortunately nobody has the patience to allow me to finish formatting the references, and nobody has actually directly asked me to. Also, I do have photographs of most of these places I can upload, but scanning and uploading takes time and effort. When people don't appreciate the countless hours of work I put in, I have little incentive to put in more effort. ɱ (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ɱ : Again, could you not have formatted the references in your sandbox? Have you read the essay WP:REALPROBLEM ? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't read essays, I don't need to follow them, there are others that say the complete opposite thing, and I don't agree with the one you linked. Thanks. Every article is a work in progress; these are good enough for the mainspace. There is no ref formatting requirement on this project. ɱ (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And for those who might not be familiar, NewsBank is a database of reputable newspapers. All bare URLs are to NewsBank's Columbus Dispatch archives. I always come back to fix these citations, but it takes time and patience. And automated tools like ReFill unfortunately can't be used to help. So it's a slow process. Asking for attention to any one article would be helpful, rather than an AfD. ɱ (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Request Please fix the bare URLs, and in the future, please fix them in your sandbox space before adding them to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 ( talk ) 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above. ɱ (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter if the citations all went to the local newspaper, per WP:AUD . You haven't made a case that the subject is notable (that there are fire stations in Columbus) nor does each and every station listed already discussed in a standalone article. The subject isn't notable. Pictures don't make the subject notable. Local coverage doesn't make it notable. That you started editing in 2009 doesn't make the subject notable. This isn't merely an argument about citation style. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Columbus Dispatch is the largest newspaper in Ohio, and covers most of the state. It's simply not a local paper. ɱ (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nor does citation style make an article warrant an AfD. You didn't really provide any real explanation for the sources warranting deletion, nor even bother to provide an assessment of the references. Which is your whole argument. ɱ (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article about the paper makes no such claims. Also, my clear deletion rationale is lack of notability, much as you try to reframe it. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said the article was any good. Most of Wikipedia is crap, unfortunately. And your nomination might as well be a drive-by comment. There's no effort put in, and no detailed assessment of the notability. Simply you're confused because you can't access. Then Ask! ɱ (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lack of ability to read a source does not mean (or indicate) a lack of notability. I'm sorry you have no access. That does not warrant whole days of effort to be wiped away. ɱ (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you <3 ɱ (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , extremely well sourced, encyclopedically presented, and the chart has everything going for it per Wikipedia article requirements. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It's currently impossible to evaluate the article based on its sources because of the bare urls, which redirect to a login page. @ Ɱ : Per WP:BURDEN (which is policy, not just an essay), there needs to be sufficient information in the citation to be able to find and verify it: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)... see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this. If it takes a minute to properly format a citation, it would take you less than an hour to fix all the citations in the article. That is something you need to do before putting an article in mainspace, per policy. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nevermind the fact that you need a login to even access those bare URLs, are there any sources that are not WP:LOCAL ? Right now it's a little difficult to determine WP:NLIST given the awful ref formatting. Frankly I'm leaning towards draftify since the creator above clearly wants to use the main space as their sandbox. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Show me the requirement that local sources are somehow unacceptable? And again, The Dispatch is the regional newspaper for Central Ohio, not a local one. ɱ (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only asking, no need to get choppy. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This AfD grew out of heated arguments first at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope? and subsequently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates . This recent comment by Dominic captures the issues and this AfD in a nutshell. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The definitive policy is the Deletion policy ; it lists the allowable 14 reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section. None of those reasons apply here. If the nominator doesn’t like Columbus’s many fire stations , just avoid this article. The article is well-referenced, notable and useful. The author is to be commended for all the good work put into it. As noted, there’s more work to be done but that’s true of every article that’s not a featured article. We have 6.7 million articles. I’m sure we have at least 100,000 real dogs to get rid of; let’s shift our deletion energies to them and leave this article and its harried author alone. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For all the fretting about article quality, no comments were ever left at Talk:Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , and let me get this straight. There's a set of arguments going on all over the place and this AfD, which is obviously targeting an article which passes GNG on the newspaper cites alone, was added to more or less harass a long-time productive editor because they didn't put in a couple dozen ref tags? How many articles have a couple dozen sources right off the bat? Then it's obvious that this editor has promised to continue to format the page and edit it the way he has edited many other articles, some to feature status? Why should we not trust that he'll do what he says? All of these discussions should be closed and apologies given all around. Really, this seems to be a case of eating-our-own, and shows that quite a few editors itch for a fight. I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't for the fact that all of these discussions combined have MJ considering leaving the project. Ridiculous use of pile-on, just stop it and apologizes all around for fightin'-words, and close those discussions. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article is well illustrated with pics from Commons but, with many bare URLs that leads to a login page and makes mobile app readers uncomfortable, the sources from the Dispatch and others support the notability of the article despite the many sources that cannot be verifiable due to login requirements. Toadette ( chat ) / ( logs ) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the sources in the article there's passages about the early Columbus fire stations on pages 90, 93 & 97 plus 2 images of Engine House no.20 in The Firehouse : An Architectural and Social history by Rebecca Zurier, available through Internet Archive. This helps partly satisfy WP:NLIST . There's sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Helpful list with sufficient sourcing, even if formatting is required. Consider a move to "List of..."? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I make no comment on the AFD but I have replaced the Columbus Metropolitan Library URLs with ones that go direct to Newsbank. Some of these URLs, in particular those which say open URL should now work for everyone. I think these also have additional details already. The other ones, I think all of the bare URLs will still at a minimum require Newsbank access. I have no idea if they still work or work for everyone with Newsbank access or only for the OP as they look to be search related URLs. But I see no reason to keep proxy URLs. Nil Einne ( talk ) 14:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nil, sorry but your link changes should be reverted. I read your comment on my talk briefly. I appreciate you trying to help, but unfortunately the non-proxy login doesn't let most library card holders in, and no Columbus library card holders in. I mentioned this bug to NewsBank months ago. They replied essentially that they don't care. And the readers of these Columbus articles are most often people from Central Ohio, so the most useful reference URL is one they can access. ɱ (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OR, actually, I found a way a few months back to include both URL forms. Which allows more access to everyone. Just takes more time to do. ɱ (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that doesn't apply to the open URL links since these can be access by anyone even without library access. But more importantly, if it's difficult for Columbus Metropolitan Library holders to use the direct URLs, that's unfortunate. But links to Newsbank are infinitely preferable to links to some libraries proxy. Articles should not be designed for ease of access of one particular population at the expense of the rest of the world. And you cannot assume that even people from Central Ohio will have access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library anyway. There are various ways people with access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library can access those URLs which are sort of beyond the scope of this discussion (e.g. it's likely they will work from an actual library computer, or they could ask a librarian for help or just manually replace the URL if they know what they're doing). But for good reasons we ultimately considered it the responsibility of readers to obtain access when we've provided sufficient information for them to do so. The URLs still aren't that but non proxy URLs are more that than proxy ones are. (I'm sure there must be a discussion about this somewhere since these sort of library proxies are very common and have been for many years.) P.S. If you want to revert me while you fix these URLs, go ahead provided you're going to fix them within a week or so. Note if my fix had made it more difficult for you to access these URLs or see what they are, consider this an illustration of why everyone else is so frustrated when you leave these confusing URLs. P.P.S. I don't want to get into this too much here but I'd also note you can't defend these as links to Newsbank implying anyone with access to Newsbank can use them, while simultaneously saying you actually want them to be links to the Columbus Metropolitan Library proxy used for Newsbank access (so only people with that particular library have access). Nil Einne ( talk ) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nil, please be concise with your responses! You're restating yourself, and I understand your position. Again, anyone in Ohio can apply for a free library card. These CML URLs are accessible to anyone, statewide. Both URLs should be provided, but the CML URL is actually more useful to the readership of these niche topics. ɱ (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only article on the entire site that is a list of fire stations in the city. As a result of the conflict around this and the sources I won't be voting, but it does seem like it's up there with Bus Routes in City in terms of not meeting NLIST, even though there are notable fire stations that already have articles. I'm mostly commenting if someone wants to revisit this AfD in awhile. SportingFlyer T · C 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or delete . We have inscrutable references that are almost certainly local coverage anyway. Then we have patchy coverage of individual firehouses, which do not satisfy NLIST. Where are the requisite multiple SIRS sources, including at least one regional one, that show the topic as a whole is notable? This list additionally fails INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – While every small town in the U.S. doesn't need a comprehensive list of fire stations, a major city will have plentiful coverage (both in newspapers and perhaps even in books and other materials). Some stations are also notable enough for their own articles, either due to historic merit, a heritage designation, or significant coverage on its own. It sets a horrible precedent to toss out an article simply because it is sourced to a local-to-the-subject but still major regional daily newspaper. What on earth drove everyone to this end? Sounder Bruce 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Columbus Division of Fire . That article is basically a stub, and can easily cover this content. If that article was becoming too large to read, I'd support breaking this out as a seperate article, but in it's current state, no reason to have 2 related articles. No issues with sourcing and find the arguments made regarding them silly. Dave ( talk ) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consensus is trending towards keep, but think a merge is the best possible outcome here. There's no need for two stand-alone articles - again, this is the only list of fire stations in city X on the entire site - while we wouldn't lose any of the information. SportingFlyer T · C 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this is the kind of list that people come to Wikipedia to find (and I generally loathe list articles). I think it needs a lot of work (which the editor is providing), but is genuinely encyclopaedic. First, I think this AfD should have been procedurally closed under WP:BEFORE C4 at the very least, with good reasons also in B2, C2 (synonymous to WP:RUSH ), C3 and D4. Architectural RSs alone appear to give us a reasonable assumption that additional RSs exist and the article may be ripe for improvement, not deletion. That said, the article should not have been started in mainspace but in draft. I think, though, that the article is more than strong enough now to stand on its own while being improved. I really do understand the nom's good-faith NLIST and GNG arguments, but I don't completely agree with them. The overall subject has (limited but existant) notability for architectural and historical reasons. The fact that a significant number of list items have noncontroversial articles is not in itself definitive, but it is indicative of notability as well. I think the arguments over sourcing and source-formatting are a distraction. The sources presented are reliable and non-primary (a news article that includes or summarises historical info is generally considered secondary). For a regional subject, a regional source is reasonable and expected, and the coverage does not seem passing or trivial. Lastly, it's an article that actually passes WP:SELCRIT which is a rare pearl in list AfD discussions. Overall, I think the article improves Wikipedia and should remain in mainspace. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bickering aside, the topic of fire stations in a particular city clearly will have enduring coverage in local newspapers over time. Merge discussion, if any, can be held on talk page, as there is no policy-based reason to enforce one as an AfD outcome. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for what has already been said well above. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm Central Ohio based and will convert the bare urls. 9H48F ( talk ) 09:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its not just this article that needs worked on. There is dozens and potentially and potentially more than 100 need the bare search urls converted into a real references. scope_creep Talk 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Amelia De La Rama: She does seem to notable for appearing in two films but in secondary roles. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Indonesia . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [4] . He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [5] [6] . 202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Keep : this , this , this and this should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this , this and this . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw these articles during my search, but again, they almost all refer to her in the context of being Sukarno's wife outside of the Philstar article, which has a disclaimer on it that it cannot vouch for the original source (this isn't to say it's bad, but verifying the orginal source, to make sure it isn't paid coverage should probably be done). The three newspaper articles are WP:LOCALCOVERAGE , so I'm not sure they qualify for WP:GNG . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AUD applies to companies, and requires at least one source that is at least regional in coverage. The articles in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin should be enough to pass that. The Historia article also discusses her film career. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem here is that these articles again only seem to cover her in the context of being Sukarno's wife, which still doesn't fix the WP:1E issue. You were right on WP:LOCALCOVERAGE tho, I will strike that. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Philstar and the Historia articles both discuss her film career, which I feel is enough to show that BLP1E doesn't apply. Additionally, she probably has SIGCOV in offline sources. The Philstar article points to a magazine article from 1956, long before she'd married Sukarno. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable as a film actress with multiple roles. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 21:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per sources presented above. Svartner ( talk ) 05:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I see three sources that meet GNG, (Tulsa, Honolulu, and Philstar) - more is presented than just being Sukarno's wife, so not just 1E. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 03:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Eric Berger (media executive): MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is sourced to a number of bylined Variety articles, some of which are quite in depth. Although these are no doubt prompted by press releases, Variety is a perennial reliable source . Here are three articles to support notability: In-depth Variety article with bio details Variety execs to watch Adweek on launch ( non-paywall ) Oblivy ( talk ) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage dealing substantially with the subject. I find THIS piece in Variety to be particularly compelling. GNG pass. Carrite ( talk ) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Shoenice: FMSky ( talk ) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No, he's notable. This [1] , this [2] and what's in the article. GNG for being a, I don't know, youtube eater of stuff. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unless an actual argument for deletion is made. Are the twelve sources in the article just not worthy of comment whatsoever? jp × g 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found a handful of sources after five minutes' googling, only to find they are already cited in the article. .? seems to me like GNG has been met. Akakievich ( talk ) 18:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie: ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A bit like for part 2, also currently discussed, it could be a Keep (the film was apparently a commercial success : "the expensively produced but totally wasteful (of talents and film and running time) "Okay Ka, Fairy Ko," was the top grosser at P31 million." or here : "it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache"). - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm having trouble finding a bit of trouble with finding independent sources about the movie. If we can find critical reviews from reviews and add them to the article, that should be sufficient. The review you linked from Google Books seems to brief to count as substantive. Enervation ( talk ) 08:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Definitely a keep for me (shameless confession: I've watched this as a kid and the lines at the ticket queue was crazy and, however you look at this, it was a famous/notorious movie then and now). But I understand why it would be really difficult to find (online) references for this. This is a relatively old movie, and not many Philippine news companies (newspapers, TV or radio) have their archives searchable online, let alone contemporary issues at the time this movie came out. --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! franchise. It's a 40th FAMAS awardee film but there's little material to work with online. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NFILM per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I get that some people have nostalgia for this film but the article has no reliable sources to establish notability (IMDb doesn't count nor do passing mentions). Is this Award considered notable? I'm relisting this discussion for another week but if there aren't usable sources located over the next few days, this discussion will either close as Delete or as Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Liz : FAMAS Awards can be considered similar to the Academy Awards. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 21:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the box office success and the mini review ("it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache"). DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Fergus James: Speedy delete? BoraVoro ( talk ) 10:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added sources and references i think he is definitely notable enough having 5 songs with 1,000,000+ streams on Spotify and 2 with 5,000,000+. FFelxii ( talk ) 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain to me which part of WP:RSPYT you don't understand? Tar nis hed Path talk 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have seen many other articles do similar things where they link the YouTube page for the song on artists so I thought i was allowed. For example the Andy Bull page uses YouTube videos as references in the same way sorry for any misunderstanding. FFelxii ( talk ) 13:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have a read of the link. YouTube sources can be used, but not in the way you did. If Fergus's notability is going to be established then it needs to be done with secondary sources. Tar nis hed Path talk 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] YouTube sources can be used. They can even be used like that, because those links WP:Verify that he really did sing a song of that name, etc. But a link to a webpage (YouTube or otherwise) that was posted by a person/band/business can never demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability of that same person/band/business. So while those links were okay, they were not pointful for the purpose of determining whether to keep the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WhatamIdoing , thank you for the correction. Tar nis hed Path talk 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (weak). The external links added to the article are all a bit problematic in one way or another. Some are lacking in depth, some are interviews (not ideal as a source), some are not quite independent of the subject and the one I'd bet on [9] is unfortunately paywalled. However, we do have the title "Armidale boy Fergus James to support Ed Sheeran on Australian tour " and the date (2018) which show that James has been on the radar for quite some time. (Also, opening for Ed Sheeran is a big deal). I also found this which provides somewhat significant coverage. This and this lack depth but it's still coverage. This is a more recent interview. All in all, I think we have (though barely) enough to pass WP:GNG . Pichpich ( talk ) 18:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Thank you for providing some sources that can help keep the page. FFelxii ( talk ) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pichpich. I haven't done a full search yet but I did find a bio at AllMusic here which states that his first hit single charted which i'll look into, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've just added a bunch of references. Not all have in-depth coverage, but some do. One in particular is a live review of one of his performances in Melbourne at The Workers Club. I'd say that there is enough to pass WP:GNG . Tar nis hed Path talk 10:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on sources added. BoraVoro , did anyone ever tell you about WP:NEXIST ? This is probably not obvious – the telephone game by which we oversimplify and overstate the rules to make newbies do what we want with as little effort as possible on our part causes real problems over time – but we don't actually have any guideline or policy that endorses "Notability not shown" as a valid reason for deletion; instead, we have a rule that says that what matters is whether reliable sources are in the real world (libraries, bookstores, the internet) and explicitly not whether those sources are already WP:Glossary#cited in the article. If a WP:BEFORE search (which you didn't mention doing, but I hope you did) is not very helpful, then please consider a {{ notability }} tag or WP:BLPPROD instead of an AFD. (I'd have chosen BLPPROD myself.) WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] very good point, thank you! BoraVoro ( talk ) 07:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found a charting ref for a single. I don't know if this is what the AllMusic bio's writer referred to. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please don't bomb the article with a dozen Youtube links again. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Geschichte ( talk ) 11:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:GNG . LKBT ( talk ) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment More information under his full name/alternative name. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 21:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Trương Anh Ngọc: Sourcing found is only confirmation of existence. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Vietnam . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Football . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below. Looks to be a notable TV figure in Vietnam. Giant Snowman 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , @ Oaktree b : , literally when u search up Trương Anh Ngọc, you get a comprehensive Vietnamese Wikipedia page that cites many archived sources about him ... Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football, article needs improvement, not deletion . Thanks Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does he play sports or is he a reporter? I'm confused. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, a well written Wikipedia article is not indicative of notability. Giant Snowman 19:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , What I'm trying to say is that the sources cited in that article are... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : , @ Oaktree b : , I found [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , among many many more Vietnamese sources... Clearly significant figure in Vietnamese football... Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 06:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Jason Perlow: Seems to be a lack of independent sources that I can find. JMWt ( talk ) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America . Shaws username . talk . 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Appears to now write on occasion for CNN, but no coverage about him as an individual. Likely not meeting GNG (if he ever did, the sourcing now in the article is thin). Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Food and drink , Technology , Internet , and Florida . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No coverage or independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Adhi2004 ( talk ) 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but a user has requested reopening the discussion as they believe they have sources to back up notability claims. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perlow co-founded eGullet , which was a very big deal in the food world in the 2000s. I think there is enough press like this [56] from the Hartford Courant that contributes towards GNG. I will try to find more in the coming days. Thriley ( talk ) 05:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Washington Post story: [57] Thriley ( talk ) 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It definitely was a big deal. I was also on an episode of the Tony Bourdain Travel Channel show "No Reservations" in 2010, called "Obsessed" which was about eGullet. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6r1n72 and also https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IUq0uCs3jlw Jperlow ( talk ) 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Thriley ( talk ) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment https://nymag.com/tags/egullet/ is mentioned in places. New York (magazine) owns Grub Street, which has its articles linked to there. https://nymag.com/tags/Jason_Perlow/ is mentioned in places there. Lot to sort through to see if any of it proves Wikipedia notability. Searching for his name and "Off The Broiler" has some results to sort through. [58] A reliable source seems to consider him an expert in his field. [59] Jason Perlow Captures the Soul of the Big Apple Barbecue Block Party D r e a m Focus 06:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Washington Post article found does give him significant coverage, not just coverage for his company. Search for "Perlow" you can read him mentioned throughout, information about him given out. The article is hidden behind a paywall, so I did a select all and copy before the paywall thing came up, then pasted it in a text file on my desktop to read it. D r e a m Focus 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The WaPo article is about the company, not its founder, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . It devotes a few sentences to flavor text about the founding, which mention the background of the founder, but this is passing mention. Simply getting your name in a newspaper article doesn't make you Wikipedia-notable. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article does have some good information about Perlow but we do need more sources. ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Arguments to the tune "there are bound to be sources out there" or "he is just notable, for sure" do not cut it. The best one can locate is a Washington Post article, but that's about a corporation and not our subject. The rest of the items suggested as sources, e.g. something from New York Magazine , contain insignificant name-drops. - The Gnome ( talk ) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the above are true, except for the part about overall lack of sources. I failed to check old newspapers in websites such as Newspapers com. After the sources produced herebelow by Silver seren from that website, I find the proper suggestion to be a Keep for the article. - The Gnome ( talk ) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of sources about Perlow specifically. Cortador ( talk ) 02:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have a position on this article's notability, and I don't see any evidence of WP:MEAT at this time, but it should be noted that the subject wrote about this AfD on his blog https://techbroiler.net/my-wikipedia-page-is-being-deleted-because-im-not-notable-enough/ which was posted to Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item? id=39754156 where I encountered it. DefaultFree ( talk ) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This discussion seems like major WP:BEFORE issues. In addition to the two sources discussed above, there's these that were quite easy to find. Believers lose faith in Big Blue A place for food fans to chew the fat, so to speak The Fat Pack wonders: Is the party over? Perlow has been all over the news for decades for various activities and online ventures. Silver seren C 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Broze, Chitral: However, I could not find sources to prove it, and the sources originally added did not mention it. The creator has been banned. Boleyn ( talk ) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] speedy delete without prejudice to recreation with sources It's bad enough that we have to dig through all the geostubs to verify that they aren't misrepresenting their database sources (because so many are bogus), but nothing is lost by deleting those that are unsourced. It is colossal waste of time to have multiple people chasing around for sources, when it could be the one person making a sourced article, were that possible. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : It exists [23] , but that is hardly notable. Unsourced stub. I'd just TNT and move on. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Added 4 new references to the above unreferenced article including the one (Dawn newspaper) supplied by Oaktree b above. The other 3 archived references are by the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In my view, it meets WP:NPLACE now... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 21:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Excellent work, Ngrewal1 , it does look like it meets NPLACE now. Boleyn ( talk ) 07:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Verified as a legally, recognised populated place under WP:GEOLAND gives Broze a presumption of notability. We should be trying our best to expand the article rather than delete. Rupples ( talk ) 05:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lacked electricity as of 2018 ; study of urbanisation at union council level , "the Kalasha's major Joshi festival was held in Broze, Chitral during the era when Chitral was under Kalasha dominion." . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 08:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian: As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary . Pepper Beast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists . Pepper Beast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin . Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb ( talk ) 00:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Zak Ramsey: Entire sections are unsourced. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 14:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 14:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * delete fails WP:GNG . - Altenmann >talk 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - correction to nominator: the article has one site as a primary source, with the remaining 6 references being non-primary sources... Subject meets GNG. – Meena • 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Meena : One of them seems to be an interview, though I cannot view it to truly verify. Interviews count under WP:PRIMARY . The other 5 all come from the same website, which I am fairly certain is strongly discouraged. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If it is about a fictional character, then it is not primary, as obviously the fictional character cannot speak about themselves... DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the sources show notability. Only one is primary, and the others are not. The article needs a bit of work but deletion ≠ improvement. It would have been nice to have been told/wakened about this beforehand so we could have had more time to improve the article before being deleted rather than being rushed into improving it in a few days, especially as there is an active wikiproject aimed at the improving the Hollyoaks characters. Also, per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE , storylines sections don't need to be sourced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 21:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Strong keep per the improvements made by Raintheone , as it now more sourced and less in universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have worked on the article today and I hope the improvements count towards it passing GNG/SIGCOV. I have added sourced content and rewrote sections. I hope this explains the fictional element more clearly and provides the real world perspective on the topic. I would like to you @ (Oinkers42) : and @ Altenmann : revisit this in regards to the changes I have made. The article still needs work though and I will keep on looking for more content to add. Rain the 1 22:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have to add more refs to the lede and storylines. But I agree now it is keepable. - Altenmann >talk 00:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you RT1 for your amazing help! Altenmann, thank you for agreeing but just a note: the storyline sections do not sources per WP:SOAPS and MOS:PLOTSOURCE . May I please ask why the lead needs refs? Everything there is sourced? DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article meets notability guidelines. Soaper1234 - talk 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Studios Hergé: While the namesake of the studios, Hergé , is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM , and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD , I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation , which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation , Organizations , and Belgium . Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor , Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book , this one , ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram ( talk ) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram ( talk ) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador ( talk ) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb ( talk ) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X ( talk ) 09:21, 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.
keep
Sonora Union High School: Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : no rationale for deletion given. "It's a high school" is not a valid rationale. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To elaborate: you need to explain why this fails our general notability guideline . High schools aren't inherently notable, but they're also non inherently not notable. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 04:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And the authors should evidence notablity of the subject by added more references. Regardless the school is notable or not, current form of the article is very trivial, one sentence which is not sourced and two data items which have reference in infobox, it is substance of the article for now. Dawid2009 ( talk ) 07:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to the lack of rationale for the deletion of the school by the nominator, GNG / NSCHOOL guidelines are met through several sources, from which I plan to add information to the article. These alone can be found through a simple Google search. I recommended the nom look at the BEFORE policy. [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] Burgeoning Contracting 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting Can you check your links? None of those work for me. Thanks. Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; I dont like school articles anyway, and this was obvs created as a coatrack for on coming allegations. Ceoil ( talk ) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Everyone at Wikipedia who has done a few edits and is not actively blocked can have access to the wikipedia library, which includes free access to newspapers.com, among other things. A quick scan of newspapers.com shows tens of thousands of newspaper articles for either "sonora high school" or "sonora union high school", limited to sources in California. When nominating a school article for deletion, it would be wise to do this first, as doing the other steps in WP:BEFORE . Remember that policy requires that sources WP:NEXIST , not that they are currently in the article. A very small effort finds these tens of thousands of sources, looking through them it is apparent that there are many that provide significant coverage of the subject of the article. This is easily sufficient to meet the general notability guideline (and therefore WP:NSCHOOL ), so the article should be kept and expanded rather than deleted. All that said, I sympathize with the nominator that the article is poorly referenced in its current state, but again, that is not a valid reason to delete, nor is not liking it . Jacona ( talk ) 03:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'm currently having trouble making clippings from newspapers.com, but the first mention of the high school I found was from September 6, 1906 in the Corning Daily Observer, so this school is at least 117 years old. Since the internet is only a few years old, it is probable that the vast majority of existing sources are not online. Jacona ( talk ) 03:55, 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.
keep
Hiroshima International University: Did a BEFORE (both in English and in Japanese), and all I could find were those websites that list schools' addresses and stuff. Included websites do not satisfy SIGCOV either, I'm pretty sure. AriTheHorse talk to me! 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) I don't agree personally to be deleted because the university is good enough and has 4025 FTE students in 2023 with 0.5% of international students according to Times Higher Education [1] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edogang1 ( talk • contribs ) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/japan-university/2023? page=8# Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Schools , Medicine , and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a notable school it'll just be hard to find sources for it. Looking at Google Scholar the school does appear to be producing research. [34] Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note I've added some more sources. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I agree with @ Dr vulpes and @ Edogang1 that this is a notable school. Quick search finds some quick hits that, while not enough to build an article on, leave me confident that a more robust search would result in plenty. [35] [36] [37] [38] This article needs work, not deletion. DCsansei ( talk ) 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I would just like to see further review of sources mentioned in the discussion and added to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , after reviewing the sources mentioned in this discussion and added to the article, it's clear that there's plenty of deep independent secondary coverage about this school. Left guide ( talk ) 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Kashaf Alvi: While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sourcing isn't stellar but sufficient to keep the article under general notability. Cortador ( talk ) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cortador , So, are you suggesting that we keep this BLP even though we don't have enough coverage meeting WP:SIRS to establish GNG, but because he got some ROTM coverage? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SIRS doesn't apply to people and has no relevance here. Cortador ( talk ) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cortador , Noted. Are you willing to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should meets GNG? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR . Teenage is not a disqualifier as we don't discriminate somone's abilities based on their age. We are an inclusive encyclopedia, that's why we have plenty of articles on such topics Category:2003 births . This in-depth article in Arab News is written by Saima Shabbir. The book has been reviewd in Dawn ( [15] ) and The Nation ( [16] ) by their staff members (when a newspaper writes "staff report" it is enough to prove the reliability). Wieles ( talk ) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And let's not apply guidelines randomly to the mix. WP:SIRS is for corporations/organizations. Wieles ( talk ) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wieles , So, it looks like he's only authored this one book, which got some coverage in RS. Is just writing one book enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR? Seems like a pretty ROTM author. And it makes me wonder, if someone just writes a book and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a WP BLP? As for the coverage, DAWN coverage seems pretty ROTM to me. It's not sig/in-depth as required by GNG. And The Nation coverage is based on his interview, which also isn't sig/in-depth or even independent of the subject. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say no. They also don't qualify as reviews of the book, as WP:NAUTHOR states work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get a BLP because he's a TEEN! — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cortador. Meets WP:AUTHOR. Arab News , Dawn , The Nation articles are enough. 80.234.152.31 ( talk ) 12:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Shut Up! Cartoons: ( 🔔 ) 04:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Almost missed this one as I hadn't created it directly, but rather from a redirect, and for some reason it wasn't on my watchlist. But that would make it 4 articles I created in some way that've been nominated for deletion in a 35-minute span. Really odd. Also mixed in that span was an IP edit going for (not an AFD nom, but rather) a straight up redirect on a 5th article I created. Idk. Either way, the sourcing present here is sufficient for GNG. The Adweek source, Variety source, and LA Times source all help establish notability here. The first and third ones there should be noted, need a subscription to access. Will update the references in the article to convey that information. Also found the following sources: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 that can be added to the article. Soulbust ( talk ) 06:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:GNG . Multiple articles with SIGCOV in Animation Magazine [46] [47] [48] [49] 147+ words of independent SIGCOV from AdWeek [50] , before moves into interview. ComicsBeat SIGCOV before interview [51] — siro χ o 06:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Yalgaar: None of the other language versions have better sourcing. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in Hindi or other languages can’t access, in which case I’m happy to withdraw this. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Mccapra ( talk ) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added a few things (for example there are 2 pages in a book about Sanjay Dutt covering the production, negative but still). Opposed to deletion. Could be redirected to Feroz Khan (actor)#Filmography but I think it's best to have a standalone page. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] those are interesting tidbits of information but they are not in depth coverage of the subject. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - easily notable, one of the highest-grossing films of that year. Sources are available. Needs expansion, not deletion. It is challenging to find sources for Indian films of that period as no archives exist, but it's good as is. Shahid • Talk 2 me 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source by The Indian Express has been added. Shahid • Talk 2 me 10:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . The sources currently in the article are marginal and better ones are not easily available on line but what we have is much better than nothing and strongly suggests that more reviews in contemporary (1992) offline sources should exist. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - a high grossing film with notable actors Mr Vili talk 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Bryan Davis (author): TipsyElephant ( talk ) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and Christianity . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennessee and Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. While the article needs to be far better sourced, I found plenty of reviews that prove Davis's notability per WP:Author . This includes reviews in Publishers Weekly ( Link 1 and 2 plus mentions in PW articles about Christian fantasy , see this search for all the PW articles mentioning Davis ), five reviews in Kirkus Reviews ( see this search ), an entry for Davis in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies, plus even more reviews in Booklist, School Library Journal, Christian Librarian, and Voice of Youth Advocates (with these last items found through the Wikipedia Library). It appears this author is a very big deal in the world of Christian fantasy fiction. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you are correct in this assessment overall. One note that unless a Kirkus review ends up in its magazine or newsletter, which is an editorial decision, Kirkus doesn't generally count toward notability. This is because anyone can pay to have their work reviewed (but not influence the review). — siro χ o 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm aware of that and don't use the Kirkus Indie reviews when determining notability (Kirkus Indie is the name for their paid reviews). For an example of a Kirkus Indie review, see this review where at the bottom it lists "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE." However, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources , all other Kirkus reviews are considered "generally reliable" and absolutely count toward determining notability. Anyway, all of the Kirkus reviews listed above were published in the magazine as stated at the bottom of each review, so they're good to use. SouthernNights ( talk ) 12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your reply. I trust you that those reviews were published in the magazine. For some reason my view isn't showing anything about whether it's been published in the magazine. — siro χ o 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When you click on a specific review, you don't see the magazine publication date at the bottom of the page? For example, the review for Diviner has at the bottom "Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 1, 2011" which is the date the review was published in the magazine. Alternately, in the same location on a review if it says "Kirkus Discoveries" or "Kirkus Indie" then it was a paid review. SouthernNights ( talk ) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources reviews listed above by SouthernNights with the qualification regarding Kirkus there are still numerous rs reviews, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Netherlands Royal Shooting Sport Association: I'm not a speaker of Dutch but I can't find anything which would appear to meet the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Governing associations for the sport of shooting are usually quite old. According to the nl:wiki page its membership was recently over 40,000. Should be easy to source for a Dutch speaker. @ Gidonb might have an in-road here? Geschichte ( talk ) 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem here, however, before considering notability, is that this is a dictionary definition, not a proper article. If it was an article, we should have looked for sources and notability. This is so short that it should be merged, redirected, or deleted regardless of notability. In this case deleted, as the organization is loosely affiliated with three coalitions of which none takes preference over the other. gidonb ( talk ) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Doesn't the Netherlands have an encyclopedia where this would be covered? Geschichte ( talk ) 11:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Referring you to my answer above this question. gidonb ( talk ) 12:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I refer to your saving of a Belgian 8th-tier football club, whose article initially looked doomed in the AFD discussion. I'll try to post another question then: " if I were to look for an encyclopedia of an unnamed sports governing body in the Netherlands, would there exist such an encyclopedia?" Geschichte ( talk ) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To the best of my recollection there are or were books in this general domain on Google Books. And yes, the turnaround at K.F.C. Moerbeke was something! Maybe Ruud can save this one. I need to see some substance before considering notability. Otherwise, I will support delete or an ATD. For me, to change my position, adding sources is insufficient. gidonb ( talk ) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete without any prejudice per gidonb right above. gidonb ( talk ) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added new info and references. This is the Dutch equivalent of USA Shooting . A national olympic sport coordination body is surely notable. One of the issues with the article was a title misnomer. The dutch name was not correctly translated. I fixed that, making use of an english text (see reference) with the correct english name. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 03:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty surprised to see that there are articles about Dutch governing bodies for bridge and water skiing, but not skating! Geschichte ( talk ) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please review content additions since this article's nomination. Also, please do not move articles in an open AFD discussion, it really complicates the discussion closure. If this article is Kept, you can move it as soon as this closes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ruud and myself, now that the article has been expanded. gidonb ( talk ) 02:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Holly Lodge Girls' College: All but one of the sources in the current article are not independent of the subject. Furthermore, a WP:BEFORE search was composed mainly of one local publication, the Liverpool Echo , which doesn't look particularly reliable and does not demonstrate it deserving more notability than any other local school in the area. If reliable sources are found, please ping me. KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 00:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and England . KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 00:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Have re-worked article and added sources. Note that it is referred to by several names - Holly Lodge Girls' School, Holly Lodge Secondary High School for Girls, Holly Lodge School, Holly Lodge Comprehensive, Holly Lodge Girls' College, Holly Lodge Grammar School, Holly Lodge Girls' Grammar School. It has a couple of notable former pupils and a notable head. It was part of the Militant-influenced school reorganisation of the 1980s, with its closure or merging squashed by Keith Joseph. This history and the influence of the school on the area over the 100+ years it has existed has in my view led to enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . I also think there will be coverage in offline published sources - biographies and memoirs. Tacyarg ( talk ) 23:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:HEY . Tacyarg has added information and a very large number of sources, and the page is considerably improved. Having said that, I would caution that these sources all appear to be primary (see: WP:PRIMARYNEWS ) and much of the information is arguably trivial. This is not a clear GNG pass by any means. However it is a secondary school that has been in existence since 1922, serves a community with an enrolment close to 1,000. It seems likely that a school of that size and that age is notable. I presume Tacyarg is not done yet, and I think this one crosses the line. If it doesn't, there are probably a lot of secondary schools that need deleting. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And to add, my keep edit conflicted with Tacyarg. I agree that the the militant-influenced reorganisation is likely to take this one clearly over the line. There must surely be secondary sources about that. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 23:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with both editors that the sources are sufficient and note that I disagree with Sirfurboy re: whether news reports can be counted as secondary (I believe that a news report from reliable publications which isn't a first-hand account is a secondary source). Either way, there's little question this meets NSCHOOL. DCsansei ( talk ) 06:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For guidance on news reports being primary sources, please refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS and the policy in WP:PRIMARY (especially note d). I cannot see any news report on this page that is not a primary source. can you? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Sayer Ji: This is a WP:COATRACK -- we've got the cost of a subscription to his website in the article? We've got details on his use of affiliate links? None of the sources are about him in a significant way. We've got a lot of information coming from unreliable sources: a bio of the guy on a talent booking website , not one but two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in the AfD despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist ... his own websites, etc. The closest thing we get to sigificant, neutral third-party coverage is this blog post (which is for some reason in the ref list twice, as #4 and also #13). This Wired article mentions him once, in a single paragraph, in the sentence: Prominent pandemic deniers include a number of keen yoga practitioners, such as alternative health proponent Sayer Ji, who runs the website greenmedinfo.com, and his wife Kelly Brogan, who describes herself as a ‘holistic psychiatrist.’ This The Hill article also mentions him once, in a list with twelve other people. That's it. Here is a single fact check page about something that was on his website. This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable. jp × g 🗯️ 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Conspiracy theories , COVID-19 , Medicine , Internet , Florida , and New Jersey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : He has been extensively commented on by skeptic blogger David Gorski: [3] and [4] , to give two examples. Those are blog entries and therefore don't count for notability (although Gorski is a subject-matter expert; he is a surgeon and frequent contributor to sciencebasedmedicine.org .) Ji was also named as one of the "disinformation dozen" responsible for most of social media's antivaccine misinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate: [5] . I'm reluctant to vote keep because I am unsure whether those together would count for notability. But Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the political advocacy group I mentioned in the nomination, with the two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" (I don't know what the deal is with that site, but typically, being on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist does not say a lot of great things about a source's reliability). I don't think that this PDF rises to the level of something we should be using to source an article on a BLP; if the primary sources in the newspapers etc. were writing about the guy in any context other than briefly mentioning his name as appearing in a list, that'd be one thing, but we don't even have that, we just have a random PDF from the Internet that doesn't seem to have been reviewed or published anywhere besides some guy's website. jp × g 🗯️ 04:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment below are significant coverage, the first only partially an interview, the latter, academic Brumfiel, Geoff (12 May 2021). "NPR" . For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business . Archived from the original on 19 May 2021 . Retrieved 19 May 2021 . Jarry, Jonathan (11 July 2020). "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy" . Office for Science and Society . Archived from the original on 4 February 2021 . Retrieved 19 May 2021 . Djflem ( talk ) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The NPR article's good but I'm still concerned that all these sources are about the WP:ONEEVENT of this group publishing the PDF about him being in a disinformation dozen. jp × g 🗯️ 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem ( talk ) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GreenMedInfo has or had a high traffic web presence. Even if readership has declined over the years, I think the site and its creator are still notable. Being included on the "disinformation dozen" list supports this as well. People use CDNs to host content. A lot of content isn't even publicly available. Let's judge the source, not the web host. ScienceFlyer ( talk ) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , maybe? I admit it's close to the notability line. There was significant buzz around him when I started the page, I'm surprised at the low amount of coverage since then. Still, I added a little extra material including elements from a nine-page section on him and Brogan in a book published this summer. Curious to see how it turns out. Robincantin ( talk ) 02:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources already cited plus those since HEY satisfy GNG. Djflem ( talk ) 09:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, although personally I couldn't care less. I think the consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain. I note, for the record, that this is a change from the usual outcome during 2007-2009 . Bearian ( talk ) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships: Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and Pennsylvania . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added two references from The New York Times. This is not local coverage; the championships took place in Philadelphia. The event had as much lasting significance as any other national championship in the United States, establishing who is best in a particular sport. Simply googling "1924 U.S. Figure Skating Championships" doesn't always work. I used the internal New York Times search, searched for "Figure Skating Championships" and restricted the search to calendar year 1924. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Utterly reads like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. With the sources added it definitely passes GNG. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: From the sources provided by Eastmain, this subject clearly does pass WP:GNG . Did the nom conduct a WP:BEFORE check? User:Let'srun 13:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
NHL 24: Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Ice hockey . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (or Draft) It's certainly early, but articles are coming out today about the cover athlete and a "full reveal" is scheduled for 2 days from now. It will release in a couple months and will certainly be notable. Every other NHL game has an article. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Draftify per WP:TOOSOON . This article can come out the same time as the others. It could be a couple of days or up to the start of the NHL season. Conyo14 ( talk ) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify: Obvious TOOSOON. Articles are coming out about Makar being on the cover, but that doesn't provide substantive coverage to the subject: "Cale Makar will be on the cover of NHL24" says nothing about the subject beyond those nine words, and that isn't even sub-stub material. Ravenswing 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is apparently due to be announced in 2 days, might be worth just sitting on and seeing how the article develops. - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify. Nominated for AfD two hours after creation and one hour after initial media coverage of the cover athlete selection ( ESPN , Hockey News , among others). WP:ATD is policy; WP:ATD-I both allows and suggests that new page reviewers can unilaterally draftify before nominating for deletion. The nominator was this page's reviewer, and this AfD just wasted people's time instead. - Socccc ( talk ) 22:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per Socccc. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game is set to be revealed on August 16th. For some comparison, the reveal trailer for NHL 23 came out on August 25, 2022 and the article was created one day earlier. I don't believe any harm is done in keeping this article for two days. IncompA 00:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It sort of allows to keep a precedence to avoid breaking WP:TOOSOON , even if it's by a day. Drafting with better sources is better than having an article where none exist yet. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except that that this AfD can't close until several days after the scheduled full reveal date. Rlendog ( talk ) 13:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is something called WP:SNOW . It can be applied to drafting something clearly to WP:TOOSOON . Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, it might be TOOSOON, but if the game is revealed in a few days, which will be days before this discussion is closed, this article could have plenty of time to establish itself. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have boldly redirected or sent it to draft space rather than use AFD, as there will almost certainly be enough sourcing for an article by the time this AFD closes after 7 days. Highly doubt this closes anything other than keep. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per IncompA. Despite being TOOSOON when created, there's a good chance the game's official reveal happens before this discussion is even closed. The Kip ( talk ) 17:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Normally an appropriate WP:TOOSOON , but since the game has now since been announced, there is no practical reason to delete. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Striking my original vote now that the trailer is out. To the nominator, if this happens again, just boldly send it to draft. WP:TOOSOON can allow for a speedy draft if it's necessary. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ; I have now added four sources from reliable sources listed at Wikipedia:VG/S that prove this subjects notability. I haven't expanded the article beyond stub with them, nor do I plan to, but they should be enough to prove that there is in-fact notability to be found here. Negative MP1 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Patty Petersen: A blurb about her in her brother's article would be appropriate, but not even close to sufficient notability for a standalone article. Safiel ( talk ) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women . Safiel ( talk ) 03:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She was in 99 episodes of a major series. That in itself should be enough to keep her. Antonio Miss Me? Martin ( queeeee? ) 14:05, 25 May, 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:GNG . See for example: "Pestiferous" . Courier-Journal . Louisville. 5 April 1964. p. 101. "Actress supreme emulates Lassie" . The Record . Hackensack. 24 January 1963. p. 50. "Patty Petersen stars on 'Donna Reed Show' " . The Lima News . 30 January 1963. p. 15. "Togetherness with the Petersen kids: Paul and Patty" . Detroit Free Press . 22 December 1963. p. 50. pburka ( talk ) 14:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Maaveeran (2023 film): Unreleased films are only notable if production has been notable, and this article says nothing about production. Review of the references shows that none of them are secondary sources, and they are all advance publicity. Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary 1 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Says that the trailer has been viewed. No No Sometimes No 2 ottplay.com Announcement of the trailer No No ? No 3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Discussion of change in date of release No Yes Sometimes No 4 ottplay.com Interview about the dubbing No Yes ? No 5 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Interview with the actor who plays the villain No Yes Sometimes No There is already a draft, which has more sources than this article. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Instead, move the better developed draft to this title. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't believe this article is eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Kailash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maaveeran (2023 film) . DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This movie is scheduled to be released in 2 days. Is it worth deleting today when it will just be recreated? L iz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have a draft, and we should move that to the mainspace once this is deleted. Had I known Yethin Nanba would hastily create this article, I would've moved the draft sooner. But I decided to wait until the film's release per WP:NFF . Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like the merge was already done. Think Kailash is asking for a history merge. Deleting the article after the film has been released makes no sense. DareshMohan ( talk ) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NFILM , as the film received full-length reviews from three or more nationally notable critics listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES . 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 13:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that is has been released and reviewed. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Alice in Wonderland (franchise): The individual releases are notable, sure, but the franchise as a whole would appear to not be. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and Disney . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — This seems like a pretty clear case of WP:NEXIST . InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you please provide proof of these sources existing? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InfiniteNexus : Please provide the sources that you say exist. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources for what? I brought up NEXIST because The references are all primary is the first sentence of your nomination. Each of the "main" articles on the franchise article has plenty of reliable secondary sources, which can easily be imported into this article, thus addressing the sourcing concern. Per WP:FILMSERIES , as long as a film series or franchise comprises three installments, provided that all of those installments demonstrate notability and there are sources calling the franchise a franchise, an article may be created. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 15:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are there reliable sources calling it a franchise? If so, can you provide them? QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure. New York Times , Vanity Fair , Forbes , Business Insider , IndieWire , /Film , Mashable , Screen Rant , ... InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes WP:GNG per the sources provided by InfiniteNexus . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:03, 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.
keep
No Monster Club: Most sources are either too short or mainly focus on another project by Bobby Aherne. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland . pinktoebeans (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep on this one - there are several independent citations referenced in the article to demonstrate compliance with WP:NMUSIC , including a staff bio with Allmusic , and a number of album reviews. Resonant Dis tor tion 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added reviews by GoldenPlec and State (magazine) I found at the fr article. S0091 ( talk ) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If Bobby Aherne is not notable enough to warrant a page, then how can a side-project of said musician need one. If he is, then create one and merge this page into that. MNewnham ( talk ) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what that means. A band can be notable even if individual members of the band aren't. Toughpigs ( talk ) 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with @ Toughpigs - this AfD is focused on whether the band No Monster Club meets notability guidelines, primarily through analysis of available independent coverage. If an editor considers Bobby Aherne as independently notable then they can create a separate page. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This review from the Dublin Gazette and the reviews added by S0091 are decent coverage. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of reliable sources coverage referenced in the article such as the Irish Times, Chicago Reader, Dublin Gazette, AllMusic and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:52, 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.
keep
Blue Moon (game): Expressive101 ( talk ) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as non-notable. Dozens of these proprietary games are produced every year; a few win prizes and go on to become notable (Uno being a leading example), but this is not one of them. Bermicourt ( talk ) 12:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added excerpts from lengthy reviews found in two large-circulation European magazines which I believe denotes notability. Guinness323 ( talk ) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Guinness323, meets WP:GNG for notability. BOZ ( talk ) 00:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per updated sourcing. And, in general, everything by Reiner Knizia is probably notable. Hobit ( talk ) 20:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Houston Blue: I was unable to find any further mentions of this book by independent, non-automatically generated sources online. In summary, a small book that did not seem to either sell or garner any amount of critical reception. A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Texas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia:Notability (books) has the following notability criterion: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." If it passes this criteria (there are two, independent, non-trivial published works about this book!), then it's notable. Any work only needs to meet one criterion on NBOOKS to be notable. Indeed a Houston Chronicle article by Jennifer Pearson is independent of the book, and so is the article in the The Journal of Southern History . WhisperToMe ( talk ) 02:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the two reviews already present in the article, Proquest finds two short reviews (Houston blue; the story of the Houston Police Department. Reference and Research Book News. Portland Vol. 28, Iss. 1, (Feb 2013). & Romance, psycho keep mystery alive Standard Times San Angelo. 11 Jan 2013: O.2.) and a long prepublication piece (NEW BOOK SHARES TALES OF HOUSTON ' BLUES' US Fed News Service, Including US State News; Washington, D.C.. 24 Aug 2012.). From Ebscosearch, it is also described as among "several seminal works deal with the issue of police misconduct" ( Esparza, Jesús Jesse. Brown, Black, and Brutalized: A Brief History of Police Brutality Against Chicanos and African Americans in Houston. Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South. Spring/Summer2023, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p45-78). Espresso Addict ( talk ) 23:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
The Financial Express (Bangladesh): M.parvage ( talk ) 04:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The second largest English language daily in Bangladesh. Widely cited, and has been discussed in scholarly literature. Four additional sources have been added, and the article expanded somewhat. Nominating editor has been warned about the need for WP:BEFORE searches before proposing deletion. Oblivy ( talk ) 09:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment : @ Vinegarymass911 helpfully pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) , in the context of a deletion discussion for Bangladesh's largest daily newspaper here , also brought by @ M.parvage . As an English-language newspaper with a focus on business and economics, Financial Express articles are widely cited by English-language academics both in Bangladesh and abroad. That would satisfy condition #4 ("regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works"). I suggest the below source assessment table should be approached with skepticism (for example the suggestion that the Daily Star, which directly competes with the Financial Express, is not independent). But that's just my view. Oblivy ( talk ) 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I do an assessment of this article. And I would like to remind Oblivy that, we should show respect to contributors. You can acknowledge, not warn. Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Source 1 competitor's website; see WP:IIS Article is about Tipaimukh dam ✘ No Source 2 Own website ✘ No Source 3 see WP:IIS and expamples recognized newspaper not more than a event ✘ No Source 4 not directly and not even in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 5 Just a summary and news style but not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 6 satisfied WP:NIS doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 7 a fictional and promotional content not more than a content maker not at all ✘ No Source 8 Own Website, WP:IIS about an editor ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . M.parvage ( talk ) 10:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Seems to be based on non-RS based on the table, so not meeting notability. I can't find anything extra, nor do I know what counts as reliable media in Bangladesh. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per @ Oblivy comment. Widely cited newspaper. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 07:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA - widely cited - a quick check on Google books confirms evidence on this. Thoroughness of the nominators WP:before and thoroughness of the source assessment table - both could be much better. For example source 5 is sigcov in a RS. Resonant Dis tor tion 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NNEWSPAPER , even if a periodical is notable, it may not be appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it if there are no reliable, independent sources that can be used to verify the information about the periodical. See WP:V M.parvage ( talk ) 07:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NMEDIA per Resonant and Oblivy. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be a basic disagreement on the accuracy of the source table. Much of the Keep arguments rest on the fact that this is the second largest English language daily in Bangladesh, if that's the case, then it should be easy to find supporting sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Expanded the article in my limited time. Finding sources is more difficult due to the various newspapers of the same/similar name worldwide. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I have absolutely no idea why WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are being so widely cited here, let alone why their contents are being wikilawyered over. Unlike e.g. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC which document English Wikipedia notability guidelines, WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are just WP:ESSAYs . Perhaps pending a future WP:RFC on either of these becoming an official guideline(?), it stands that an entire deletion discussion shouldn't hinge on them. Right now I'm seeing an absence of substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources needed to construct a substantial, reliable article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:NMEDIA are only essays. They are, however, prominent and longstanding ones. Their existence is an acknowledgement that in this subject area the GNG doesn't necessarily capture what is notable. Different inclusion metrics are needed, even if the community has never been able to agree on exactly what they should be other than on a case by case basis. Common sense tells us that the largest business newspaper in a country of 170 million people is likely to be noteworthy. Wikipedia will be better for our readers and our editors if we give them at least basic information about a source widely cited by academics. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article is fully sourced, and there are sources establishing its notability. There is good reason to question the source analysis table above: Source 3 is a 300-word editorial from the company's main competitor entirely about the article subject, yet it is said to be neither independent nor significant coverage of the company Articles 4 and 5 are by scholars who selected the paper as a subject for scholarly analysis yet they are said to lack significant coverage. I've just added another paper [58] which is even more in-depth. With respect, saying that people advocating for consideration of WP:NPERIODICAL is Wikilawyering seems to get things backwards. WP:NCORP says in the hatnote that the policy should be applied using common sense and that occasional exceptions may apply. The many scholarly articles citing FE coverage as support for economic events having occurred shows its notability in a real-world sense even if the policy wouldn't strictly deem those sufficiently WP:SIRS . In any event, as the foregoing paragraph shows, there is WP:SIRS coverage and in conjunction with the many independent sources that cite the paper's output there seems to be little reason to consider it non-notable. Comment There's quite a bit of nonsense in the nominator's assessment of the sources. For example, competitor The Daily Star (sources 1, 3, 6) is independent. The Financial Express (sources 2 and 8), although not independent, is a reliable source for what it is cited for: the paper's language, publication frequency, place of publication, date publication commenced, and owner. Also note that Oblivy and Vinegarymass911 subsequently improved the article, more than doubling the number of sources cited. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the two academic journal articles cited (sources 4 and 5). They contain background information about the newspaper as well as analysis and comparison with other major Bangladeshi newspapers in terms of, respectively, use of news agency content and news type in several dimensions. That is significant coverage , and those sources count towards fulfilling WP:GNG . A third academic journal article contains additional independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage, making it even clearer that the topic meets GNG. [59] -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 17:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Qudsia Ali: Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point. The Express Tribune . [27] Daily Times . [28] Daily Times . [29] BBC News . [30] DAWN [31] The Express Tribune [32] Daily Jang [33] Dawn Images [34] The Nation [35] Daily Pakistan [36] Dawn Images [37] Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , Let's decide first whether we'll assess this BLP based on NACTOR or GNG ? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , That reply didn't quite answer my question. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton ( talk ) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Marleeashton , But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @ Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton ( talk ) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation , DAWN , Daily Times , Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources. The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [38] Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [39] BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [40] DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [41] And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Libraa2019 , No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi . However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did , the Short film XXL , themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [42] or positively like these [43] [44] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 ( talk ) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm with Mushy Yank on this (though I would by way of advice encourage Libraa2019 to be more concise in future discussions). Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 09:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but Libraa2019 has not provided any references showing that the actor had major roles in a TV drama. Additionally, most of the TV dramas subject acted in are not notable themselves, not because they lack WP pages, but because they don't have the sig/in-depth coverage required by GNG. Libraa2019 has simply thrown out several references, potentially to confuse the closing admin and lead to a no-consensus outcome. I appreciate your opinion, though. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of good refs here. Desertarun ( talk ) 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Desertarun , WP:ATA — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:32, 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.
keep
NASCAR on television in the 2020s: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Motorsport , Lists , and United States of America . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , deletion is not clean up. The races televised are very much list cruft , but the sourcing for the year-by-year is sufficient. Esolo5002 ( talk ) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not say it was clean up, I questioned the reliability of sources per WP:RS . Not to forget Bornon tried to add new sources, they still do nothing for notability. Better make use of Fandom and put this list out of its misery. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 22:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Go to Fandom" is more or less saying you're trying to use AfD as cleanup, and the snobby tone used won't make you any friends. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not at all and I don't have anything against Fandom either. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio . Sourcing for the prose in the article could be better (a lot of primary refs), but secondary refs do EXIST . The amount of prose in here makes this copy-and-paste rationale by the nom look silly. LISTCRUFT and NOTDATABASE cannot apply here and the proposed ATD is countered by WP:NOMERGE points 1 and 2. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse: I have done a quick Google and Google Scholar search and haven't been able to find any reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per wp:nbook clause 5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is exceptionally significant, and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." While this book in particular hasn't been the subject of much scholarly discourse, nevertheless Burgess is a significant American children's author and is the subject of academic study. All of his books are notable. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with user Central and Adams. killer bee 09:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Wikisource , not only is the author significant, but Danny Meadow Mouse is the lead character in multiple works. — Maile ( talk ) 16:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above comments by Central and Adams and — Maile . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
James P. Arguelles: Failed nominees for federal judgeships are not inherently notable. Let'srun ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . But article will need a rework for BLP issues, as it's not focused on notability right now. I see quite a bit of independent secondary coverage of the subject's judicial opinions and aspects of their background eg [26] [27] [28] [29] , and much more. — siro χ o 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . For the same reasons mentioned above. MIAJudges ( talk ) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 06:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alternative proposal : Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations . We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to consider User:BD2412 's proposal. Unfortunately, article has not been created yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : If my proposal is accepted, I'll create the article. It shouldn't take long. BD2412 T 00:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I closed another AFD based on your proposal, ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk B. Paloutzian ) but, to be honest, all of these judicial AFDs are running together in my memory. I had no idea there were so many judges on the project. L iz Read! Talk! 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG , and the additional sources presented don't really cover him - they're all about the state's governor. Non-notable judicial nominee. SportingFlyer T · C 12:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not much feedback on BD2412's proposal so I guess this discussion will have to close based on the response of participants alone. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support proposal of BD2412 - that sounds like a good idea to me. I'd be happy to help on that article; if it is created, please let me know on my talk page. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
IP Casino Resort Spa: MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plentiful sources exist. Please see WP:BEFORE ; it is preferred to search for sources before nominating rather than making others do the work. Casinos in most of the U.S. are significant economic actors that attract at least regional media coverage of every chapter of their development. See for example: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] Toohool ( talk ) 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per wp:before - the topic (not yet the page) is well supported by numerous credible sources. Moreover, the resort is significant from an economic perspective. It was the second-largest privately-owned hotel in the world at the time of Engelstad's death, with almost 1,000 rooms and 900 employees. BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per has WP:SIGCOV Lightburst ( talk ) 15:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Hiragana and katakana place names: On its face it looks like a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and I can't find anything which talks about this at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Geography , Lists , and Japan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - see the Japanese Wikipedia version of this article: ja:ひらがな・カタカナ地名 ( Google Translate version ) This is not an indiscriminate list. The Japanese article discusses this topic in greater depth. There have been municipal summits about this topic. There have been political disputes over the use of hiragana or katakana writing for place names (instead of the more traditional kanji ). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Care to add any of those sources? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the Japanese Wikipedia article: 村山研一 (12 2009). “市町村合併と市町村名称の選択”. 地域ブランド研究(5): 19. Discusses this phenomenon in the case of 3 cities: Sakura , Midori , and Tsukubamirai 日本の特別地域 特別編集58 これでいいのか 山梨県p29,鈴木士郎, 佐藤圭亮 - 2014 Discusses municipal mergers and resulting renaming issues. See our own article also: Municipal mergers and dissolutions in Japan#Naming of new municipalities Regards, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's another one: Hosokawa, Naoko (5 February 2021). "Katakana and Japanese National Identity. The Use of Katakana for Japanese Names and Expressions" (PDF) . Silva Iaponicarum (56–59): 119. doi : 10.12775/sijp.2020.56-59.7 . Retrieved 1 November 2023 . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy close per A. B. . C avarrone 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources. FOARP ( talk ) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment It's clear that there should be an article with this name, but I have my doubts about whether this will become an adequate article on the subject. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep surprisingly enough, seems to pass GNG. AryKun ( talk ) 13:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
Walter Voit: Sources in the article itself are PR, non-independent, or are not actually about the subject of the article. The further attempt to establish notability based on the fact that the subject is a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering falls down flat - there were 170 other people inducted at the same time as Voit. Exemplo347 ( talk ) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Businesspeople , and Texas . Exemplo347 ( talk ) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See the citations and h -index at https://scholar.google.com/citations? user=MnnWfvQAAAAJ Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The case for WP:PROF#C1 looks clear. As for the AIMBE, they claim that their College of Fellows represents "the top 2% of medical and biological engineers" [26] . If that really represented 2% of their membership then it would be selective enough for WP:PROF#C3 but I am skeptical because why wouldn't they say so more clearly? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - To the nominator: I do not know how you can tell if it is a Paid PR vs. COI (the subject could have easily created their own page). Hence, you should not post such arguments when nominating, without actually having evidence. Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the subject has almost 5000 Google scholar citations and meets WP:NPROF . Hkkingg ( talk ) 07:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York: (Since August 2019) This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (Since August 2019) This article may contain improper references to user-generated content. (Since August 2019) PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also a Violation of WP:NOTCATALOG PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 22:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note this is one of numerous AFDs on similar topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Syracuse, New York Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri (2nd nomination) List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach whose name hides the fact that the AFD proposes to delete tallest buildings lists of areas of more renown: List of tallest buildings in North Hudson List of tallest buildings in Rochester, Minnesota List of tallest buildings in Camden List of tallest buildings in Albany, New York List of tallest buildings in Arlington, Virginia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden Sorry this notice of the other AFDs is not timely, I wasn't aware any of these were going on. Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Yet another list of unremarkably tall, mostly non-notable buildings in a mid-sized city, based solely on a now-defunct user-generated database. The tallest building, State Tower Building , is 312 feet (95 m) tall. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: There are now 13 inline references and one bibliography item in the article (vs. 4 references to Emporis pages previously). One new one is this list of Syracuses top 10 buildings supplied by Council on Tall Buildings and Urban something, which I guess is a successor to Emporis, may have user-supplied data, I dunno. I also think user-supplied data can be fine, and I am not aware of any big problems with Emporis data. Anyhow there are other sources in linked articles, with some now in this article (put in by me). --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further, at the Sunny Isles Beach AFD, B137 commented on May 15 that the Emporis replacement is reliable: "There is a reliable source, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat , CTBUH, that not only categorizes cities' lists and geographical lists, but that also uses databases or FAA filings to correct the actual height of as built buildings, not just the initial height claims a proposed new building has." Thank you to B137. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User generated data is against Wikipedia policy PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Delete while Syracuse is a notable town. The fact that these issues have been present since mid-late 2019 makes it seem like it’ll likely not be fixed LuxembourgBoy42 ( talk ) 03:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "issues" have been addressed; no tags remain on article; see below. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There are dozens of these articles here: Template:US tallest buildings lists , many of them tagged with similar issues. Natg 19 ( talk ) 21:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The height/size of city argument clearly does not apply here or should be considered for any article: There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline about heights of buildings. Any made are simply I DON'T LIKE (and Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT ). Djflem ( talk ) 20:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my long-standing and objective essay . There are at least four notable buildings of significant size. My standards are somewhat arbitrary but not a "I like" or "I don't like" type. They are objective because I have specified objective facts. Bearian ( talk ) 17:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a little curious, can't this kind of information be included in the article of Syracuse itself? It just consist of a table and maybe a few paragraphs, and wouldn't be too out of place in a city's article. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given the recent suggestion to Merge some of this content to the Syracuse article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ◆ Delete ●No-Say I am not withdrawing my nomination but I honestly don't care anymore. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Almost all of these buildings aren't notable, there's only one source and there are no forthcoming fixes to other page issues. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 08:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is simply false. Six of the buildings have separate Wikipedia articles (some of which I contributed to); they are notable individually. And, the other page issues have been entirely resolved (see below). --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Syracuse is not known for having particularly tall buildings, just a bunch of trivia. AryKun ( talk ) 12:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are subjective opinions which are relative. Obviously, Syracuse is in fact known, in its larger area, for having tall buildings. It is not trivial information, for many, including me. And those opinions are not relevant. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons including: About the issues tags, that has been resolved by removal of the tags (by me, just now). One "complaint" is that only one citation is directly given, but that ignores the fact that linked articles about individual buildings have citations. I see no specific assertion in the article which is called into question by anyone, anywhere; there are no explanations of any issues at Talk. And, from familiarity with Syracuse and its buildings in particular, I can generally corroborate the accuracy of the information in the article, including the somewhat informal discussion towards the bottom about an actually significant cancelled proposal for a new tall building. The listing and ranking of individual buildings seems about right. User:Natg 19 comments that other tallest buildings lists are similarly tagged, and that can be addressed by simply removing the tags (as I am inclined to do) or by developing the articles with additional sources. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP , and sources do exist. Update: my removal of tags including one about there being just a single source was reverted by User:Natg 19, and then I copied in references from linked articles and did other development, and I removed the tags again. Again, there is nothing in the article which is questioned by anyone. The fact that the list has long been part of Wikipedia and its information has not been disputed, tends to confirm the information. I and others familiar with Syracuse buildings don't have any complaints. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In general "tallest buildings" are a thing, and (as noted by Tutwakhamoe above re the Syracuse article) it is okay to cover them in an article about a city or other area, and it is an editing decision to split them out of the city article. Lists of tallest buildings worldwide, and in each nation, and in major cities, are well established things that are the subject of repeated reliable coverage. It is okay and good for Wikipedia to have a list of tallest buildings, like it has for other lists of buildings such as churches of every denomination, such as barns of certain shapes, such as clubhouses of various organizations, etc. And it is okay and good for those to be divided out by geographical area. Note it is not required for there to be any separate articles for items in a list, but there often/usually are separate articles for some, as is the case here, which tends to corroborate the significance of the list. Here, some of individual significance of the linked buildings is that they are known as being once the tallest building in Syracuse; this does support the significance of the list. AFD is arguably the wrong forum for merger/split proposals about lists; rather it is an editorial decision which should be discussed at Talk pages. Here, one might question whether the topic could be merged with List of tallest buildings in Upstate New York which could be modified to include some more of the tallest items from Syracuse than it already has, or could be modified to have an entire section about the tallest buildings in Syracuse (I think it is better to keep this as a separate article). The list could be entirely included as a section in Lists of tallest buildings in New York . As valid alternatives to deletion exist, there is no way this AFD should be closed "delete". In AFD we are required to consider alternatives to deletion (wp:ATD) and for lists of buildings such as this there are obvious alternatives (merge to Syracuse article, merge to larger areas' lists of tallest buildings). Fundamentally, this topic is very encyclopedic , meaning that readers expect for an encyclopedia (and especially for Wikipedia) that this kind of stuff will be covered. Encyclopedic topics include many that can be seen by some as relatively boring, mundane, not remarkable, but there are audiences for them (e.g. list of national flags by number of colors included, list of tallest building in a given city). I may add more but am stopping here for now. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep For the reasons mentioned above-- Plumbago Capensis ( talk ) 12:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete- Reasons above PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and note : Why are these a guilty until proven innocent process? Many of these are closed with less than half of 'votes' in favor, or based on weighting of opinions. B137 ( talk ) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is not a majority vote as it seems you are trying to say. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, the closer is supposed to evaluate the quality of arguments, and usually should dismiss entirely the "!votes" (note the ! mark means "not" in C-language(?) computer-speak) which have no explanation, such as PaulGamerBoy's above. Plumbago Capensis's ! vote does seem to me to actually refer to reasons just above it (and perhaps more) which have not been discredited; PaulGamerBoy's "reasons above" is just being contrary or glib and doesn't relate to anything AFAICT. Or, is it supposed to be agreeing with "Delete" comments above which have been which have been discredited or contradicted already, i.e. which arguably have been proven wrong? --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 21:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : These (barely) meet WP:CLN AOAL navigation criteria. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Doncram above. Fredlyfish4 ( talk ) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it provide (embedded) encyclopedic overview and insight into history, architecture, urban planning, development, housing, and lifestyle, of Syracuse. Satifies Wikipedia:SALAT , Wikipedia:LISTPURP , Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA and Wikipedia:LISTN (which is specific about there not being a consensus about notability of these types of XofY lists). Djflem ( talk ) 18:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep
South West Rugby League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep