Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi: Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article says that the businessperson did bad things, but everything seems to be referenced. I don't think that this is a BLP violation. The corresponding Ukrainian article has basically the same content. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is translated from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. It contains many non-authoritative sources that have also been transferred here. -- Mantan Kali ( talk ) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - no BLP violations, everything seems to be referenced? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is in non-authoritative references. -- Mantan Kali ( talk ) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm the admin who declined speedy deletion the second time, and advised that deletion should be through AFD. I also said that I took a random sample of references and saw that they were fine. I've had another look, and found references that, whilst backing up the text of the article, do not mention Vladyslav Yakubovskyi at all. This gives the impression that (at best) this is WP:OR . I have no problem with keeping the article, but a thorough check of all references needs to be undertaken. The section I am referring to is Correspondence of Lev Parnas Stephen! Coming... 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over sourcing and whether or not there exist BLP violations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - no specificity in what the BLP violations are. Sourcing seems adequate for the most part, although I would agree that the section around Parnas is potentially a reach in terms of what is relevant. But AFD is not cleanup. LizardJr8 ( talk ) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Laura McGloughlin: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Very minor mentions as the translator of a few books but nothing about the subject herself. ww2censor ( talk ) 10:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I have to agree - there is no indepth RS on the subject (either in the article or in a before search), and while there are RS review of the books she has translated, I don't see how these can apply to WP:NAUTHOR here. Resonant Dis tor tion 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Per nom and other ! votes above, a WP:BEFORE search returns nothing more than the same short 3-sentence "bio profiles" we find in the article itself. Nothing that reaches the expectations of WP:SIGCOV . I can't even find sources to support the text we have (like the subject's degree from UCC which doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere outside this article). WP:NAUTHOR , also, doesn't appear to be met. Guliolopez ( talk ) 16:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - with regret, as not many translators to be found in here, but this probably does not qualify on the work, and certainly does not evidence it. Like ghost writers, translators have to be recognised as exceptional in some way, or have a massive body of published work, to have articles in Wikipedia, as they are not creating a personal artistic body of work, but working on others'. Some, of course, are recognised as going beyond "just translation", but they are the exception, and often are, or become, published original authors too. SeoR ( talk ) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article is much improved and now clearly asserts, and cites for, notable quality of translation. As I said originally, we could use more articles on translators. And I have done paid translation myself, and know both the limitations and the art that is sometimes called for - choosing words, never mind the flow and structure, can be a real challenge. And, frankly, some translations improve on the original. I've also heard a lot from authors about this (and don't even start on the more-common-than-we-realise world of ghost writing). All that said, I think the bar is higher than for wholly original work of quality - but anyway, this article now passes this bar. Thanks to the editor(s) who made this difference and facilitated retention. SeoR ( talk ) 01:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'd like to respectfully disagree about reviews and translators. To put it bluntly, there's a ton of work that goes into translating a novel . A translator work, in a way, has them basically re-writing the book. Only they can't write it completely from scratch as they have to keep as close to the original source material while keeping the same content, intent, and flow. If anyone has ever translated, then you'll know that there's a lot of work involved with this because a lot can be lost in translation, even when you're doing something like translating a news article. The translator has to figure out how to do this without changing things too much - but also picking out the best word in the new language to fit the translation because sometimes it's not as easy as translating "gato" to "cat". The translator has to decide whether or not to pick a word with a similar meaning, translate it as literally as possible, or to leave the word "as is" and include a footnote. That's not even considering situations where a sentence or passage has a ton of nuance and double meanings. A bad translation can completely change the nuance, intent, and original meaning, as well as the plot as a whole. As this translator puts it , a good translation will make you forget that you are reading a translation entirely. So what does this mean? Well... it kind of means that a review praising the author's writing is just as much for the translator as it is for the author because again, the interpreter has to re-write the novel. That's a huge amount of work because ultimately the original author didn't write their work in (for example) English. The translator did and what the reviewer is praising is the translator's interpretation of the author's work. It's why a review praising "evocative and atmospheric language" is just as much praising the translator as the author because it's the translator who chose to translate it that way. I'm not saying this to argue for a keep, just that we need to look beyond a one sentence mention of the translator's name here. We need to consider what the review is saying about the sentence structure, descriptions, and so on. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . There are some sources and I do think reviews should generally count towards notability as long as they discuss things like the language, sentence structure, and so on, but I don't see that we really have enough that go into depth about that. When I argue for or against notability I try to imagine how the article would fare if it were brought up for AfD in a year's time - would it still hold up to newer, fresher eyes? With this one, I can't really justify it. It's a shame but there's just not enough here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I think McGloughlin is a creative professional according to WP:CREATIVE , and as I review and add sources to the article, she appears to have "played a major role in co-creating a [...] collective body of work", and I am in the midst of reviwing whether "such work [has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:CREATIVE #3 and sources added to the article - McGloughlin is a creative professional who has co-created multiple works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. The article also has a Reception section with two reviews that have a brief specific focus on her translations; overall, I think ReaderofthePack 's first comment in this discussion helps explain why the usual notability guideline can apply here to support keeping this article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have struck my delete vote per the excellent work Beccaynr has done on the article. Resonant Dis tor tion 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am persuaded by the NAUTHOR body of work: 5 books with 2+ reviews each where the reviews are specifically of her translations. Glad to see so much sourcing added. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The well-sourced article we now have is about five times longer than the unsourced version nominated for deletion. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 12:33, 25 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

Lauren Senft: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , and Canada . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG with [ [50] ] and [ [51] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 12:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - Excellent coverage in The Province and OK coverage in The Winnipeg Sun in the above links. The latter is much thinner and seems to slightly focus on her partner, but it does turn towards her later, so I lean to find that sufficient to show that enough WP:NEXISTs to meet GNG vice NSKATE, despite the dearth citations to RS in the article itself. - 2pou ( talk ) 19:47, 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

Gyat: Seemingly all reliable sources documenting this word do so in the context of providing brief explanations of what the word is (presumably for an audience of confused parents of Gen Alpha children), and lack substantial cultural or etymological analysis, making expansion prospects for the article dim. Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet . Mach61 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for reasons stated above, and also arguably as per WP:NOTDICT ArkHyena ( talk ) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTDICT doesn't really apply here, since the article does considerably more than just define the term, as do reliable sources on the topic. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : My first instinct is to agree with everything written above (and to add that as Wikitionary already has an entry for this term, a redirect to List of Generation Z slang really won't result in any loss of useful information), however, I would like to better understand where we draw the line: What, for instance, is the merit of an article like Rizz as compared to Gyat ? -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 11:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with you @ Cl3phact0 the line is fuzzy so I have dropped a note at WikiProject Linguistics. I am leaning keep in part because the Today article includes a few experts who did provide background into its origins and evolution. S0091 ( talk ) 17:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:WORDISSUBJECT . In short, if reliable sources that discuss the word as a word satisfy notability and verifiability criteria, an article may be warranted. Note that the sources should discuss the word in a way that goes beyond definition, usage, etc., often by describing its social or historical significance. Cnilep ( talk ) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably not top-shelf RS, but we have The Sun , the New York Post , et. al. writing about this word (well beyond matter-of-fact "definition, usage, etc."). It might actually be worth slow-walking this, ehem, gyat thing to see how much more SIGCOV it amasses. (If, eventually, it's kept, the article needs to include [more] information on the social or historical significance of the term , per WP:WORDISSUBJECT .) -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 09:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cl3phact0 Well, that's why I linked WP:NOPAGE instead of WP:NOTDICT . I agree that there should be a home for this information to exist on WP, I just think that home is List of Generation Z slang . Mach61 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. I suppose a redirect (and merge of anything worth keeping on hand) would do the trick then. It can always be reversed easily enough in future – say, when "Gyat(t)" is named "word of the year" by some august and hoary institution. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 20:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hopefully Gyat is never named "word of the year." TLA tlak 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I share your sentiment. That said, I am starting to lean more towards "keep" . The arguments being made here for the article's retention are solid. It does appear to meet both WP:WORDISSUBJECT and WP:SIGCOV . -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 08:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like it got too close for comfort . TLA tlak 01:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: That List of Generation Z slang is fascinating, if not a tad disorienting. Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess because rizz was Oxford's word of the year? ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings ) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it seemed like a good illustration of an article that would easily be over the line. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – I'm the author, I get that WP:NOTDICT is a thing, but Gyat has substantial cultural influence. Apart. from a ton of coverage in tabloids / WP:MREL sources, this article in Today ] is likely one of the strongest in supporting substantial cultural or etymological analysis . As S0091 mentioned on my talk page. Probably more needs to be added to the article itself, but the aforementioned substance of Gyat clearly can't be summarized at Wiktionary. WP:WORDISSUBJECT . TLA tlak 01:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I was originally leaning the other way, but after examining the sources, it does seem like this word clearly meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV , and the article as written is more than just a WP:DICTDEF , as others have pointed out. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it should be added to the List of Gen Z slang. HiSisters98 ( talk ) 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there isn't a consensus here and a broader discussion on when terms should have stand-alone articles. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : meets WP:GNG . The Today, HITC and Dexerto articles are about Gyat specifically (the latter is not used in this article but in List of Generation Z slang , though the word is attributed to Gen Alpha). Other articles such as NYT and RollingStone also support it's social and cultural significance. S0091 ( talk ) 15:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:GNG and the term is everywhere right now… I see no reason for the deletion. V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Again, I'm not challenging the notability of the word, I simply think the information currently in the article could be summarized in List of Generation Z slang Mach61 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At its current state, Gyat might be able to be summarized there, but I suspect that if the social and culture significance added the story would change. List of Generation Z slang doesn't seem right, as Gyat is used a bit more predominantly by Generation Alpha, both according to the sources and according to Generation Z (me as well). Once List of Generation Alpha slang (likely in the near future) is published, what would we do? TLA tlak 08:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you have time and the inclination to do so, why not just add additional information re: the "social and culture significance" of the word? Put it irrefutably over the WP:WORDISSUBJECT line. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cl3phact0 thanks for the idea. I've done that with some major expansion. TLA tlak 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that is a good idea. :) Seriously, good job. S0091 ( talk ) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! TLA tlak 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mach61 , would these changes change your opinion? sorry for ping TLA tlak 11:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article now surpasses most of the criteria discussed above and is supported by sufficient sources. In my view, it is also interesting information and a useful addition. -- Cl3phact0 ( talk ) 12:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : due to SIGCOV with plenty of reliable sources. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 13:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge it in List of Generation Z slang , with a few of the best sources. Drmies ( talk ) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Generation Z slang (which isn’t technically accurate as it’s African-American Vernacular slang but it’s better here to merge into the aforementioned article). For one, the word is not notable on its own to have a Wikipedia article and two, the description in the article isn’t an accurate account of the word. A blurb in Generation Z slang serves it best. Trillfendi ( talk ) 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The origins of the word are disputed. GP22248 ( talk ) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like it also probably isn't technically accurate as it's used by Generation Alpha more. TLA tlak 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I second this. I see it's more widely used by Generation Alpha. Pancho507 ( talk ) 15:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s used by both about equally, however, since the origins of the words are disputed, it wouldn’t be accurate to put it in either. GP22248 ( talk ) 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge camps. This is just an impression but I think there are some editors who are focusing on the meaning of the word and not on whether there is adequate sourcing to establish notability which should be the primary determinant of whether or not there is a standalone article, not on the nature of the term. At this point, it's either a No consensus closure or one more relist and I'm going with the latter. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I would note to all those voting merge to List of Generation Z slang that doing so would be factually somewhat incorrect, as the term is more predominantly used by Generation Alpha, based on sourcing online and if you have ever spent time on TikTok: NYT , BI , Daily Caller , et al. TLA tlak 14:37, 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

Bronisław Gostomski: A priest who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (just an obituary). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta , likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Poland . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It is true that all those killed in the crash were given the order . However, he was appointed Commander of the Order of Polonia Restituta rather than one of the lower grades, which probably qualifies for WP:ANYBIO #1, although the lower grades probably don't. We would certainly consider the equivalent grades in the British honours system to meet ANYBIO (and have done so many times). -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But context is relevant: getting an award for being in the wrong place/time (dying int he aforementioned incident) is just a nice tweak to WP:NOTMEMORIAL . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you considered that maybe these people would have been up for the honour in life anyway, but died before they could receive it? For the lower levels I would agree with you, just "recognition" for dying in a notable incident (a bit weird, in my opinion, but often done in some countries; France tends to hand out the Légion d'honneur for things like this, for instance), but not the higher levels. There's a reason these people were not made a knight or officer, but received a higher honour. And it's not just seniority, as some senior people did receive one of the lower grades. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If they are notable for other reasons, we need other sources to say so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Polish wikipedia article states that he was a chaplain of Ryszard Kaczorowski , and was honoured by the Pope and received an annual award during his lifetime so am leaning Keep , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I'm seeing a short obituary in The Times , another in Gazeta Wyborcza , and another on Polskie Radio . I can also find a longer, bylined obit in Richmond and Twickenham Times , with other substantial coverage in The Telegraph and Argus , Wiadomosci , The Daily Telegraph , and The Evening Standard . He was also apparently somewhat known locally for work with Polish immigrants in the U.K. . A lot of this is coverage related to his death, or other coverage published around the time of his death, though he was also featured in a front-page story of the Peterborough Herald and Post in 1991, although he wasn't the subject of that article. Regarding WP:ANYBIO #1, the papal award appears to merely be monsignor , which wouldn't confer notability. But, the Polish award of Commander of the Order of Polonia Restituta seems to meet that. There's also the consideration of WP:1E , but merging seems to be infeasible due to the way that the list article is structured. In light of all the above, I think keeping this as a standalone works best. We've got a pass on WP:ANYBIO #1, and thus a pass of WP:NBIO , and we have enough in terms of sourcing to write a brief biographical entry about this priest. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : based on the explanations above and the "award" given to him (I'm not sure that's the correct term). We have enough for a brief article Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , due to being awarded posthumously with Polonia Restituta and the title of Chaplain of His Holiness before death. Marcelus ( talk ) 13:18, 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

Si Bearing MRT station: I cannot see how any of these are notable- altho since my Thai is nonexistant I have not checked the sources. I changed all those I Came across to redirects to MRT (Bangkok) , but all these edits have been reverted, with the misleading edit summary 'fixing spam' Seeving a wider consensus...I'd bundle them all together, but things tend to go horribly wrong when I attempt this. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, isn’t checking sources the number one thing to do before nominating for deletion? WP:BEFORE and all that. I don’t see how the article is “uninformative”. Garuda3 ( talk ) 14:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per sources here . Clearly BEFORE hasn't been done. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All of those news items are mere passing mentions where it's listed as one of the stations on the Yellow Line, without any in-depth coverage of specific stations. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I've long been of the opinion that these run-off-the-mill station stubs are redundant clutter and the reader will be better served by redirecting them to the line article (which in this case should have been Yellow Line (Bangkok) rather than the MRT article). But this is a contentious issue, and more of an editorial question than one for AfD. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . With regards to deletion of an MRT station article, I feel its notability is significant. If we were to view this suggestion from another point, would it then not be fitting to delete all other articles on MRT/BTS or rapid transit stations and indeed not only for Bangkok's but for all other systems even outside Thailand? (KL, Singapore, Jakarta to name a few). Wikipedia is a community-driven encyclopedia by which, I hope, everyone can expand, especially on topics such as this that after all is informative and would prove useful. Sastravuth1786 ( talk ) 14:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most probably. Out of interest I've had a look at a couple of articles about the London underground. Golders Green tube station looks deletion worthy; all the cites come from London Transport and the article basically tells you when it was built and where it is. Could be included in an article on the Northern Line. And I'm not even sure about Brent Cross tube station , although it probably scrapes by since it is a Grade 2 listed building (Likewise Tooting Bec). (I'm very dubious about the inherent notability of Grade 2 buildings, which is why Wikipedia does not have an article on my last home. The only article I came across was Highgate tube station , which has in interesting history. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Yellow Line (Bangkok) . The news sources I found regarding the station in this search only mention the station in passing, while other results consisted of property listings, maps and forum threads. As of now, the station just isn't notable enough for a standalone article, and coverage in the line article is sufficient, but I believe it would be a valid search term. R22-3877 ( talk ) 03:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Please note that I am not argueing that the MRT system is not notable, merely that there is no presumption that individual stations are noteworthy. I would also point out that none of the articles I redirected contained any real content, simply the location and number of platforms. I would also urge those 'voting' keep to read WP:OTHERSTUFF ; the fact that other similar articles exist is an argument for their deletion rather than the inclusion of the similar article TheLongTone ( talk ) 10:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is a unwritten convention that open metro stops get their own articles. Even on very large systems. Every London Underground station, every New York City subway station, every Paris Metro station, every Shanghai Metro station, every Beijing Subway station etc has an article. A metro stop is inherently more notable and permanent than say a bus stop. And there are sufficient transport geeks like myself around the world who like to keep these kind of transport articles up to date. I don't think it is worth Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms over this. Matthewmayer ( talk ) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the point of an article- like those under discussion here and several of th eLondon Underground articles- which contain absolutely zero content Its a station, it has platforms, trains stop there. D U L dull. TheLongTone ( talk ) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be shocked if you could get any operating London Underground or British railway station article deleted. Garuda3 ( talk ) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. -- Rs chen 7754 18:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per which argument above? Garuda3 and Davey2010's arguments that sources exist have been rebuked, Sastravuth1786 only said WP:other stuff exists , and Matthewmayer's is more an WP:IAR argument than based in any policy. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 04:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ...why does it matter? This comes off as WP:BLUDGEON . Rs chen 7754 05:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It matters because the point of AfD is to discuss and share opinions on why an article should or should not be deleted. It would better help the closer gauge consensus if participants made their reasoning clear rather than just voting per majority . But if you disagree, no need to reply. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This has been discussed in great detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65#Request_for_comment_on_train_station_notability and while there's no consensus for a blanket "all stations are notable" rule, in general it seems that mainline rail stations, and extant metro/subway stations, generally always survive AFD nominations. The debate centres more around things like closed request stops, heritage railways, stations on proposed lines etc. Matthewmayer ( talk ) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Start a proper discussion that covers this and all stations on the Yellow Line, either as a new AfD or a centralised discussion to merge/redirect. This AfD singling out a single station was not the proper venue to address the issue. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 02:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the correct place to discuss this would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations) (note this is an essay not a policy, and doesn't really reflect what happens in practice at AfD) - personally I'd be happy to see updated guidelines similar to say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) that define certain types of train stations which can be assumed to be notable Matthewmayer ( talk ) 03:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Museum of Foreign Debt: It does not even have a building of its own (note that the photo is the University, not the museum). This page (an official page of Argentina and its topics) lists Argentine museums, and this one is not listed in it. Cambalachero ( talk ) 17:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions . Cambalachero ( talk ) 17:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Economics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Many hits in Gnews searching for the Spanish name of the museum, I'll have to look over them further, but most look ok Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This talks about the museum [22] as does this [23] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:17, 28 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! 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- There is a ton of significant coverage of this museum in reliable sources, as I discovered from my initial gscholar search. In particular see: University, socio-economic history and identity: The Museum of Foreign Debt, a museum without a collection by MARÍA DEL CARMEN MAZA & GRACIELA WEISINGER CORDERO in University Museums and Collections Journal Volume 5 – 2012. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/18578/fulltext.pdf? sequence=2#page=73 Nunca Más (Never Again). The Museum of Foreign Debt by Finnegan, Brian in The Public Historian. Santa Barbara Vol. 28, Iss. 2, (Spring 2006): 113-117. https://www.proquest.com/openview/3fcecce5062781529d45469df6b107ce/1? cbl=49186 Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:18, 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

Dan Levenson (musician): Unref BLP. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Arizona , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A book was written about him, and he has written a book books about banjo playing. I have started adding references, but I need to take a break now. Stony Brook babble 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY ; per WP:GNG —we have WP:SIGCOV from the independent and reliable St. Petersburg Times , from a trade journal and from the book written about him (and these refs barely scratch the surface of what is out there on this elderly prolific artist and educator—after taking another break I will look for more); and per WP:ARTIST #1 (cited by peers as an authority in his field) #2 (renowned for implementing popular field workshops for beginners all around the world) and #3 (large body of highly acclaimed instruction books). Stony Brook babble 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP I think being the subject of a third-party book should qualify as notable. True, McFarland are niche publishers, but it is nonetheless third-party coverage. ShelbyMarion ( talk ) keep with new sources added by @ StonyBrook this article should pass notability through WP:ARTIST #1. Agree the Stern and Brooks book should weigh heavily. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:56, 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

LesserEvil: Admittedly, the article now has more sources than it did then but as can be seen from the table below, there are still no sources that count towards GNG or ORGCRIT . They are almost all either small local newspapers or specialist trade publications. In any case, the sources either largely depend on quotes or read like press releases. It should be deleted. Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Pitchbook ( https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/128856-34#overview ) ? Unknown where Pitchbook gets their info from but doubtful it is independent. WP:ORGTRIV Merely an entry into a database ✘ No International Bakery Article ( https://in-bakery.com/lesserevil-collaborates-with-rind-snacks/ ) The article consists largely (though) not entirely of quotes IB seems to be an indutry blog largely publishing press releases, not a secondary source as such barely ✘ No The Journal News, White Plains NY article ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/166431624/?clipping_id=131265720&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE2NjQzMTYyNCwiaWF0IjoxNzEyMDc2MjcyLCJleHAiOjE3MTIxNjI2NzJ9.p5UIjOhpxTsTgxJjWAhxUUrtn66o7Rfk9j7GFrpgnRA ) Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release ? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local ✘ No Stamford Advocate article ( https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/judges-like-what-they-savor-in-lesserevil-3442484.php ) Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release ? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know In any event, WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local ✘ No Own company website history Obviously the co's own coverage is not independent ✘ No Hatford Business Journal article ( https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/nearing-100m-in-annual-revenues-cts-lesserevil-expands-organic-snack-foods-line-readies-new ) Large quotes and the article simply rattles off facts that likely came from the company, not much evidence of their own journalism but not as quote-heavy as some of the others ? The HBJ seems to largely publish press releases, but I am unsure about its journalistic practices Very doubtful about its circulation per WP:AUD but the coverage is more in-depth than the other articles ✘ No Danbury daily voice article ( https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/danbury/business/lesserevil-snacks-opens-a-new-factory-in-danbury/580408/ ) Largely quotes ? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know WP:AUD local newspaper ✘ No Danbury's Financial Report Presumable I presume it is The City of Danbury's financial report is not significant is a primary source ✘ No Nosh article ( https://www.nosh.com/news/2020/lesserevil-moves-into-new-categories-expands-distribution/ ) Many quotes; reads like a press release Reads like a press release It's a specialist trade blog/magazine ✘ No Foodbusiness news article ( https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/21129-lesserevil-enters-bar-category-with-acquisition-of-redd-bar ) Mostly quotes Reads like a press release It's a specialist trade blog/magazine ✘ 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 }} . Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies . Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . We need at least one independent non-local source per WP:NCORP , so we look at International Bakery (a reprint of this press release [52] ), Foodbusiness (a reprint of this press release [53] ), and Nosh (I feel slightly better about this as a source than nom, previous RSN discussion [54] , but in any case, the specific article is a CEO interview). ~ A412 talk! 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to note that we need at least two sources per WP:NCORP , not one. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 11:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we agree, and I'm aware of the general provisions of WP:NCORP , I was quoting the audience requirement , which says At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary . ~ A412 talk! 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Right, sorry! Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Two new sources have been added - a Forbes article from 2019, as well as a more recent Bloomberg Law article. The company is well-known and worthy of an article. It can be improved but not worthy of deletion. CityLimitsJunction ( talk ) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles by Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable. ~ A412 talk! 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd agree with @ A412 that Forbes is not reliable. I have tried having a look at the Bloomberg Law article. It is paywalled so I can't read all of it. Bloomberg Law is probably reliable, like most articles written by Bloomberg staff tend to be . I am not sure it amounts to significant coverage for the company , though. It's an article, as far as I can see, about a first-instance lawsuit against the company. I am not sure that it should count. Even if it's sufficiently in-depth, I am not sure it sufficiently demonstrates the company is notable enough. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two additional independent & non-local sources have been added - neither echo any press release material. Thus the article shall remain active. CityLimitsJunction ( talk ) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I only see one extra source, the Just Food piece . If you mean the sources in the 'Ingredients' section I removed, they should also not count because some nutriologist noting that a product has a short ingredient list does not even come close to establishing the company's notability. Apart from that, I've had a look at the Just Food article. It is almost entirely reliant on quotes from the Company/its officers/business partners. It is not independent. Furthermore, even if we do find two sources, please note that only creates a presumption of notability (per WP:ORGCRIT . Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added multiple additional RS with SIGCOV, removed a few of the worst press-release ones and the content sourced only to them. I think this subject makes it over the hump. Valereee ( talk ) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can see, none of the sources added amount to to RS SIGCOV. They are: 'Top 10 list' style coverage that happens to cover one of their products ( [55] and [56] ) and which only amount to trivial coverage ; A Forbes contributor piece ( [57] ) which is not RS ; Reviews of a product of the company ( [58] and [59] ) which must be treated very carefully . Setting aside whether they are reliable and independent sources, neither amounts to significant coverage of the company . They are just covering some of their products. Coverage of the company itself is trivial. Companies do not inherit notability from their products . Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't add that Forbes piece. I added Men's Health, Business Insider, E! Online, Bon Appetit, Baking Business, Prevention, WFSB, Self, and Eat This, Not That, IIRC. Valereee ( talk ) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for the confusion on my part. I'll deal with them one by one: Men's health is link 8. I don't think a review of a single product establishes notability either of the company or of their product line such that WP:NPRODUCT applies. Business Insider [60] is paywalled but seems to be just another review of a single product. E! (link 5 above) is indeed trivial coverage of a single product in a Top 15 list. Bon appetit (link 7) is a slightly less trivial review of a single product. It's a few paragraphs of prose rather than a terse couple of sentences in a top 10 list. This surely still can't amount to SIGCOV of the company though. Is the company notable because a reviewer liked their pink salt popcorn? Baking Business [61] : reads suspiciously like a press release. I've found two posts with almost identical wording ( [62] and [63] ). It's almost certainly a press release. Prevention [64] is a one-line mention of the company in a top 30 list. WFSB [65] has several problems. The article is largely composed of quotes. It's not independent. Likewise the 1min57s reportage. WFSB is also a newstation local to Hartford. In my view none of these establish a presumption of notability for the company or their products. They are all reviews of a single product, entries in a Top X list, press releases or otherwise not sources we count for notability. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Companies do not inherit notability from their products. While this is true, the article is effectively about the company's line of snack products, and by WP:NPRODUCT , In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic . I would be inclined, in this case, to count substantial reviews of their product line, though I have yet to look at the sources added by Valereee. ~ A412 talk! 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I take your point. If there were substantial reviews of the company's product range I might be inclined to agree (subject obvs to the reviews being substantial reliable and independent). But as you can see from my reply to Valereee, none of the new sources amount to that. They are either reviews of individual products, or top 10 list entries or a press release. Jtrrs0 ( talk ) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources that have been added would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With the addition of credible sources by Valereee, and 'Recognition' section now firmly demonstrates the subject's notability on its own. Gedaali ( talk ) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the new sources added demonstrating notability. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Red Light Management: 1, 2 are primary sources, 3, 5, 6 are routine coverage, and 4 is an interview. Unable to find any higher quality sources. Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Entertainment , and United Kingdom . Fermiboson ( talk ) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , California , and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure but likely keep so for now sharing some sources I found; the article currently isn't great but it was also only 71 minutes old when nominated for AFD. There's a lot of routine coverage in reliable sources, way more than is normal for corp articles that are deleted in my experience. What was source 4 (more sources since added) ("Red alert") is not solely an interview; since this nom someone else already added "How Red Light Management is breaking new acts during the pandemic" . www.musicweek.com . Retrieved 2023-12-07 . , which says there's additional feature coverage behind a paywall (which I haven't found that particular source yet). In Virginia newspapers there's some additional coverage of them working on a new venue, one example Roanoke council will hear report Monday on ideas for amphitheater . There's some real, but not huge, coverage of Red Light in a couple of books abut DMB's Dave Matthews Band : music for the people , The Dave Matthews Band : step into the light , and Dave Matthews Band FAQ (which seems to be from a somewhat real publisher). There's also some that are, as far as I can tell, only behind paywalls: RED ALL OVER. another part interview, part feature, excerpt "Red Light is one of the biggest management companies in the world, with a UK office that’s grown rapidly since opening in 2012. But how can such an expansive business stay true to its independent and artist-friendly roots? And what does its future in Europe hold?" BRIGHT LIGHTS. , I think the match to How Red Light above, interviews with multiple staff members of Red Light (mentioned to show availability of sources to expand article not just for notability); Red alert: How Red Light’s expanding UK operation is taking over the charts ; Light up: Red Light expands with 'powerhouse' dance duo the duo is Sigma and it also includes a mini article titled "Red Light redemption: Game on for management firm". Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Draftify , although I definitely think this article needs to enter the draftspace for incubation until it's really ready to be published. As noted by Skynxnex , there are many reliable sources covering the activities of Red Light Management; for the time being, I've added a Billboard article (current source 11) to go with the multiple existing citations from MusicWeek. AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The issue currently seems to be that the article's creator, Punk Rock London , has a potential COI and a brief history ( [60] , [61] ) of publishing low-quality music industry articles into the mainspace instead of developing them as drafts. Tangentially related, there's an IP address that they tend to work closely with when it comes to these things. I'd assume good faith that this is just a new editor with specific interests for now, but I just wanted my concern voiced. AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if drafting is really useful. Only a bit more cleanup of the promotional tone will leave that aspect fine and if this discussion decides this subject is WP:N then mainspace is most useful for other editors improving the article. I agree that the creator probably should stop creating articles directly in the mainspace for now and only use AFC for future creations for the foreseeable future. Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a good point about other editors being able to improve the article more easily if it's left in the mainspace. Since I think it is WP:N, I'm changing my vote. AlexTheAwkward ( talk ) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I would like to defend myself against the allegations made by AlexTheAwkward as of course that i have specific interests and that’s music business and also I’m new and I’m learning and when I found out that the largest management company in the music industry didn’t have a Wikipedia page i wanted to contribute as a company as important as Red Light Management should definitely have a page so I advise you to focus on improving the page instead of making claims about me unrelated to this article, I don’t have any connections to this company but if a company as big as this one doesn’t have a Wikipedia page and there’s many other companies smaller and with less sources that have it, It will definitely teach us about the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia, Please feel free to report [User:AlexTheAwkward|AlexTheAwkward]] if keep making allegations about me instead of contributing to the article, Many thanks. Punk Rock London ( talk ) 19:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any specific allegations made by AlexTheAwkward other than a "potential" which seems reasonable based on your talk page (and Alex has worked on improving the article and !voted keep?). Punk Rock London, you should probably WP:AGF and WP:STRIKE the mention of reporting Alex and be mindful of the context of the useful feedback you've gotten on your talk page. And for good or bad, Wikipedia isn't based on "importance" or "size" but Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS . I agree it seems likely that Red Light Management does probably meet WP:NCORP . I trust we can all work on improving the article if the consensus here is to keep. Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This company has enough media coverage in order to have an article also we are talking about the latest independent music management company in the world with enough sources to justify it. 06:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:432F:DDAB:ECEF:38E3:DBD3:FCEB ( talk ) — 2A04:4A43:432F:DDAB:ECEF:38E3:DBD3:FCEB ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep The company definitely has a great impact on music industry. The article needs some improvements and expansion. killer bee 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: there not been clear justification that no source brought forward validate CORP. Conversely, it is not clear which set of sources fulfills CORP. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom comment In all honesty, I am not that familiar with the standard of reliability for music sources. However, to me it seems that all the sources yet brought for inclusion are largely interviews, or otherwise non-independent sources. And while I don't wish to say that there has been an attempt to promote the company by the company, I would not be surprised if this turns out to be the case, to put it that way. Of the sources currently in the article, everything is primary source or a passing mention/routine coverage except for the two musicweek.com sources. Of these, the second (i.e. 4 in the nom statement) is an interview disguised as a feature, as you will see quotes from company personalities interspersed literally every other sentence. The first appears to be of a similar nature, though the quote-to-prose ratio is slightly less egregious (I mean the entire bloody article starts out with Red Light Management's managing director... has told us .) If anyone has any previous RS discussions on musicweek, I think that would be quite useful in orienting the discussion. Fermiboson ( talk ) 09:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. While this might seem like an obvious Keep, there are valid objections to some of the sources used and several editors participating here are relatively inexperienced at evaluating articles in AFD discussion. I'd like to know where User:Skynxnex comes down and hear from some veteran AFD regulars. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (maybe weak?) I think for me. I agree it's not a 100% clear NCORP pass with the exact coverage I've found. Music Week seems to be seen as generally reliable trade publication ( search results in the RS noticeboard ). Most business coverage outside of the large will have quotes/interviews from the business itself and so the question is if the resultant. So both the trade status and the "feature"ness of the Music Week pieces bring Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories[3] from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. from WP:NCORP into play (the ref note is A feature story is usually a longer article where the writer has researched and interviewed to tell a factual story about a person, place, event, idea, or issue. Features are not opinion-driven and are more in-depth than traditional news stories. . A new-to-me article from Music Week covering Red Light Management: < https://www.musicweek.com/management/read/red-light-x-atlantic-inside-the-management-firm-s-new-songwriting-camp-for-uk-hitmakers/087060 >: Red Light Management has launched its songwriting camp series with an inaugural week-long event for Atlantic artists at RAK Studios in London. , but still a bit borderline. And < https://www.musicweek.com/management/read/if-you-re-not-thinking-globally-you-re-going-to-miss-out-red-light-management-s-james-sandom-talks-strategy/069409 > is mostly interviewed but shows they did several pieces on them in 2017, as well. To step out of pure policy-based reasons arguments, there is a huge amount of coverage of artists getting deals with and leaving Red Light, along with lots of coverage of employees joining and departing. Looking in that vein, there is < https://www.billboard.com/pro/mary-hilliard-harrington-red-light-management/ > which really seems about as much about Red Light as Hilliard: Red Light Management is beefing up its already significant Nashville presence with the hiring of Mary Hilliard Harrington in a senior management capacity. ... The new team will be based out of the office Red Light recently moved into in the Gulch neighborhood of Nashville. Harrington brings with her two staffers from her previous management firm and two new hires. Stephanie Johnson, who handles day-to-day management for Bentley, and Kevin Grace, who works on the digital and creative content side for all of Harrington’s clients.... And < https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/tim-mcgraw-signs-red-light-83138/ > in 2009 has a short but solid info about of Red Light: Based in Charlottesville, Va., Red Light Management was founded by Capshaw in 1991 at the beginning of his 18-year role as the personal manager of Dave Matthews Band. The company has grown into one of the most active artist management companies in the industry. Also for McGraw's signing, and this article in Billboard had more than I realized (looks like ~15-20 sentences about Red Light, still a mix of reporting, quotes from Capshaw, and McGraw) so I hadn't included it before: [62] / [63] "Touring over a new leaf: with a new managers and ambitious concert plans, Tim McGraw isn't resting on his laurels": When word came last April that McGraw signed with Red Light Management, many on Music Row were taken by surprise. Capshaw, a Charlottesville, Va.-based entrepreneur with a wide-ranging portfolio—including real estate and a brewery—is perhaps best-known as manager of Dave Matthews Band, founder of direct-to-fan pioneer MusicToday (now part of Live Nation) and co-founder of ATO Records. Red Light's roster is very deep and diverse, but McGraw is the first established mainstream country star to enter the fold. as a snippet. I don't really like WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments but compared the majority of company articles we have (let alone comparable companies) this one has a much better claim to notability. (And the raw number of times a person quoted is ID'd as working there or a photo of a musician is via courtesy them makes finding more in-depth sources harder.) So, to justify my weak keep, I think the coverage of them working on the new music venue in Virginia, the Music Week features (both the multiple articles issue in 2023 as well as the full page in 2019 about signing Sigma + Red Light's attempts at getting into gaming), and coverage of them in the context of BMB's founding, and coverage of hiring/signing together meets NCORP. I think really going through all the sources, esp if someone had access to the Billboard Pro content as well, this would be a solid keep given its history. (Apologies for the length, I'm not sure why I've spent this much time on this and really need to pause but hopefully will be able to incorporate some of this into the now-cut down article if kept.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of films with post-credits scenes: — S Marshall T / C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . — S Marshall T / C 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the selection criteria seems narrow enough , and post-credits scenes as a concept are a notable topic (as reflected by having their own article as well. Hard to respond otherwise when no reason for deletion is given. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Impossibly large list of a niche, unhelpful topic where WP:NLIST is not shown to be met. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Per WP:FANCRUFT / WP:INDISCRIMINATE . Wikipedia is not a collection of movie trivia. Ajf773 ( talk ) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is an appropriate companion list for the notable topic covered at post-credits scene . The list is a reasonable length and its selection criteria are sufficiently discriminate, and the members of the list are independently notable and provably members of the group. Nominator did not provide a deletion rationale and the subsequent delete arguments amount to WP:IDLI . Note that I declined a G4 speedy deletion request on this for the sole reason that the previous discussion was sixteen years ago. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NLIST . Lots of coverage of this grouping. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . — siro χ o 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meh, I doubt articles discussing post-credits scenes as a phenomenon (especially the firsts and famous) is the same as distinctly making note of all post-credits scenes. The actual page at post-credits scenes already mentions what the articles you linked cover (the use in superhero movies, The Muppet Movie , the first use in The Silencers , using it for bloopers, etc.). When all the encyclopedic examples are already covered in the article, it makes it hard to justify a list of every single post-credits scene. I don't see how there's a strong selection criteria, either. If simply being a member of the group is criteria, then it's too broad for this purpose. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 23:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NLIST states The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. It's also ok that information overlaps with another article, stand-alone lists are generally accepted on wikipedia: WP:SAL . In fact, it's quite common for subjects to have a main prose article and a separate standalone list. Note also that this list fulfills WP:LISTPURPOSE as an informational list. The selection criteria are clear, WP:LSC has no suggestion of broad inclusion criteria being disqualifying. I apologize but I don't see a policy/guideline-related reason to delete this list. — siro χ o 23:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has: see sources provided above by Siroxo; and, for exapmple https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/10-best-non-superhero-post-credit-scenes/ https://movieweb.com/post-credits-scene-earliest-movies/ https://variety.com/lists/marvel-studios-post-credits-scenes-ranked/ https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3625230/10-best-post-credit-scenes-horror/ https://www.looper.com/150495/the-best-end-credits-scenes-ever/ etc,. It varies in scope and approach but it has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator: I don't understand the criticism that I "didn't supply a deletion rationale". Surely that's self-evident to anyone who's read the list closely enough to ! vote here. Because it doesn't have even so much as a definition of what a "post-credits scene" is , this list has filled up with unsourced trivia. It's all crufted up with entries about things that happen during the credits rather than after them, and/or things that aren't movie scenes at all, but blooper reels, out-takes, and even stills. If Wikipedia really does need a List of films with post-credits scenes , then this isn't a useful starting point and we should TNT it. — S Marshall T / C 15:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose that a note (or a small M somewhere, or a colour) could indicate when the entry is about a mid -credit scene (default being post -credit) (although the entry makes that cleat when it is the case). But is this really the main issue? Did you mean that 2 lists should be made: one for mid-cs, the other for post-cs? But mid-credit scenes redirects to Post-credit scene , the latter being considered the generic term (which is also the case for the various forms those "scenes" take, a point that the LS clarifies immediately but that can be expanded). However, talking about self-evident, the definition of post-credit scene is in the hyperlink present in the lead section and seems rather clear but it can be added in the text if you think that makes a difference. So I really cannot see any issue with that list, personally, notability included. As for a reason to delete the page, you did provide a rationale but "appropriate" is a rather vague term, I'm afraid. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You really don't see a single OR issue anywhere on that page?  :)— S Marshall T / C 19:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't. Either a film contains a post-credit scene or it does not. If reliable sources are added, I can't see what the problem is. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And that of course is the challenge for the "keep" side of this debate: to add those reliable sources you've just mentioned. — S Marshall T / C 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NEXIST and the sources provided above. The article itself does not need to be sourced as part of this discussion or as a requirement to keep it. Similarly, per policy ( WP:IMPERFECT ) it does not need to be sourced all at once. — siro χ o 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I don't think that's right. The list does need to be sourced---not as part of this discussion, but yes, by someone, at some point, reliable sources do need to be added. WP:V applies here just like it does everywhere else in the mainspace. This content was challenged by tregoweth, so the burden of providing sources falls on those wanting to keep it in the encyclopaedia. I am of course mindful that there is no deadline ... but tregoweth challenged it sixteen (16) years ago. How much longer do you expect to take? — S Marshall T / C 21:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it does need to be sourced, and not part of this discussion. I think we're in agreement on both pieces. I do think it's fine for AFD to shine a light on things, but it's also true that AfD is not cleanup. Given that this article was created ~12 years after the prior article was deleted, I think we should treat it as a separate article. Since removing every entry all at once as a CHALLENGE might be disruptive to the development of the article, probably the most productive thing here would be to tag each row {{cn}}, and then move forward from there. I am willing to add the tags if you think that's a way forward. I can add the articles we found as secondary sources to the appropriate row when I get a chance as well, as a starting point. — siro χ o 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When the whole article's been tagged with {{ cn }} for years, tagging the individual lines doesn't seem very productive to me. No, the ideal outcome here is very much to TNT this, and optionally start again with clear definitions and sources; but if that's obstructed, then I think it's best to remove the all unsourced content in accordance with the policy. There wouldn't be much left, would there? — S Marshall T / C 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please hear me, I'm willing to help out. I'm really hoping I will not be prevented from doing so. The article can easily be improved, it's not in an irredeemable state, I've worked on articles in far worse states before. Here's a non-list article I worked on quite recently [18] that was cited purely to primary sources. I do not view the ideal outcome as TNT, as that would hamper the process of sourcing. And the main issue here is that it's just very lightly referenced. This is not a BLP, we can work on referencing over time. I proposed my solution because there truly isn't yet single {{cn}} or {{citation needed}} on the entire article at this time, and an article-wide {{unreferenced}} is notoriously unhelpful in cases where there are some references, because when editors see that its not actually unreferenced, they aren't necessarily sure what the issue is. I'd like to improve things here. — siro χ o 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there's an opportunity for a compromise outcome right there. How about we agree to userfy the whole list to your userspace, and you can move it back into mainspace when you're happy that it's no longer a disgrace to our core content policies? — S Marshall T / C 23:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My ! vote will remain keep but draftifying is acceptable if that's the consensus. — siro χ o 23:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't speak for anyone else, but I called out your no-rationale nomination because the nominator in an AfD discussion is expected to present an argument supporting deletion, and not having done so is criterion for speedy keep number one . I read your nomination as having no opinion, not as you've since explained that you think it's obvious to anyone who reads the list that it should be deleted, and you still haven't explained why . If it's so obvious to you then it should be quite easy to explain your argument and ground it in our policies and guidelines, but really it seems more like you don't like that it exists and that's the end of your argument. You certainly haven't convinced me, at least. As for the issue you've highlighted with sourcing, it isn't. None of the information in this list qualifies for the requirement to be sourced inline , and is generally verifiable through sources in the listed articles (I have not checked them all but this is universally true of the ones I have checked) and that is good enough for WP:V . And yes, MINREF includes "material that has been challenged" but don't demand inline sources just to prove a point . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 13:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You, a sysop, really don't see the OR issues on that page? Genuinely? — S Marshall T / C 17:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as it satisfies NLIST. P.S. If the nominator had bothered to check, Post-credits scene states it is also known as mid-credits scene. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Its actually very useful list DoctorHver ( talk ) 03:20, 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

À partir de maintenant: Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and France . UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep covered in a book and others, as referenced in the Fr wiki article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The French article has a couple of reliable sources, also [27] , [28] , [29] . Regards, Comte0 ( talk ) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The album has been certified Gold for 100,000 units. Europe22 ( talk ) 18:49, 21 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

Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629): 90% of the article is not about the baronet or the baronetcy, but about their extended family. Perhaps a redirect to a list of 17th c. baronetcies or some such would be the best here, and if no good target is found then deletion. Fram ( talk ) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England . Fram ( talk ) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The creation of the baronetcy in 1629 was an event early in the Personal Rule of Charles I. The content of the article is adequate to give an idea what was going on. There is nepotism: the Duke of Buckingham, who had just died at the Siege of La Rochelle , and was the most powerful person in the country after the king, was the great-uncle of John Anderson who was given the title. There is politics: Anderson's stepfather was a supporter in parliament of Charles and the Duke, and financially had backed the military expedition to La Rochelle. In return for the stepfather's support, and as a compliment to the Villiers family, Anderson was given a title (may have been paid for). Talking about "in a few very exhaustive lists of British nobility" is not exactly a fair description of the major references given (Burke, Cokayne, Rietstap). These are substantial works in the 19th century style, much more than lists. The topic passes WP:GNG . This article was put up for PROD deletion four minutes after its creation, by User:Fram . Fram is not always wrong, but I gave my reaction to that on my user talk. The fact is that Anderson was a college student around 1626, and died 1630. The major political context can be seen in https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/leigh-sir-francis-1598-1653-0 . I see the topic as encyclopedic. Charles Matthews ( talk ) 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rietstep is an extremely short entry [49] , indicating just how notable (or not) this one is. And yes, all three (Rietstep, Burke, Cokayne) are "very exhaustive lists", their rule is "you get a title, you get an entry", without any further considerations. Being given a title out of nepotism doesn't make someone (or that title) notable though. Fram ( talk ) 08:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, let's look at the guideline. Under WP:CONRED you are supposed under D3 to have considered the referencing, and concluded that the references are "insufficient", e.g. "just passing mention of the topic". That is not the case for Burke and Cokayne. For Rietstap, which is about heraldry, reference is to another (later) Anderson baronetcy just up the page, which shared the escutcheon. So I don't think the criticism is fair. By the way, I think the baronetcy is notable, because it is covered by relevant literature on titles of nobility. I have not said that Anderson is a notable person, and I don't think the title baronet confers notability. So could we stay on-topic? Charles Matthews ( talk ) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I have concluded that the references are insufficient, otherwise I wouldn't propose to delete or redirect the article. Cokayne is nothing but he was born, created a baronet, died, baronetcy extinct. Burke is the same with slightly different words. If even these highly specialized and exhaustive works have so little to say about this, then I don't believe this baronetcy meets the GNG. Fram ( talk ) 09:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The works have a standard scope, and Wikipedia's scope is broader. The context is there in the article, but has to stop short of OR. What you are saying means you could tag the article with {{ notability }} : as it is, 48 hours after its creation as part of a bigger project on Anderson baronets , you have twice invoked deletion processes. Where's the fire? Charles Matthews ( talk ) 09:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You have a week to present better sources which give us any non-routine information about the baronetcy, as that is all you have now; the most routine information. It's comparable to a register of companies, where you have the date of foundation and end date the year after, and the name of the founder. Okay, and? What did it do, what impact did it have on people, what happened during the existence? Apparently, absolutely nothing, but it existed, and its existence may, perhaps, somehow, be an example of something in this period in British history, but no historian at all has ever used this baronetcy as even an example of this apparently. Why should we wait longer? Do you want it draftified so you get six months to search for better sources? Fram ( talk ) 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup, as predicted by the trajectory at WP:CHANCE (but I didn't remove the PROD), followed by the reasoning of WP:NIME . Charles Matthews ( talk ) 11:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Like long-forgotten skirmishes in provincial wars, the UK aristocracy is of enduring and encyclopaedic interest. Generally, the creation of a title has stood as GNG. In this case, I don't see a good argument against the article anyway. It's well-sourced and fairly well-written; the subject has enough meat on it for several paragraphs and enough sources to draw from; the subject is mentioned regularly in scholarly lists (thus establishing enduring coverage); and it's actually rather interesting. I have a problem with the plural in the title (there was only one and there is no prospect of a second), but that's not the issue of this AfD. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per keepers. Johnbod ( talk ) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Burke and Cokayne both have entries specifically about this baronetcy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 04:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Centre d'Etudes Diplomatiques et Stratégiques: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Education , Schools , and France . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable. Clearly passes WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:GNG . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an accredited postgraduate school of national importance. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Seyyed Mohammad Saeedi: Cleric that has done nothing except being a cleric (which does not automatically make the subject notable). JoseJan89 ( talk ) 09:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG , and has zero notability apart from being a cleric. ImperialMajority ( talk ) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE . ✗ plicit 03:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Prominent cleric, public figure and mouthpiece of the regime in Qom, Iran's religious epicentre. Most recently featured prominently in the Iranian government's Covid misinformation: Iranian cleric blames Trump for coronavirus outbreak in Qom. Jerusalem Post. Here's another mention in MEMO: Iran cleric encourages visitors to Qom religious sites, despite coronavirus fears . And the WSJ: Pilgrims to Muslim Holy Sites Risk Spreading Coronavirus . Searching for just Mohammad Saeedi (without the honorific, which shouldn't be in the title anyway, while also specifying "cleric" to avoid confusion with the other Mohammad Saeedi ) aids the process. There are more mentions in local news, including for other name variations. Here's a Tehran times piece using Ayatollah Saeedi . A search for his name in Farsi meanwhile shows nearly 4,000 hits - a significant volume. Looking at the coverage across all of the variants, I would suggest that WP:GNG does apply. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on Mccapra's additions below, it would appear that WP:NPOL also clearly applies. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Passing mentions as a cleric spokesperson does not make someone notable. Fad Ariff ( talk ) 13:11, 24 March 2023 (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 03:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Talking head for the regime, no coverage outside of his "speeches". Nothing found for GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clear NPOL pass as an elected member of the Assembly of Experts . Mccapra ( talk ) 05:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra : there aren't any sources that confirm Saeedi is part of Assembly of Experts (Saeedi also is not mentioned in that article for this reason). Fad Ariff ( talk ) 12:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here’s the official website of the Assembly of Experts , showing him as a member, and an official news agency announcing his successful election. Also he is listed as a member for Qom at List of members in the Fifth Term of the Council of Experts . Mccapra ( talk ) 12:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 07:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per Mccapra sources above. I don't doubt there are plenty of non-English sources. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 19 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

Stolen (Armstrong novel): No independent sources. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The inside cover [2] of one of Armstrong's other novels, Exit Strategy , contains excerpts from reviews of Stolen by the New York Times , Quill & Quire , the Toronto Star , Toronto Globe and Mail and London Free Press , which would mean it easily fulfills WP:NBOOK #1. The Quill and Quire review is available online. [3] Unfortunately, the archives of the other newspapers are all behind paywalls, so I can't verify them myself (but anyone with a Toronto library card should be able to access the Star and Globe and Mail ). We shouldn't consider a book non-notable just because it was published before the modern Internet. -- Tserton ( talk ) 12:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reviewed by Kirkus among others. Insufficient BEFORE. pburka ( talk ) 13:42, 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

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation): Users can hardly know of its existence since it is not even hatnoted atop Patricia Quinn , where the hatnote only states, "For the American scientist, see Patricia Quinn (atmospheric chemist) . For similar names, see Pat Quinn (disambiguation) ." If preferred, instead of deletion, Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) can simply exist as a redirect to the Pat Quinn dab page.  — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , and Disambiguations . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question - When I started this DAB page there were three people named Patricia Quinn ( Patricia Quinn (Northern Irish actress) , Patricia Quinn (American actress) , and Patricia Quinn (scientist) ). It looks like this was changed about a week ago and the set of names has changed. Was there a reason for this? Or can we shift the page back to its prior state? DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 18:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It was decided that the British/Irish actress was the primary topic, and the American actress would be better called "Pat Quinn". So this page might be unnecessary, but we do have the two "see also" entries. PatGallacher ( talk ) 18:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm leaning towards the view that these "see also" entries are not enough to justify having this page. PatGallacher ( talk ) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really have strong feelings either way, but I am still a little confused. What happened to Patricia Quinn (American actress) ? She was lost entirely. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 18:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh wait - I see, the American actress is now Pat Quinn, under the see also. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There is no reason to exclude Patricia Quinn (American actress) from this page, merely because the subject also fits on another page. "Pat" is her common name, "Patricia" is her given name. BD2412 T 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Pat Quinn (American actress) 's name is Patricia (and the IMDB entry is in that name [20] ): there are three entries on the page. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 09:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I did a little digging at newspapers.com and discovered that Patricia Quinn the American actress wanted to be called Patricia, but the producer of her first hit movie didn't like the name and insisted she be called Pat. To me that's enough reason to keep all three names listed on a dab page. [1] DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Kleiner, Dick (1970-03-01). " 'Watermelon' turns sour" . The Journal Times . p. 16 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . Keep several valid entries. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:16, 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

J. N. Lummus: Sources only cover his political decisions. iMahesh ( talk ) 05:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians . iMahesh ( talk ) 05:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are books, photos, online articles, news stories, family archives, first-person narratives that all equate him in stature to Carl Fisher and John Collins regarding Miami Beach's development. Modrums ( talk ) 21:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean keep - I'm finding several books that cover Lummus with more than a passing mention, though they are all focused on South Florida / Miami Beach. He also seems to have had some notability in business as a banker. Plenty of contemporaneous newspaper coverage. Little national coverage, but sufficient that I think a short article is appropriate per WP:GNG . — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 13:38, 22 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! 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I started a discussion on the talk page as I have access to some sources but they might fall under the original research policy . I'd like some guidance before I try to expand the article myself. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG per above. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 13:11, 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

Chargrill Charlie's: Noting the company’s website is a primary source and not independent. Previous PROD removed by anon IP, possible WP:SOCKPUPPET , without addressing the issue of notability. The article’s creator is currently blocked for disrupting other articles. Anon IP is potentially working around current block. Dan arndt ( talk ) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Australia . Dan arndt ( talk ) 13:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Most of the issues raised in the nom are not themselves justification for deleting the article. The current sourcing is poor but I have been able to find quite a bit of decent coverage such as this from the Financial Review , Mosman Living , Hospitality magazine , and the Sydney Morning Herald . This was from a fairly quick search. AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : The article needs improving but a Google search found a number of sources that can contribute towards establishing notability under WP:NCORP . GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 15:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Conducted a BEFORE and found some useful sources. X ( talk ) 18:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to PAG Asia Capital . This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* . "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references rely entirely on information from the execs or the company. The references included above are thinly disguised promos or regurgitated company announcements or PR - I mean the articles in hospitality magazine (almost entirely consiste of quotes from company exec) and Goodfood (7 sentences, 2 of which are direct quotes) both use the same (PR supplied) pic even though they're written 3 years apart and neither of them come anywhere close to meeting ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. None of the references come close and I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing ( talk • contribs ) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources presented in this AfD would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://chargrillcharlies.com/about-us ✘ No https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/chargrill-charlie-s-acquired-by-owner-of-red-rooster--oporto.html ? ? Unknown https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/from-one-chicken-shop-to-a-private-equity-buyout-20230509-p5d6vb (not in article) ✔ Yes https://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/achieving-sustainable-growth-slow-steady-expansion/ (not in article) ? ? Unknown https://mosmanliving.com.au/chargrill-charlies-is-on-the-move/ (not in article) ? ? Unknown https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/chargrill-charlies-expands-across-sydneys-eastern-suburbs-20200731-h1ppoi.html (not in article) ✔ Yes https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/event/free-chicken-chargrill-charlies (not in article) ✔ Yes https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/more-chicks-for-justin-bieber-in-sydney-and-this-time-hes-eating-em/news-story/a00718e1e33d00d58b7895bbe6415594 (not in article) ✔ Yes https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/dataroom/craveable-brands-sale-cooking-after-pag-buys-chargrill-charlies/news-story/cb9cb29ab2eec4c7561e91d9ad491440 (not in article) ✔ Yes https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/push-to-get-chargrill-charlies-infamous-black-vip-card-extended-to-punters-not-just-vip/news-story/9bf04192df1beaa3e1371671c73f14d2 (not in article) ✔ 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 }} . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Puddle Lane books: PROD reason below: WP:NOTDATABASE . Topic is discussed (briefly, but still in more depth than on this list) at Puddle Lane . No redirect required (unusual search term, no incoming links aside from Puddle Lane and Lists of books ). asilvering ( talk ) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Lists , and United Kingdom . asilvering ( talk ) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Ashworth, Linda (April 1986). "Reviews: Puddle Lane" . Child Education . Vol.  63, no. 4. ISSN 0009-3947 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "The free guide for parents is very good. The information is given clearly in layman's terms and the advice is sound. It emphasises the importance of story, shared enjoyment and choice. There is also good advice in every book in case parents haven't read the guide ... But what about the books themselves? The stories seem tame and don't stand up to reading aloud. They have been written to teach the children to read, not by an author simply wanting to tell a story. Aesthetically the books don't come up to the standard of picture story books by authors such as Anthony Browne, Pat Hutchins or Maurice Sendak. The Ladybird format kills any possibility of individuality or originality of presentation. Although the subject matter of the books-magic, fantasy, toys coming to life — usually captures children's imagination, these stories are just not up to the standard of Tim and the Hidden People . The language structures are not so artificial as to hinder children's anticipatory skills but some of the text is very stilted." The article notes: "However, the main market for Puddle Lane is parents with pre-school children. Where parents have bought the books, their children will come into school with Puddle Lane forming a significant part of their literary experience. And there can be no doubt that parents will buy it. A television series is always a high motivator to buy the books, both for children and adults. Books can be bought in a pack with an accompanying tape — always a welcome aid to busy parents and teachers alike. The books are cheap (75p each), durable (hardback) and readily available." "Fantasy world of Puddle Lane, but rewards are real" . Leicester Mercury . 1985-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com . The Puddle Lane stories are grouped in four stages (a fifth is on the way) and the books are colour coded at each stage. The programme is geared to children from three-and-a-half to six-and-a-half, and the early books are laid out so that the story is printed on the left hand page for the adult to read to the child. Illustrations, by a team of five artists brought in for the series are an integral part of the programme. ... The stories are set in the fantasy world of Puddle Lane in Candletown with a magician a family of cats who live in his garden, a strange but Friendly monster, the Griffle, who can vanish leaving only his ears and eyes or his tail showing, and four children — Sarah, Davy, Hari and Gita, who also have adventures in Puddle Lane. " Dakin, Bridget (1985-09-13). "Open a page to walk down Puddle Lane" . Loughborough Echo . Archived from the original on 2024-02-04 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "This week they launched the Puddle Lane series — a colourful and imaginative newcomer to the shelves designed to make learning fun. ... So tales from Puddle Lane are simple to follow with colourful illustrations to help youngsters create the imaginary world in their own minds. The programme is designed for children aged between three-and-half and six-and-a-half. It has five stages, each with several books of the same reading level. The story is printed on the left-hand page of each book for the adult to first read to the child. Below illustrations on the right-hand pages are words or simple sentences which the child is encouraged to read itself when the adult goes through the story a second time. " Hammerton, Geoff (1985-09-23). "Magic approach has them reading early" . Derby Evening Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2024-02-04 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Puddle Lane, as its catchphrase says, is where children learn to read. Twelve titles, some at each of the four levels of the scheme, are out immediately at the standard price of 75p. Already there has been a tie up with Pickwick International, the record company, which has added Puddle Lane to its Tell-a-Tale bookcassette. " "New books aim to stem teaching cutbacks" . Loughborough Echo . 1985-08-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "The Puddle Lane stories have a mystical setting guaranteed to capture infants' imagination and interest. They have also caught the eye of Yorkshire Television whose new children's series based on the books is due to be screened from October. Animals, a magician and even a strange, vanishing monster feature. And in case anyone tries to accuse Ladybird of being racist, the Puddle Lane children are Sarah and Davy and their ethnic friends, Hari and Gita. ... The first 12 books from Puddle Lane are launched on September 12. It will be two years before the whole series of 54 books is on the shelves. " "Trip down Puddle Lane". The Bookseller . No. 5218. 2006-02-24. p. 9. EBSCO host 20214617 . The article notes: "Publisher Mercury Junior is to bring early readers series Puddle Lane back into print. The publisher has signed a deal with author Sheila McCullagh, whose library of over 300 titles includes the Puddle Lane series, televised during the early 1980s with a series of tie-in titles published by Ladybird. Mercury Junior will target parents who grew up watching the series. The deal was agented by Annie Quigly. " Root, Betty (1986-03-21). "Alive and well and living in schools. Reports of the death of reading schemes are extremely premature, says Betty Root, who looks at some new examples" . The Times Educational Supplement . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "Puddle Lane. This new reading programme written especially for parents to use in the home, has already been reviewed on these pages. Though this review was unfavourable, evidence from a very wide spectrum of parents and children confirm the overwhelming popularity of Puddle Lane . Tim and Tobías have been voted by hundreds of teachers as some of the most popular stories to bo found in any classroom. The same imaginative flair is contained in the new Ladybird series and Puddle Lane is a world children will enjoy reading about. " Root, Betty (1986). In Defence of Reading Schemes . Reading: Reading and Language Information Centre. University of Reading . p. 8. ISBN 0-7049-0366-0 . Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Puddle Lane. Ladybird 1985. This extensive new reading programme is aimed specifically at the parent market and certainly breaks new ground in many ways. All 55 books have been written by Sheila McCullagh, an established and highly respected children's writer. The books have a variety of support materials, all reasonably priced. Teachers, parents and children will delight in these stories which create, so successfully, an imaginary world yet contain characters both animals and human to whom the young readers can relate. With the provision of context support in the early stages — adults read the long story and children the shorter version — the books will tolerate reading over and over again. Thus building the confidence of children first learning to read. In everyway Puddle Lane has changed the image of Ladybird readers. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Puddle Lane book series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sources. Also, WP:NOTADATABASE says nothing about bibliographies. Toughpigs ( talk ) 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (nom) : Cunard's sources do not address the purpose of this AfD. They are sources for a hypothetical afd against Puddle Lane , which is not up for deletion. The article for discussion here is List of Puddle Lane books . -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, should you be proposing a merge rather than a deletion? There's Reception information on the List of Puddle Lane books that could go on Puddle Lane . AfD is not cleanup. Toughpigs ( talk ) 08:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Puddle Lane is about a television programme. List of Puddle Lane books is about the book series. The sources I provided are about the book series, not the television programme. Cunard ( talk ) 09:16, 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

Melbourne International Festival of Brass: If someone can find them, I would be happy to not delete. MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment : Multiple sources were found in the previous AfD , but were never added to the article for some reason even after the decision was to keep the article. MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found in the previous AfD - AFD is not cleanup. Deus et lex ( talk ) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NEXIST is quite clear on this matter: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. The sources from the previous AfD seem to establish notability, and they don't need to be in the article for that. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 10:51, 27 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! 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:NEXIST . Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources identified in first AFD. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . Not sure why this was relisted a second time. This was an inappropriate re-nomination and is an entirely non-controversial close as keep. 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:18, 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

List of awards named after governors general of Canada: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards , Lists , and Canada . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think this falls afoul of NLIST due to the clause There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists . This is a complex list: awards limited to those named after governors general. So, in my assessment, first we see the govorners general are each notable, many of the awards are individually notable. As such, this is not indiscriminate. Non-notable or redlinked awards can reasonably be included for completeness of the list. This also fulfills WP:LISTPURP both informational (as it differentiates different types of awards and their individual fields), and navigational as a well-defined index of such awards. — siro χ o 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Siroxo has succeeded in reading WP:NLIST more carefully than the nominator (who has my sympathies because the writing there is extremely awkward). Discussion of the group by IRS is only "[o]ne accepted reason" for a list to be notable – one needs to think more broadly. The current list fulfills a navigational purpose as explained rather nicely above. Thincat ( talk ) 09:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per NLIST and WP:SALAT , specifically "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Why governor generals of Canada only? Is there a secret cabal of award-creating governor-generals of the Canadian persuasion? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - I agree with Clarityfiend about SALAT. Specifically, 'A list should be defined so that a reasonable number of readers seek it out.' This is soooo not that. I also find Siroxo 's points very persuasive. The tiebreaker for me is that, unlike 90% of the lists I see, this one is at least manageable in scope and has unambiguous SELCRIT. If deletionist arguments prevail (which they might well do), an AtD might be to remove 'Canadian' from the SELCRIT and globalise the list a little. Perhaps something like List of awards named after government officials ? Manageable, verifiable, global, and maybe at least a little bit something that 'a reasonable number of readers [might] seek it out.' Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 22:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral Almost every, if not every, governor general creates at least one award or trophy. So, I think a list of them is useful. However, whether it needs to be a standalone article: I don't lean either way. This has been around for over a decade and nobody's questioned its existence. But, now that someone has, I could see this info being moved to Governor General of Canada . -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A valid information list, and many of the awards have their own articles. D r e a m Focus 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nicholas D'Agostino Sr.: All the sources are obituaries, and are routine or minor/non-significant coverage. Suggest merging contents into D'Agostino Supermarkets that the subject founded and does have obvious notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America . Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 19:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A by-lined obituary in the New York Times is a pretty solid indication of notability and far from routine. So is the entry in the Routledge Italian American encyclopedia. pburka ( talk ) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Pburka's comments on sourcing. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with D'Agostino Supermarkets : The only two IS RS are the Routledge encyclopedia article and the NYT Obit, which depends heavily on the Routledge article, so basically one encyclopedia entry. I don't think this is enough for a standalone article, especially when the content will fit so well into the target. This seems like an unneeded CFORK, only makes readers chase links. I tried to clean up the article and added inline citations. // Timothy :: talk 10:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - boomers and Gen Xers in the NYC metropolitan area will remember his TV commercials and charity work. That and the Times obit push him over notability. Bearian ( talk ) 01:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those wanting to Keep the article and those pushing for a Merger. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It looks like there are at least two sources providing SIGCOV of D'Agostino, and although their content is similar, I don't see that one depends on the other as one editor suggests. Hatman31 ( talk ) 16:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Lightburst ( talk ) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jetfire: [13] So he does not meet GNG. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's a shame there is so much cruft in the existing article, but looking into this briefly, the whole Jetfire / Skyfire naming and the licensing conflicts between franchises and manufacturers make this guy's real-world story pretty interesting. Some works that cover it: Den of Geek did probably the best job here , Gizmodo touched on it with a re-release , this book has seen some criticism for basic coverage on some characters (only stats), but the entry here provides the good real-world info. A few more: Anime News Network coverage and a cartoon to film breakdown from ...yes... the dreaded Comic Book Resources (for what it's worth, this one is not a listicle piece, and actually reads with some decent insight). There have to be some comic reviews to pull from, but there's clearly enough already that WP:NEXISTS to maintain this one. The article should definitely be trimmed down outside AfD, though. - 2pou ( talk ) 18:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CBR is a strange site, in that they run a lot of social media listicle fodder but do have both good analysis, interviews and the like if you poke around. The dismissal of it as a source outright in some AfDs has been somewhat unsettling, as most news websites run plenty of frivolous stuff to stay afloat. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 21:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per arguments presented by 2pou. BOZ ( talk ) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as yes I agree that the Jetfire/Skyfire naming and the licensing conflicts make him a very interesting character indeed. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 02:58, 1 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

Idaho Green Party: Cannot inherit notability from parent organisation. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT . AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , United States of America , and Idaho . AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:17, 4 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! 07:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a newspapers.com search comes up with more than 100 hits, multiyear reliable sourcing with SIGCOV easily identifiable, some examples: Green Party finds home in N. Idaho , Green Party to start drive for '92 ballot , Green Party wants higher minimum wage , Greens get petitions ready for signatures . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sourcing cited by Goldsztajn. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn. SportingFlyer T · C 17:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Flagship Airlines: I've checked the other language versions of this article and have seen nothing that would count as significant coverage. Flux55 ( my talk page ) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America . Flux55 ( my talk page ) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Tennessee . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . At the time, it was one of four regional airlines that operated American Airlines's American Eagle brand with 135 aircraft operating scheduled passenger service from 4 hubs, according to the article even without doing a WP:BEFORE search. The company employed between 1,100 and 1,200 pilots. The article can use more and better references but that's not a reason to delete. A quick Google search turns out enough reliable sources to easily pass WP:GNG . RecycledPixels ( talk ) 01:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ RecycledPixels , can you find some that meet WP:RS and establish notability? I suspect you may be right about notability, but without someone producing refs, we have to delete this article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found a good number of sources in ProQuest by searching "Flagship Airlines" Nashville , like this article about the company's history and this news story about the closure of its hub in Nashville. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 07:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For further input on the sources that have been presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep looks like there is coverage from what Sunny found. I also remember a lot of content about this airline in Robert Serling's book Eagle about American Airlines. Avgeekamfot ( talk ) 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Heart de Roommate: Single note posing as a reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAMES . - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep : Found contemporary coverage of the game in Russian here. [17] There also seems to be a non-zero amount of coverage regarding this game's remaster, such as here (Brazilian), [18] , here, [19] and a rather girthy review here. [20] , which could probably be conglomerated into this article (that doesn't seem to have been updated at all to reflect this remaster's release). While it's no excuse if these articles don't win you over, I'd also like to mention that this is a relatively obscure 20 year old Japanese game with pornographic content, so finding contemporary sources regarding the game's original release, while possible, will likely require more effort than a casual skim on Google and Archive.org. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Extra comment : It seems that a subsidiary of Akella , a Russian games publisher, officially published Heart de Roommate in Russia in the mid-2000s, complete with an English-to-Russian TL. (Russian) [21] This would be another avenue to seek out coverage of this game. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 17:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've added three review citations to the article; one is from the Russian gaming magazine Strana Igr , one is from the J-List blog (appears to only be a blog in name; the website has multiple writers and editorial oversight), and one is from HonestGamers ' Jason Venter (whose contributions to HonestGamers are generally recognized as reliable, see [22] ). I also added information about the remaster, along with a reference from the Brazilian digital magazine GameBlast to substantiate it. This is far from perfect, but I believe it should be enough to meet WP:GNG , and I feel much better about voting Keep . As I found these with only an hour or two of scrounging around the internet, I'm confident I could find more domestic coverage of this game as well. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 11:04, 14 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

Quarry Bay School: Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Notice that no other elementary school in the English Schools Foundation group has its own page. Besides, there is nothing significant about Quarry Bay school, compared to the others. See WP:MILL . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of English Schools Foundation schools . Pasmorade ( talk ) 19:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that's a good idea. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 02:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand. It's one of the oldest English-language schools in the territory which follow the English curriculum. 219.77.182.250 ( talk ) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (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 Siu, Kwok-kin 蕭國健 (2023). 舊日足跡：香港地區與民生尋蹤 [ Footprints of the Past: Tracing the Hong Kong Region and People's Livelihoods ] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing . pp. 92–93. ISBN 978-962-04-5095-2 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Google Books . The book notes: "前鰂魚涌英童學校 (Former Quarry Bay British School) 位於香港島鰂魚涌英皇道986號小山丘上。 ... 1907年後,隨着太古船塢及其他廠房設施開始投入運作, 鰂魚涌成為超過萬人生活的新社區,不少英籍員工攜同家人遷入 該地,以方便工作。1924年,港府決定特別為太古工業城的英 籍孩童在鰂魚涌興建鰂魚涌英童學校(Quarry Bay School),學校由 Messrs Little, Adams and Wood興建,於1926年建成啟用。... 該校於1980年搬遷到寶馬山,舊校舍由社會福利署接管, 改作培志男童院,並加建高欄。" From Google Translate: "Former Quarry Bay British School is located on a hill at No. 986 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong Island. ...After 1907, as Taikoo Dockyard and other factory facilities began to operate, Quarry Bay became a new community where more than 10,000 people lived. Many British employees moved there with their families to facilitate their work. In 1924, the Hong Kong government decided to build Quarry Bay School in Quarry Bay specifically for British children in Taikoo Industrial City. The school was built by Messrs Little, Adams and Wood and opened in 1926. ... The school moved to Bramma Hill in 1980. The old school building was taken over by the Social Welfare Department and converted into the Pui Chi Boys' Home, with high railings added." The book notes: "該校於1980年搬遷到寶馬山,舊校舍由社會福利署接管, 改作培志男童院,並加建高欄。原址曾為香港青少年發展聯會轄 下的德育發展中心,並為學校提供日營訓練服務,其後空置。現 不對外開放。該建築被列為三級歷史建築。" Wong, Jacky (1997-07-06). "Relics sealed with a kiss e" . South China Morning Post . Archived from the original on 2024-04-02 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 . The article notes: "As Hong Kong entered its new era as a Special Administrative Region of China, students at Quarry Bay School lovingly sealed their personal "relics" inside a time capsule and buried them in the school grounds. ... Hundreds of students and staff donated a wide variety of items for the capsule, the sealing of which marked the end of British sovereignty. ... Ms Mair and Ms Blaauw, who attended the school in the 1930s, both left mementos in the capsule, and so those students prising it open will get a taste of the school's life over 100 years or so. ... Students and staff wore T-shirts featuring the national flags of Britain and the People's Republic of China, plus a bauhinia, Hong Kong's symbolic flower which represents the transition of the territory to the "one country, two systems" policy." Allum, Jo (January 2011). "Primarily Mandarin" . Teacher: The National Education Magazine . pp. 24–27. ISSN 1449-9274 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 . The Google snippet view notes: "Mandarin lessons at Hong Kong’s Quarry Bay School use various learning approaches, including educational games, songs, reading groups, role playing, poster making and poetry. Griffin, Kathy (2001-09-15). "Breaking the rules in the playground: One Quarry Bay school has embarked on a learning curve by turning its bare yard into a creative haven, says Kathy Griffin". South China Morning Post . ProQuest 2420279359 . The article notes: "This, however, is less of an issue in international schools. At Quarry Bay School, the renovated playground was intended to be an extension of classroom learning. Everything from the decision on how to alter the playground to the use of the equipment once it was completed, was to be a learning experience. A student council with representatives from each year group, with children ranging in age from five to 11, was consulted on the major decisions. All students were allowed to add to a wish list that included swings, a swimming pool and a bouncy castle. " There are a large number of newspaper articles from Hong Kong Public Libraries covering the school's establishment and history throughout the years. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Quarry Bay School ( traditional Chinese : 鰂魚涌學校 ; simplified Chinese : 鲗鱼涌学校 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to satisfy WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Cunard. Secondary sources exist that discuss the history of the school and GNG is met. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard, Necrothesp and Sirfurboy. 59.152.195.28 ( talk ) 08:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The former building of Quarry Bay School, located at No. 986 King's Road, in Quarry Bay, has been listed as a Grade III historic building since 2010. I have added this piece of information, together with ref and a link to the conservation notice, which contains a historical background in English. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk ) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG through independent sources. I've added two of the links from Cunard (well done!). Oblivy ( talk ) 02:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WizardGamer775 please stop the nonsense. 219.77.182.250 ( talk ) 10:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already withdrew it after seeing what others have said. Do not make personal attacks. WizardGamer775 ( talk ) 16:46, 6 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

Wingo (shooting): DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found a number of citations which are now in the article, several of them (Daily Colonist, Florida Wildlife) quite substantial. I'm prepared to change my vote if there are other policy-based objections to this article but it's certainly not uncited anymore. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep And Rename. My first thought was that this was an article about one more mass shooting, this time in place named Wingo. Perhaps rename it to Wingo (sport shooting) or something like that. — Maile ( talk ) 23:23, 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

Visit filter: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing , Internet , and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 22:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Web log analysis software : I don't see anything to merge, but if I'm wrong, go ahead and merge. Owen× ☎ 01:38, 20 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 vampire films: Currently contains hundreds of entries and is sourced mostly to IMDB and other sources of user-generated content. Many entries in the "notes" column are copied verbatim from IMDB descriptions. Prose at the beginning of each section is mostly WP:SYNTH . — SamX [ talk · contribs ] 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Paranormal . — SamX [ talk · contribs ] 05:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The list has primary sources, mostly to IMDb and user-generated websites, which are not accepted. It is also too broad. This list is better off as a category. There is no reason for this list to exist. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 06:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nothing about this is especially broad, and having IMDb sources is not a reason for deletion. ★Trekker ( talk ) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Here I don't think that it is reasonable to say it hasn't. (But to be on the safe side, see this or this , for example) On top of that, a list can help organizing the films, for example chronologically, which a category can't. Note that there is also List of vampire television series . As for sourcing, required clean up and prose, it is another issue, as StarTrekker explained. And I too do not think it is "impossibly" broad. And if this is a real concern, let's split it in 1895-1950; 1951-2024, or by regions. But again, this is not the issue here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy. There is notability about this list's existence, especially in terms of ranking. IGN, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Buzzfeed, Reader's Digest, etc. However, the article needs some work for sure. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NLIST , not seeing a valid deletion reason, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per NLIST. I've removed some unnotable films (i.e. lacking articles) and miniseries. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Split . Article has no context. Why does one need to know every vampire film? What knowledge is grasped? This list is horribly maintained, implying there is some Nosferatu series, it includes material such as production countries, year of release that are not backed up by their sources, has poor quality sources. Now the topic is also far too broad. If anything like this could be maintained, i'd cut it down by decades or even a century. What is the limit on this? Is a vampire film any film that has a vampire in once? the article "Vampire film" itself states it is a genre, but then just lists random vampire films with no context to its history or if anyone considers it a genre. Too broad of meaning until some rules can be established, and this article is going to get worse before "saving" what junk we have makes it any better. Andrzejbanas ( talk ) 19:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's useful research to scholars and the public and what are you going to do, delete all film lists on Wikipedia? 5Q5 | ✉ 09:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:LC items 2, 5, and 9. Stifle ( talk ) 08:55, 6 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

Captain Miller (soundtrack): Tame Rhino ( talk ) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sufficiently sourced. The claim that "Sources are about the film" is hogwash. You have not argued to support that it's "not a hit". Geschichte ( talk ) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article contains refs to reliable sources about the soundtrack that seem enough to justify a standalone page. I would not be shocked if that was redirected, though, size and navigability permitting. But the problem would be that the redirected material would run the risk of being challenged as giving undue weight to the music.... . (Opposed to deletion)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : The page has been substantially improved since nomination. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep keep per Mushy Yank rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk ) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is well sourced and was accepted during AfC. The nominator has only joined this year, and has made hardly 30 edits, most are AfDs. Kailash29792 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Fancade: After that, there is no coverage, since I couldn't find anything else. Everything is written like a blatant advertisement WP:IBA . Chiserc ( talk ) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Chiserc ( talk ) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . The sources there in terms of secondary information about the game are pretty minimal. But it's got Macworld , Touch Arcade , and Android Central coverage, in addition to the Google Play award, which counts for something. There's not really a parent article that would be a suitable merge target. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Touch Arcade is very "I haven't played all of it yet but it looks cool" which is pretty unconvincing to me especially since they apparently didn't bother to revisit it. Getting a few reviews in RS is usually not a massively high bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . In addition to the sources David found, I also found this . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , per David Fuchs. It does not look like a whole lot, but there is at least something. jp × g 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep the sources are borderline. But they convince me there is enough WP:POTENTIAL for an article. If more references don't appear, I would support a re-nomination or merge discussion at a later time. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Black Pits of Luna: Elsewhere I see a few reviews in blogs but nothing which would appear to meet the notability criteria for en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 09:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein , The Heritage of Heinlein , p. 54-55 and A search for depth in Robert A. Heinlein's short fiction, and, philosophical views on tragedy, 1945–1955 all discuss the short story to different degrees, I could find them in a short time. Daranios ( talk ) 09:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't work those, so maybe you can tell me if they are more than a mention. JMWt ( talk ) 10:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can confirm that they are more than just mentions. Volumewise they are about a page, half a page and just short of two pages respectively. Contentwise they contain both plot summary and commentary. Only to a limited degree on the short story as a whole, more on the characters. Daranios ( talk ) 15:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok that sounds enough to me - unless anyone else objects. JMWt ( talk ) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems sufficient to me, thought I can't see the second one. The third one is a doctoral dissertation and has quite a bit of depth. — siro χ o 02:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the listed sources, found in a very much non-comprehensive search, provide enough material to establish notability. Daranios ( talk ) 10:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Sadly, all sources are paywalled or such, and I am too tired to look into them much. There are certainly mentions in several places, whether they meet SIGCOV is another issue. I do wonder if the nom (JMWt) did BEFORE on Google Scholar/Books, and regardless, I'd like to hear their analysis of the sources Daranios found. PS. The snippets I see in The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein look promising. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, I can't access those but in good faith I'm accepting Daranios' assessment of the sources that they can access. JMWt ( talk ) 13:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JMWt : FYI, Wikipedia:TWL should give you proquest sources, and books can be accessed through Internet Archive library or Z-library usually. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've done a bit of quick expansion here. As others have mentioned, a good deal of the sourcing out there is paywalled in one way or another. I was able to pull some up and what I've found suggests that there is a lot more out there, as it references other people talking about the story and elements about it. A snippet came up here and this came up as containing the title as well, but I wasn't able to really access either. It's also given a lengthy look in this PhD dissertation . There's also a mention here but I can't see how extensive it is. Something of note though is that this is apparently one of the four short stories that helped him gain more of a mainstream foothold due, so it has that going for it as well. In any case, it certainly needs more improvement but I think there's enough to justify inclusion. It's not his most well-known story but it has received coverage and discussion in RS. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nothing holding this back at this point, meets GNG, article is in fine shape. — siro χ o 23:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now. Thanks for the rescue, User:ReaderofthePack . This is now likely eligible for a WP:DYK - go for it, I'll be happy to review it if pinged. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, you can go for it - I'm so sporadic at times I don't know that I'd be able to properly keep up with it. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

North West Men's 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 ) 19:12, 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 19:24, 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× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 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 . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:30, 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

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited: Deletion recommended. M.parvage ( talk ) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . M.parvage ( talk ) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The report is reasonable decent reference created by an group of academic. That combined with the other two sources is more than than borderlines for an established company. * Delete Of the three references, 2 fail WP:NCORP , specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:SIRS . The other one is a 404. No indication of being notable. scope_creep Talk 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on three of the sources provided by Worldbruce below, the first two and the magazine. None are great but in my opinion are sufficient for the purpose of establishing notabaility. Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) HighKing ++ 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment would these, Ananda Shipyard exports largest ship by Bangladesh, signalling industry revival (2022) , Ship-builder eating away Meghna 2019 , মেঘনায় ভাসলো আনন্দ শিপইয়ার্ডের তৈরি জাহাজ ‘রাঙ্গাবালি’ 2018 , Ananda Shipyard looks to rent out two ships to foreign clients 2014 , Ananda to export its eighth ship, 2008 be considered significant coverage? Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 12:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* . "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company. What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR? Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH). Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement. In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Any search for sources is complicated by the facts that the company has changed its name, is sometimes refereed to by an initialism, the name is not always transliterated the same way, and discussion of it is most likely to be found in the Bengali language. The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group. There's plenty of news out there that is critical (such as an Anti-Corruption Commission investigation). Participants should consider the possibility that the company may not want a Wikipedia article about them that they can't control. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group." As User:WordBounce blamed that with a wrong evedence; it must go beyond Wikipedia:Respect privacy PARVAGE talk! 04:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having a close connection : This was accused by User:WordBounce . However, I was previously stated that Shaif Zahir was my first article, and I was simply trying to improve it. Through my research, I discovered Ananta Group, then I found the founder of Ananta Group, Humayun Zahir, and a project of Ananta Group. As a result, I included those information to UCB and Madani Avenue . Hope you understand. I would appreciate it if you would not mention this accusation again. Especially there is no connection with this topic. PARVAGE talk! 06:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is the second-largest private shipbuilder out of hundreds in the country. It has built ships for the Navy, for the Coast Guard, and for export. Common sense tells us they are likely to be notable. In addition to the article "Ship-builder eating away Meghna" that Vinegarymass911 has put forward, other evidence of notability is: Abedin, A S M Arshadul (2007). "Warship Building in Bangladesh, Problems and Prospects: Analysis and Recommendations" . NDC Journal . 6 (1): 91–111. ISSN 1683-8475 . (when the company was called Ananda Builders) Iqbal, K. Shahriar; Zakaria, N. M. Golam; Hossain, Kh. Akhter (December 2010). "Identifying and Analysing Underlying Problems of Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh" . Journal of Mechanical Engineering . 41 (2): 147–158. Zakaria, N. M. G. (October–December 2012). "Moving Forward with Export Oriented Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh". Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C . 93 (4): 373–382. doi : 10.1007/s40032-012-0034-0 . "Shipbuilding in Bangladesh" . CPA News . Vol.  3, no. 1. April 2018. pp. 6–12. (Transliterates the company name without the final "a" and refers to it by its initialism, ASSL) Rahman, Sajjadur (29 July 2013). "Islami Bank stung by shipbuilder" . The Daily Star . "ACC grills 7 bankers over Ananda Shipyard loan scam" . Prothom Alo . 22 December 2014. Keep based on the sources detailed in my preceding comment. If the community can't be convinced that it should be a stand-alone article, then at a minimum the topic should be merged to Shipbuilding in Bangladesh . -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their ! vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources. Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is. BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old. One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983. That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion. The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup , and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace. -- Worldbruce ( talk ) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it. As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Worldbruce also initiated this investigation: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Sharif Zahir Many thanks to @ Worldbruce -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group: [74] , [75] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian. But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group. PARVAGE talk! 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion. The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that. It could use an infobox but I've done what I can. Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @ Worldbruce like this [76] , the TBSNews article [77] and the NDC Journal article [78] . I've also included some cites provided by @ Vinegarymass911 . The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well. My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements. Not everything made the cut. If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified. Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎ Sig added by scope_creep Talk 10:39, 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

TNT Sports 4: I would opt to delete and merge the contents with either TNT Sports (United Kingdom) or ESPN in the United Kingdom as these articles would be more suitable for this content. S. Salim ( talk ) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . S. Salim ( talk ) 01:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Still a well-active channel, and its past WP:N is not lost at all despite going from its own entity as ESPN to a suite channel with TNT. The sourcing is beyond adequate. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Channel has a standalone, GNG-meeting history before being rolled into TNT Sports. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is the backstory to this channel that makes this article notable although there is an argument to rename it as ESPN UK (or similar). Rillington ( talk ) 05:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it was a separate, independently notable channel. The fact that it's now been rebranded into the TNT Sports family doesn't take away from the historic notability. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rijad Smajić: Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Simione001 ( talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , and [19] , among many many more German and Bosnian sources. Young clear topic of interest with ongoing career regarded in German and Bosnia and Herzegovina football. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question . Article needs improvement, not deletion . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz brings forward, which are not surprising seeing he is on the squad of a Bundesliga team. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are numerous reliable German sources to conclude WP:GNG is there. The only future for this article that I see is extending, not deletion. Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG. BEFORE not met.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources User:Das osmnezz . Shows enough notability. Equine-man ( talk ) 14:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable Lightburst ( talk ) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

1935–36 Serie C: This is not a top division league, and I do not feel that a single book source establishes notability for most of these historical Serie C seasons. I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly rely on a single source/no sources and do not establish independent notability: 1936–37 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1937–38 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1938–39 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1939–40 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1940–41 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1941–42 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1942–43 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1945–46 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1946–47 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1947–48 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1948–49 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1949–50 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1950–51 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1951–52 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1952–53 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1953–54 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1954–55 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1955–56 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1956–57 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1957–58 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1958–59 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1959–60 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1960–61 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1961–62 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1962–63 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1963–64 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1964–65 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1965–66 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1966–67 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1967–68 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1968–69 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1969–70 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1970–71 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1971–72 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1972–73 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1973–74 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1974–75 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1975–76 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1976–77 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 1977–78 Serie C ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . Yoblyblob ( Talk ) :) 01:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – There are more sources in practically every it.wiki correspondent. And even though it is the third tier, it is part of the pyramid of some of the more traditional football championships in the world. This nomination is strange, not to mention that it could incur WP:TRAINWRECK . Svartner ( talk ) 03:04, 27 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

Johanna Staude: WP:BIO1E also applies; coverage on this woman is always connected to the painting. An article about the painting itself may be more appropriate, but no such article currently exists. If it is created, I would suggest merging this content into the article on the painting. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Arts , and Austria . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To clarify, this page is about both the painting and the person. We have many articles on Wikipedia that do both. The reason I think the article name needs to be her name and not "Portrait of" (which is now a redirect), is that many sources refer to the painting as simply Johanna Staude . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense, thanks for the clarification! The issue of insufficient sourcing remains, though. Only one of the sources currently in the article could be described as significant coverage, and some might construe that one as an unusually thorough database entry. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 09:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rewrite . The person isn't notable. An article about the painting ( Johanna Staude is a painting by Klimt, blablabla) may be acceptable, and in that article a section about the sitter may be included, but she isn't notable, and shouldn't e.g. be included in the "woman artists" categories if we have no indication that she is in any way a notabe artist; on the other hand it should be included in painting categories. Fram ( talk ) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Still expanding. Yes will delete the category then. I'm just not very good at categories. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've switched the order of the lede around. Reads better. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . @ Actualcpscm : This could have all been discussed on the article Talk page, or on my Talk page, or you could have contributed edits directly to the article, and added sources from your WP:BEFORE search. Seems like a misuse of AfD per WP:ATA . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 10:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to very strongly disagree there; the point of this discussion is still notability of the article subject, and the concerns raised in the AfD nomination have not been addressed in any substantial way. There are still not enough reliable sources providing significant coverage to establish notability. The fact that other editors haven't addressed notability concerns directly is not due to a lack of such concerns. Remember WP:OVERCOME . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a work in progress. Rather than micromanage every edit, why not help improve the article directly? Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how I'm micromanaging, and the reason I'm not working on the article is, as mentioned above, WP:OVERCOME . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 11:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And I'm not convinced you've done an adequate WP:BEFORE search or even bothered to check Wikipedia Library (or the Internet Archive or Google Books, where all the books are). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep without prejudice . Please consider withdraw ing this to save folks some time. WP:BEFORE . C.2: If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. . Article was nominated less than two hours old. If you really need to, tag it (BEFORE.C.3) — siro χ o 12:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This was nominated far too quickly. Whether the primary topic is the painting or the person is moot. More sources have emerged since the nom, and I think they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG . Edwardx ( talk ) 12:35, 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

Krasna Polyana: Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bulgaria . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the equivalent of a London borough. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : All of the pagees on London boroughs are more well-sourced and in-depth than this article. Again, this specific region doesn't seem notable. Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 09:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it's clearly notable and important to the Bulgarian Wikipedia community. That is, they see a distinction between this and other places and they see it worth describing. To me, that means it should be important here. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it seems to be legally recognized with census data. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPLACE - "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Krasna Polyana is legally recognized, and populated. In fact, the official website of the municipality of Sofia lists Krasna Polyana(Красна Поляна, if you would like to ctrl-f) in its list of districts here( https://www.sofia.bg/en/web/mayor-of-sofia/regions-in-sofia ). Krasna Polyana is also covered by Bulgarian sources. Here's a few from the Bulgarian National Television ( https://bnt.bg/news/hram-vazkresenie-hristovo-v-kvartal-krasna-polyana-v-sofiya-316959news.html ,"Church of Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the district Krasna Polyana in Sofia", https://bntnews.bg/news/avariya-e-ostavila-chast-ot-stolichniya-kvartal-krasna-polyana-bez-tok-1222606news.html ,"Accident leaves a part of Krasna Polyana, a district of the capital, without electricity"). You mention above that London boroughs are more well-written and well-sourced and by this logic Krasna Polyana is not notable. That logic doesn't work. London boroughs being more well-sourced and well-written does not mean that Krasna Polyana itself is not notable, but that the English Wikipedia community has more interest and put more effort into those pages than into this district. The page being poorly-written does not make it unnotable. Kind regards, Jaguarnik ( talk ) 01:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Certainly not very informative but I don't see a notability issue. -- Nk ( talk ) 06:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article meets WP:GEOLAND because it is a populated, legally recognised placed. The article can be expanded using sources cited by Jaguarnik and the Bulgarian Wikipedia. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 09:27, 7 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

3 Musketiers: The citations are to the cast album and a website not independent of the musical's production team. Not clear that the topic meets WP:GNG . 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added a couple of references. It was a challenge to select the most relevant references; there are too many. The musical was staged almost continuously since 2003 in the Netherlands and Germany. It was listed as one of the top ten favorite original Dutch musicals of all times. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 00:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Theatre , and Netherlands . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passing the GNG. Thank you, Ruud Buitelaar ! gidonb ( talk ) 02:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks notable after new edits by Ruud. Abhishek0831996 ( talk ) 03:32, 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

Arada (company): After thorough analysis of the Meraas Wikipedia page, it is evident that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Meraas, as a subject, does not have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are verifiable. The article currently lacks in-depth information and relies heavily on primary sources and promotional materials, which do not comply with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Furthermore, the references provided are sparse and do not adequately establish the subject's notability. The absence of multiple, independent, and reliable sources discussing Meraas makes it challenging to verify the information presented or to justify its existence as a standalone Wikipedia article. Lulakayd ( talk ) 13:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This company is not related to Meraas. The references are notable, as this developer is one of the biggest in the UAE, en par with Emaar and Damac, both of which have Wiki pages. Please clarify on why you think it is related to Meraas? OmarKattan ( talk ) 07:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Although the author was paid to write this article, from a local and regional standpoint, the company is notable as the largest property developer in the Northern Emirates, is owned by the Deputy Ruler of Sharjah as part of the complex business-political relationship in the country, and it's financial strategy has been reported in international and national media, as part of a blueprint and focus on islamic finance like Sukuk. It would be beneficial to add information in the article about the ownership and financial strategy that it is a selling point rather than list projects to avoid making it sound like an advertisement. ScholarofArabia ( talk ) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : you haven't mentioned this in the nom; did you search for other sources including local sources? Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Is this nomination for Arada (company) or for Meraas ? This AfD is titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arada (company) , but the text of the nomination is about Meraas . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep . Nomination is terribly confusing, since nominator has not made it clear which article they're actually talking about. Without prejudice to renominating, if anyone wishes doing so. CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I would suggest closing the discussion here and migrating it over to Meraas , since that appears to be the intended target of the nominator. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 08:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jim Powell (sportscaster): With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Baseball , Georgia (U.S. state) , and Wisconsin . Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . mlb.com has a decent bio of him [16] and Bleacher Report gave him a paragraph as Bob Uecker 's departing longtime broadcasting partner. [17] He might also have been a Frick Award nominee, if this source can be believed. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 01:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Current article quality is lacking, but I found sources for notability. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] I presume more can be found. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability. Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results. Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell. Left guide ( talk ) 21:35, 15 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

Robin Black: Nswix ( talk ) 02:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The article was created by an experienced editor back in 2006, when the notability rules for musicians were much looser. Robin Black actually has an AllMusic profile ( [18] ), but it is a very brief mishmash of two different acts. One is called Robin Black & the Intergalactic Rock Stars and the other is simply called Robin Black. Neither of those has any additional significant coverage that I can find, and are only found in the usual retail/streaming services. Meanwhile, this article attempts to cover the entire life story of the guy named Robin Black, which is inconsistent, and his other activities in martial arts aren't even close to notable. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Robin Black+IGS and Robin Black as a person don't really have two separate notability claims for the purposes of warranting two standalone articles here — in fact, even the band was only "Robin Black+IGS" on one album, and was just billed as "Robin Black" on the other. So they don't have detachable notabilities at all, because the band were ultimately just session musicians playing behind an individual person: they're one topic rather than two, in the same sense that there would be absolutely no point in having two separate articles about Natalie Imbruglia as a person and "Natalie Imbruglia (band)" as a band fronted by that person (which has, in fact, been attempted on Wikipedia in the past). Bearcat ( talk ) 17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That sure is an odd response in which you debunked a recommendation that I didn't make. Oh well, my vote stands but I have no significant argument with the different opinions below. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 23:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi DooomDayer, I just made a massive addition and reorganization and added many coverage from reliable sources. His martial arts ventures are actually what makes him the most notable. He has become one of the most recognized figure in Mma as an analyst. Please go take a look Lethweimaster ( talk ) 00:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Searching "Robin Black" and "Intergalactic Rock Stars" on ProQuest gives over 200 results, from a wide variety of publications, such as Toronto Star , The Ottawa Citizen , and Billboard . Almost all of these articles are well-over a decade old, which might explain why little was coming up for Doomsdayer520 on Google search. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 19:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you link these sources? Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 22:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You'll need to be logged in to ProQuest to see them, but Wikipedia gives people access to ProQuest here . Sign in to ProQuest using your Wikipedia account, search "Robin Black" "Intergalactic Rock Stars", and you should see hundreds of results. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 20:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is just an old article that was created in 2006 to 2006-vintage content standards, and hasn't been improved as much as it should have been as those standards evolved and changed. He's not nearly as prominent, and thus not nearly as top of mind for people, in 2023 as he was 15 to 20 years ago — hell, even I had pretty much forgotten that this article even existed , and I was its original creator — so the article merely got overlooked by the "fixing old articles" crew as quality standards were refined and tightened up. But notability is based on the existence of appropriate, notability-building sources, not on whether they're all already in the current version of the article or not — and, as noted by Jpcase, he most certainly does have sufficient coverage to get this article back up to contemporary standards. I'll take a stab at fixing it today. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Article is now solidly sourced. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great work Bearcat, I also added many more sources. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 21:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep simple google search shows that subject clearly passes WP:GNG with an abundance of coverage from reliable sources. Its important to make improvements or add tags before nominating for deletion or voting here. Seems like no one made any searches. The subject is one of the most celebrated MMA analyst in the combat sports world. I added references and reorganized the article completely. Great coverage from Bloody Elbow , VICE , MMA Junkie , MMA Mania , Winnipeg Sun , Calgary Herald , Sportskeeda , Lethwei World, The Joe Rogan Experience , Winnipeg Free Press , Sportsnet , Toronto Star , Ottawa Citizen ect. Lethweimaster ( talk ) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG from sources currently showing in the footnotes. Carrite ( talk ) 10:13, 27 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

Left-wing terrorism: Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Terrorism . AlanS talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Agree that the nature of this article begins as a POV fork. By the same logic, if we delete this or merge it to Political terrorism , should we also try to do the same with Right-wing terrorism ? -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 08:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wholeheartedly agree that Right-wing terrorism should be listed also. I listed this because it was brought up at the NPOV Noticeboard . I've just spent half an hour leaving notices in the talk pages of everyone that was involved in the original discussion so my hands are feeling a bit sore now. You keen on listing Right-wing terrorism? AlanS talk 09:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've noticed that Right-wing terrorism also previously has an AfD with exactly the same results as the previous AfD here (strong consensus for delete). AlanS talk 09:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TheLonelyPather , I've listed Right-wing terrorism also now. AlanS talk 09:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi AlanS! Sorry for not getting back earlier. Yes, you have my support for listing Right-wing terrorism . TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 11:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not a fork of political terrorism. As pointed out in Terrorism#Types , it is one type of political terrorism. The article is referenced to reliable sources that define the topic, and it is used as a category by reliable sources. If all the political terrorism articles (there are seven) were merged into Terrorism, the length of that article would require new articles be created for them. Left wing terrorism is distinguished from other types of political terrorism not only by its objectives, but also the its organization, types of targets chosen and other factors. TFD ( talk ) 10:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hear what you're saying, but the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective, a point of view. For example if you're in the United States most of the population might refer to the Republicans as "right-wing" and the Democrats as "left-wing", whereas a lot of the rest of the world (the other 7.5 billion of us) would probably say that both US parties are very definitely hard-right. It's all a matter of perspective. So when you start calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing", whether you like it or not you're taking a perspective. There is no objective position on this. AlanS talk 15:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, in the case of left-wing terrorism, scholars do not consider it to be a matter of perspective at all: left-wing terrorism is typically defined as terrorism with the specific aim of overthrowing capitalism. Action Directe , Baader-Meinhof , etc. You could also list various nationalist movements that intend to overthrow a colonialist/imperialist/etc government with socialist/communist rule, like the Official Irish Republican Army or the FLQ , though these mostly tend to be discussed primarily as nationalist groups. -- asilvering ( talk ) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In terrorism studies, left wing terrorist refers specifically to revolutionary socialist or communist groups who intend to use terrorism in order to start a revolution. That is clearly explained in the article and its many sources. It's unfortunate that terrorism scholars use concepts that some Americans might find confusing, but that's not a criterion for deletion. Americans indeed use the terms left and right as slurs on their opponents. They also call each other socialists and fascists. It doesn't mean that those terms have no meaning. TFD ( talk ) 01:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems like a fine WP:SPINOFF given content length of related articles, does not appear to be a POVFORK. If you do notice NPOV issues like UNDUE weight, it's worth bringing them up in the article talk page. Note previous AFD is more than 15 years old. — siro χ o 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for reasons elaborated above. I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining NPOV given the level of controversy both around xxx-wing and "terrorism," but the controversies should be discussed in the article rather than glossed over. Leifern ( talk ) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete i think this is a well-reasoned AfD proposal, and, as was said in the previous AfD proposal's comments: The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here. commie ( talk ) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Right-wing terrorism also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Keep Meets all criteria for a separate article. Addressing the AFD rationale, this is a "sub article" (rather than a POV fork) on a topic that is so huge that it needs sub-articles. North8000 ( talk ) 14:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete along with Right-wing terrorism , merge them back into Political terrorism . If Political terrorism needs to be split, split it by continent or country or some other geographic basis, not by left-right. The result of this current split is inevitably to remove context: to show terror acts by each side of the left-right spectrum independent of what the other might be doing. Also: there is a great deal of political terrorism where it may be very difficult to categorize it objectively as left/right, especially where it remains controversial exactly who were the perpetrators (the assassination of Malcolm X being a clear example of this). And what about times when those who might best be characterized as centrists used terror tactics (I'm thinking of the consolidation of the royal regime of Carol II in Romania in the late 1930s. And is it really still "leftist" terrorism when you had the factional fighting of the last months of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety in the French revolution, especially when René Hébert was executed? - Jmabel | Talk 15:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article needs some work, but there is much more worth keeping than when discussed in 2006. This is a fairly widely discussed concept, and the article could and should include discussion of how the term is used - what acts are described as left-wing terrorism, and by whom? We shouldn't be shy of having articles on controversial or contested concepts, so long as there is appropriate context. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As long as this is focused on the broader aspect of the term with a few well-agreed on examples from academic sources, this is a reasonable article alongside the "right-wing terrorism" article. There's a large number of Google Scholar hits so it is a clearly notable term within academics. Now, whether this should be merged into Political terrorism is another story, which is a fair option, but that should be discussed separately. -- M asem ( t ) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am not sure what bias the nominator is implying. I'm also concerned by the nom's comment that the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective . We're not talking about whether or not offering free school lunch or expanding Medicare is left- or right-wing. We're talking about whether Marxist-Leninist terrorists are left wing. This is only a matter of perspective if you're a) further left than Marxist-Leninists , an already quite far left position, or b) simply ignoring how "left-wing terrorism" is defined by academic sources. -- asilvering ( talk ) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering do most of wiki's editors who reside in the US get that? Fully a third of the population in the the US considers Bernie Sanders and AOC to be communists when by what you and I consider to be objective standards it's questionable if they even rate as socialists. This is the same population that are mostly editing these articles. AlanS talk 00:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AlanS so what you're saying is, because some Americans aren't experts on a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it? I don't see how this makes any sense. When we edit Wikipedia we're supposed to write using what reliable sources say about a topic, not what a clueless minority thinks or doesn't think about a topic. -- asilvering ( talk ) 11:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering I can find sources from the US, which consensus says are reliable sources, which refer to Bernie Sanders as a communist. When everything and anything can be either left-wing or right-wing given the POV that someone is willing to push we can end up with messes. I think it best to have an article about political terrorism and remove any POV forking. AlanS talk 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide a reliable source that describes Sanders as a communist, because I have not seen any. TFD ( talk ) 12:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Washington Times has referred to him as a Communist here . WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists The Washington Times as a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Might not be the best source but is still listed as a reliable source. I didn't even search that hard. I hope I've highlighted the problem. AlanS talk 13:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is an opinion piece in a paper listed as "marginally reliable". That does not highlight the problem with consensus or reliable sources. Also, again, we are talking about left-wing terrorism here, not whether it's communist to eliminate private health insurance. -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "marginally reliable" is still reliable and the page we're currently discussing is a page to do with politics which the Washington Times has numerous coverage on. There can be issues with reliable sources and the way in which people selectively look for them in order to suit their POV. I selectively looked for one that called Bernie Sanders a communist and I found it and I don't hold that POV. AlanS talk 00:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the publication, it fails rs because of Wikipedia:NEWSORG : "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." The editorial is by Tim Scott, former governor of Wisconsin. Not every fact claimed by every politician in an editorial is true. Some politicians for example claim global warming is real, others say it isn't. They can't all be right. And reliability of course means that we can assume their statements are correct. TFD ( talk ) 04:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It says something about the rest of the material for the whole of the publication (opinion piece or not) if they publish rubbish like that. AlanS talk 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that probably accounts for why they're listed as "marginally reliable". -- asilvering ( talk ) 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There can be no doubt that the subject is notable. I don't see any point in merging it as it's a notable subject in its own right. IIt needs to be sourced on multiple clearly reliable sources. Ignorance of some editors is never a reason to delete an article. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep This is a very clearly defined subtopic that shouldn't be merged. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPINOFF . Like the right-wing article, this does not appear to be a POVFORK. The argument that you can't define left- and right-wing would mean TNTing a huge swatch of articles because, like it or not, that split is ubiquitous in modern sources and has been for roughly two centuries. The argument that you can't always discern the motive in a left-right fashin is a superb reason for keeping the two articles as spinoffs from Political terrorism . Most of the other valid arguments are opportunities to improve this article, Political terrorism, or Terrorism itself, not for deleting the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not see any policy based reasons for deletion for the two articles on left and right wing terrorism. The topics' notability is established by the academic sourcing. Some of the delete voters seem to think that the articles' content is based on what editors consider to be left or right wing. But the sources say the perpetrators' objective must be establishing a socialist/communist state or a fascist/rw authoritarian state respectively. The literature explains how ideology determines the types of participants, their choice of targets and other features. While the terms left, right and terrorism may be ambiguous, it is an etymological fallacy to assume that means terms using those words must also be ambiguous. TFD ( talk ) 21:31, 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

Jon Kull: Dartmouth College is a primary source and therefore not independent. Dan arndt ( talk ) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NACADEMIC #5, and possibly #1. Kull holds the Rodgers Professorship at Dartmouth College, an endowed faculty chair ( [28] ). Scopus shows a h-index of 22, and Google scholar shows about a dozen papers with more than 100 citations, with the top three all published in Nature and having counts of 440, 457, and 859. Note that WP:NACADEMIC is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline , so in this case, significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources is not required to meet inclusion criteria. Jfire ( talk ) 07:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Biology , California , and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : His university page falls into the category of "reliable though not independent", i.e. can be used as a source but does not contribute to WP:GNG , though that is besides the point, as WP:NPROF is the more applicable notability guideline here rather than GNG. Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NPROF C5, plausible C1. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per both PROF#C1 [29] and #C5 as above. Bad nomination, fails to consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not based on independent sources (or, if you will, media hype). Nominator has participated in many past deletion discussions on academics and should know better. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:13, 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

Express trains in India: Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is already a merge proposal started at Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal by you. There is no need of this AfD discussion. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep as no valid deletion rationale provided. ~ A412 talk! 12:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep India is a serious train country. We wouldn’t delete the TGV article or the High Speed rail in China article so why delete this? -- Eraserhead1 < talk > 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] all listen then agree to merge all the articles mentioned into this article with valid reason provided here Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Eraserhead1. ~~ αvírαm | (tαlk) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Soundtrack.Net: The ScoringSessions.com just links to the front page of that site and I couldn't find anything about its relation to this one. The rest is just this site, and nothing that suggests notability to me. As is usually the case, finding coverage of a website is not easy, but I couldn't see anything and my doubts remain. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music , and Websites . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Created by conflict of interest ; see User talk:Dgoldwas#SoundtrackNet . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been 19 years since the TIME Magazine piece came out, so I guess we need to look at the print evidence. I uploaded a YouTube video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=A3mzVWkcL98 The "relation" between ScoringSessions.com and Soundtrack.Net is obvious if you go look at the "About" page of ScoringSessions.com https://scoringsessions.com/about Dgoldwas ( talk ) 13:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The Time magazine page is just a brief listing but any thoughts on these? [1] [2] StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StreetcarEnjoyer it appears those are the same thing on different websites. Does look like a solid source, but it only puts us at one which still isn't enough to meet GNG. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That was the best I could find, so delete as not having sigcov. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : reads like WP:PROMO , the page was seemingly written by one of the sites creators, and many of the references are from the site itself. InDimensional ( talk ) 12:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wright, H. Stephen (September 2002). Davison, Stephen (ed.). "Film Music Web Sites". Notes . 59 (1): 128–129. doi : 10.1353/not.2002.0150 . ProQuest 1108699 . The article notes: "SoundtrackNet is probably the oldest comprehensive film music site on the Web, if one takes its entire genealogy into account. The site's banner proudly proclaims 5th Anniversary, 1997-2002, but in fact its origins can be traced to 1996, when Ellen Edgerton founded filmmusic.com, the first Web site to attempt an all-inclusive view of the film music world, rather than concentrate on soundtrack album collecting or a single composer. SoundtrackNet was created in 1997 and eventually absorbed the contents of filmmusic.com, thus creating a megasite of surprising breadth. (The domains soundtrack.net and filmmusic.com are now functionally equivalent.) ... SoundtrackNet, for all its virtues, is not always easy to use. Navigation bars that one expects to spawn drop-down menus do nothing of the kind." Rome, Emily (2011-12-04). "A movie music maestro" . Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Soundtrack.net, a web- site devoted to music in film and television, is getting an upgrade courtesy of Sean Saulsbury. One of the founders of Box Office Mojo, the Studio City-based movie enthusiast is hoping to build the site into a comprehensive resource for songs that appear on official soundtracks, orchestral scores and music integrated into movies and TV shows. The website has been around since 1997 but had been updated very little in the last several years. Saulsbury, who left Box Office Mojo in 2009, bought Soundtrack.net in mid-October." "SoundtrackNet Radio launches 24/7" . The Independent Film & Video Monthly . Vol.  27, no. 1. Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers. January–February 2004. pp. 10–11 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "SoundtrackNet, where web surfers have gone for years to find a trusty database of even the most obscure movie music, can now listen to the tunes they love nonstop with the October 1 launch of SoundtrackNet Radio—a free, 24/7 streaming internet station for film music buffs. ... In the beginning, the site, which boasts over 3,000 soundtracks and a whopping 40,000 songs, was merely a place to go to for composer interviews and agent contact information, but with the introduction of this round-the-clock radio station, Goldwasser hopes to see a big boost in visitors-up from an already not-too-shabby 188,000 unique visitors a month." Hewittchewitt, Chris (2009-01-05). "What Was That One Movie With That One Actor Playing That Guy in That Town Where That Stuff Happened? - Here Are a Few Sites That Might Be Able to Help" . St. Paul Pioneer Press . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The review notes: "SoundTrackNet: I'm a fan of film scores, and so are the folks who put this Web site together. There are lots of sites devoted to movie music -- filmscoremonthly.com is another -- but I've found soundtrack.net the most helpful. It has in-depth interviews with composers, a good question-and-answer section, info on hard-to-find CDs and a "Score of the Day" feature that lets you listen to (and, usually, download) movie music you never knew you needed." Abramowitz, Jeff (1997-09-19). "Read All About It" . The Jerusalem Post . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The article notes: ""Soundtrack.net" is a newish site devoted to film and television music. The site ( http://www.soundtrack.net ) has a large list of soundtracks, but unfortunately, there does not seem to be any facility letting you download or even listen to them. So what we're left with is a site about this form of music, with a discussion board and a data base and reviews, but it's still short of the mark. Nonetheless, it is a welcome resource for a genre of music which is often overlooked but which, at its best, is an essential part of any classic movie. " "On the Web" . Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . 2002-12-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The review notes: "SoundtrackNet is a great source for news and research on movie and TV soundtracks. It currently features an interview with "Two Towers" soundtrack composer Howard Shore. " Bainbridge, Jim (2005-03-13). " 'Local' function sets topix.net apart from Google News" . The Gazette . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The review notes: "Film music: Soundtracknet is a specialized Web site dealing with all things having to do with "the art of film and television music." There you will find news, features, interviews and 969 reviews of new and old movie soundtracks, including "Hotel Rwanda" and "The Courtmartial of Billy Mitchell."" Douglas, John (2001-03-05). "Soundtrack Net - On the Web" . The Grand Rapids Press . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The review notes: "If you like music from movies, www.filmmusic.com is the place to go for a wealth of information on composers, including what soundtracks are in print as well as complete track listings for soundtracks. " "wwwhere? - Site of the day" . The Age . 2001-07-18. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The article notes that the site of the day is oundtrack Net. The article notes: "Learn more about the music that accompanies the silverscreen blockbusters. Read the latest news, reviews and interviews relating to cinema soundtracks. " "Here & Now" . Watertown Daily Times . 2014-09-12. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The article notes: "That's where the website soundtrack.net comes in handy. The site is a source for news and information about movie and television soundtracks and original scores. A typical film page will list its music tracks (whether or not there was an official release) and the artists who sang them; director, music supervisor and composer credits; and album release date, its publisher and a link to the soundtrack and/or score. Plus, there are release dates for upcoming films about 60 days in advance. " Douglas, John (2001-09-10). "On the Web" . The Grand Rapids Press . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The review notes: "I love movie soundtracks -- and I'm not talking about those new soundtracks with "music inspired by the film." The soundtracks on this site contain music composed for a movie. Some of these are new soundtracks and some are for older films. The site will clue you in on what is included on each CD. It also contains news and articles about soundtracks along with interviews with composers. " Rothman, Wilson (2005-11-21). "Online Music Guide 2005. Whether you're searching for the next big hit or creating a personal web radio station, our top 20 music sites will get you in the groove" . Time . Archived from the original on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The article notes: "soundtrack.net/trailers. Movie trailers usually feature mesmerizing songs that are, incidentally, not always included on the movie's soundtrack album. This site tells you what's playing in the trailers, plus an abundance of information about scores and their composers too. " Pool, Jeannie Gayle; Wright, H. Stephen (2011). A Research Guide to Film and Television Music in the United States . Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press . p. 142. ISBN 978-0-8108-7688-0 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "SoundtrackNet (www.soundtrack.net). Includes a database of film scores on compact disc, as well as reviews and news. " Roat, Ronald; Contini, George; Barnes, Michael J.; Barr, Linda R. (2003). iSearch: Mass Communication, Theatre and Film . Boston: Pearson Education . p. 149. ISBN 0-205-37644-4 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "SoundtrackNet: http://www . filmmusic.com/. An awesome online magazine that not only provides excellent articles on scoring for film but also has an extensive composer and soundtrack database. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Soundtrack.Net to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, that's plenty. Withdrawn . Thanks @ Cunard ! QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 14:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep agree that Cunard's sources enable WP:GNG to be passed. There are a couple of early delete votes which prevent a speedy keep for nomination withdrawn, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:47, 26 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

Dan Hendrycks: Wikipedia is not a place for personal curriculum vitae Zusf ( talk ) 05:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The wording may need to be changed, but being covered in The Boston Globe is note-worthy. APK whisper in my ear 05:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic of whether the page met notability guidelines was raised before by another user , but we agreed that the subject meets the notability criteria for academics . Enervation ( talk ) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:PROF . Thriley ( talk ) 04:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Goyang Happiness FC: No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club that existed for about 1 year. North8000 ( talk ) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , especially in light of its short duration. I don't speak Korean, so am not best positioned to find additional sources, but did not find significant coverage during my limited search. Also, the second source in the article is arguably a cursory mention. Arcendeight ( talk ) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep , in light of sources later in the discussion. I would ask, though, that these sources be included in the article as appropriate, as its in a sorry state now. Arcendeight ( talk ) 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I may not fix up the article. To-do list is long (can see it on my user page) and this is very low impact topic. I did copy paste the links onto the article's talk page for future editors though toobigtokale ( talk ) 21:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A team Goyang KH won the 2022 K4 League and bowed out of the 2023 K4 League , and Goyang is mentioned at both those pages, so perhaps a redirect to 2022 K4 League . Geschichte ( talk ) 17:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman , pinging as requested on account of latest mention of 9 Korean sources by @ Toobigtokale . Arcendeight ( talk ) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below, AGFing they show SIGCOV as suggested. Giant Snowman 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable coverage in the Korean language. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] toobigtokale ( talk ) 20:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ toobigtokale . Svartner ( talk ) 22:29, 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

AHRC New York City: No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search. Daask ( talk ) 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability , Organizations , and New York . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:32, 5 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! 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meeting WP:SIGCOV . Google scholar yields a number of scholarly sources that are paywalled. In particular, there's a book "State Association for Retarded Children and New York State Government" which is not available online. Archive.org also has a lot of hits but many of them are unavailable for borrowing. I was able to find at least two multi-paragraph treatments of the article subject (plus the Autism one which is brief). It gets a lot of mentions on archive - there's probably more significant coverage out there. Urban community care for the developmentally disabled (1980) three paragraphs about the organization Parental voices and controversies in Autism (2011) half a paragraph about the organization (fulltext on Researchgate ) Mental retardation in America : a historical reader at least two paragraphs starting a chapter at 351, plus more on pages 358-59 which aren't available to me Oblivy ( talk ) 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have to agree per se especially with this source . Its true that non-profit corps doesn't usually get notable except with PR, etc. (some of them I mean). However, this came from a origin, a history and even if it is one boo that is verifiable, let the article be kept for further improvements. The matter is that WP:NEXIST . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:46, 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

Karen Poulsen: Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR . ~ T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . ~ T P W 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish wikis provide more sources. Dansk Biografisk Leksikon is a respectable source. Danske Film has an entry, as does Dansk Filminstitut . A search for images shows plenty of potential sources. A respected actress with a long career and many roles. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Aymatth2. Borderline case, but looks like it could be improved to a short but sufficient article. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 00:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon source given above seems a clear pass for notability, and I've added it to the article. Pam D 07:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has been improved after the nomination. She has the minimum coverage needed to pass for notability from varioud sources. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 10:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Forty years of roles in Danish films; reviewed internationally. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not one of Denmark's most prominent actresses but she certainly deserves a page in Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 16:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per above, @ True Pagan Warrior : suggest you withdraw.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:53, 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

Lizzie Spender: PatGallacher ( talk ) 12:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If not found notable, redirect to Barry_Humphries#Personal_life . Pam D 07:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think she's notable enough for Wikipedia: actress and writer, some example sources: Five page article in House & Garden August 2015 , article in Sunday Independent (Dublin) - Sunday 25 September 2005 , Daily Mirror - Tuesday 28 February 1989 and Sunday Telegraph August 28, 2005 Piecesofuk ( talk ) 15:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would help if these sources were fully integrated into the article. PatGallacher ( talk ) 19:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified by Piecesofuk. pburka ( talk ) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agree with Piecesofuk. Jaireeodell ( talk ) 00:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agree with Piecesofuk. Why are some editors against pages on women? An Encyclopedia should be inclusive. This actor may not be an A-lister but has appeared in some major films and the article has plenty of references to back that up. Brian R Hunter ( talk ) 19:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I am not convinced that the page should have been renamed. As a notable person, the page title should be her professional name and not her abbreviated name, Lizzie is only used in links relating to her personal life. The BFI page [8] uses Elizabeth Spender. Brian R Hunter ( talk ) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] fyi, from WP:AFDEQ : While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. pburka ( talk ) 21:58, 5 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

Frank Wragge: After searching, unable to find in depth reliable sources. Article was created on 20 August 2006. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. Thank you Cielquiparle for article improvements. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 04:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This discussion can't be closed based on a nominator's withdrawal since there are votes to Delete this article. You'll have to wait for a regular closure. L iz Read! Talk! 05:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can't find anything for this person, several meteorologists with a similar name pop up Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ENFA confirms this player had a 15 year career playing for 'Whitmore, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Oakengates Town, Bristol Rovers, Stafford Rangers, Torquay Utd, Walsall, Madeley Miners Welfare, OD Murphy Sports (Wellington)'. What attempt has been made to search for offline sources, given this player was active in the 1920s and 1930s? Giant Snowman 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Also going with keep, I feel there might be better WP:OFFLINESOURCES , I see him named in two seasons for Wolves, [26] and [27] , mentioned in [28] Some mention on a war memorial, but not sure that's related or not. Dates seemed wrong for it. Govvy ( talk ) 20:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG. A newspapers.com search only turned up namedrops. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question @ Dougal18 : Which newspapers? Old match reports? Govvy ( talk ) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Govvy : He is in several newspapers but it's mostly transfers and injuries. His wife Mabel died in 1938 but there was no sigcov of Frank in the articles. Dougal18 ( talk ) 10:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dougal18 : okay, however, considering when he played, I am simply staying with my keep vote for now, as I am assuming good faith that there are offline sources. Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 11:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : (weak) I think these newspapers.com results [29] shows there is probably offline local coverage. The sources are very weak, but they seem inline with what consensus says is acceptable. There is also a Frank "Wragg" who is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Polyamorph ( talk ) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep USA sources such as newspapers.com isn't really useful for 100-year old footballers; it simply doesn't have much historic UK coverage. But it's easy to find sources in British newspapers, such as he played for Torquay United F.C. in 1928 according to this from the Sports Argus , having gone there in 1927 from Stafford Rangers F.C. according to the Staffordshire Sentinel here . Later in 1928 he was injured while playing for Walsall F.C according to the Argus here . There's a good 1931 piece in the Birmingham Gazette when he went to Oakengates Athletic F.C. here , which also notes he played for Wolves, Bristol Rovers F.C. , and the other teams listed above. There's dozens more. This looks to be a BEFORE failure, User:JoeNMLC - not so much because there wasn't a search, but nominating players for top teams 100 years ago in England, shouldn't be done without a comprehensive search of the British Newspaper Archive . Nfitz ( talk ) 23:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Your links just lead to a registration page. Searching for "Frank Wragge" gave 13 matches of which 4 aren't relevant and three are about his wife's death. Fortunately the sources are available on newspapers.com. The Sentinel is one sentence of routine transfer coverage. The Argus is routine injury coverage. Finally the "good piece" from the Gazette is routine transfer coverage where his previous clubs are cited. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's nothing wrong with transfer coverage. ROUTINE is nothing to do with that. Links are fine, unless you haven't logged into BNA. BNA access is available for free, if you apply through Wikipedia Library. I don't think those that haven't gotten this should be nominating AFDs in this area. Nfitz ( talk ) 02:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I'm finding more articles if you simply search for ... wragge wolves. Such as this 1923 article in the London Daily News . - https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003212/19231204/205/0011 about his injury, while he was playing for Bristol. Might be even more hits for ... wragge rovers. Nfitz ( talk ) 02:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 09:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to have played several seasons for top teams, suspect sources exist in local offline archives. JMWt ( talk ) 09:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC in light of sources now added to the article for this historical sports biography about a player born 125 years ago. IMO, it was a fair AfD nomination though, as there were zero sources cited at the time of nomination (and for a couple weeks afterwards). Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per expansion work by Cielquiparle BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Megaton (Fallout 3): Why just Megaton? -- Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . -- Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON . There's not enough sourcing or content present to sustain a stand alone article, especially if these overly long and drawn out direct quotes are trimmed down to a reasonable length. Really feels like it was particularly dragged out to create the illusion of needing a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Might do a WP:BEFORE and see if I can salvage this. This article relies on post-release sourcing, which suggests there is a wellspring of contemporary commentary, particularly in the treatment of the Power of the Atom questline that may justify its inclusion. That questline in particular was a major design anchor for the game and recieved specific praise. But I'm mindful until I find that sourcing this has a bit of a tenor of WP:ITSNOTABLE . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (as creator) I fully admit the current state of the article's sourcing is not up to par with the now-extremely-stringent WP:VG criteria for a standalone article. But there are certainly numerous reliable sources that talk specifically about the now-infamous Megaton and its highly notable decision. The AV Club and GamesRadar+ are already in the article, and TheGamer has yet to be integrated into it as it was written in 2023(!). There is also a VICE article that is not integrated as a reference yet. There is a ScreenRant article here as well, and I know some people do consider it proof of notability, even if others don't. In conclusion, these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems and I will try to expand the sourcing to fulfill the modern criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also mention that the sole argument of the nom is that the page is "non-notable" which I have soundly refuted, so the nomination is already incorrect per WP:SK#3 . Why there are "not other articles" on other notable towns is assumedly because nobody has written them yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. Found yet another article in Destructoid and a news mention of Megaton's explosion getting removed from the Japanese version here . Clearly I wasn't thorough enough in my initial search for sources, which I regret, but it should be clear that this is a notable page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't worry, I got this. I should be providing a sourcelist in this discussion quite shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Performed a non-exhaustive WP:BEFORE that illustrates that the location is notable and contains content that has been subject to enough significant commentary, paired with the other mentioned sources earlier, to merit an article: In terms of magazines: Not as good as I hoped. That said, there's no shortage of contemporary sources that provide brief non- WP:SIGCOV praise or commentary on Megaton and the Power of the Atom questline, both as a highlight of the depth of locations and side-missions, [1] or the open-ended moral and gameplay choices available to the player. [2] [3] Play briefly described the questline as being one of the "best moments" experienced on the PlayStation as one of the "earliest and most challenging" and character-defining decisions made in the game. [4] However! Edge provided an in-depth article on Megaton, outlining how it "epitomises" the game's "grand adventure", describing the Power of the Atom quest as "game-defining" and analysing the impacts of player choice on the game. [5] In terms of books: Seems there's ample analysis. Harvard music professor William Cheng dedicated several pages to recounting and analysing the design of the game in reflecting the ethics and player agency experienced when detonating the bomb. [6] Tom Bissell briefly praised Megaton as an example of the game establishing the "buffet of choices" and open-ended "narrative viability" available to the player in the early stages of the game. [7] Marist College games professor Karen Schrier discusses and analyses how the game approaches moral problems in its Atom questline, critiquing the binary approach taken as "too moral" in its use of temptation to direct the player to good and bad consequences. [8] University of Groningen Media and cultural studies professor Lars de Wildt et al. discuss in depth the Children of the Atom in Megaton as a contemporary example of a new trope of post-apocalyptic faith in literature. [9] Merge per Sergecross73. While the sources presented above are solid, they are not entirely about the location. They are about the narrative design of Fallout 3 or one of its questlines, and is therefore tangential to the location itself. Article, as it stands right now, is incomprehensible to readers who have no basic knowledge about Fallout 3 , its themes and lores. OceanHok ( talk ) 16:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am unsure about how a quest that revolves solely around saving or destroying a single location of the game is "tangential to the location itself". It is in fact intrinsically about that location and the bomb in the middle of Megaton, saying it is unrelated to Megaton and only about "narrative design" is stretching it at the best of times. Any lack of context is a surmountable problem, but I'm just not seeing "incomprehensible". The lede clearly explains what the article is about and where it's from - a fictional town from the Fallout 3 game. Are you trying to suggest people don't know what a town, fiction, or a video game is? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to belabor the above point, but is the original comment's suggestion that the significant coverage would not support an article on Megaton but would substantiate an article for The Power of the Atom ? If the article meets deletion, this might be a way to salvage some sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the idea of changing it to " The Power of the Atom " if truly necessary (in the vein of other similar articles like No Russian or Cat hair mustache puzzle that are solely about a "quest"), but I don't think it's necessary because there's so much discussion about Megaton itself as a town in the game world aside from the one quest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good to know. If the AfD is successful I will have a go of drafting - you're welcome to help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, I don't actually believe the article should solely be about the quest, as AV Club and GamesRadar+'s articles are more focused on the town itself, so we'll see what other opinions say. There is the argument that if the article was solely about the town and not the quest, it wouldn't pass GNG, but I think the quest is so linked to the town that doesn't matter. If it comes down to it remaining as an article, though, I don't mind modifying it in such a way. The quest itself did get comparatively more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, but just planning for contingencies. Despite the above I agree the entire point of the town's concept and design is the bomb in the centre of it, which is inextricably linked with the quest to detonate or defuse it. It would be a little baffling to talk about Power of the Atom without first talking about Megaton. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 00:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Sergecross73 and OceanHok. I dug hard before chiming in to see what I could find through old development commentary and concept art in the event there's something to expand here, something to illustrate it as tangible beyond the game for readers to be able to comprehend it, but not really any luck. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand using the identified sources to cover the quest as well as the place. Sources 2 and 5 here are enough for a bare keep, and much of the rest demonstrate there's potential to write about the ethical in-game choice posed here. Jclemens ( talk ) 06:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BEFORE references [ edit ] ^ Penny, Rachel (December 2008). "Fallout 3" . Official UK PlayStation Magazine . No. 26. p. 54. ^ "10 Ways to be a Complete Bastard in Fallout 3" . PlayStation Magazine . No. 17. March 2009. p. 86. ^ Porter, Will (October 2007). "Welcome to Vault 101" . PC Zone . No. 185. pp. 44–9. ^ "The 200 Greatest PlayStation Moments" . Play . No. 200. January 2011. p. 29. ^ "Places: Megaton" . Edge . Christmas 2011. pp. 126–7. ^ Cheng, William (2014). "A Time at the End of the World". Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination . Oxford University Press. p. 4252. ISBN 978-0-19-996997-5 . ^ Bissell, Tom (2011). "Fallout". Extra Lives: Why Video Games Mattter . Vintage Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-307-47431-5 . ^ Schrier, Karen; Gibson, David (2010). "Moral Sensitivity and Megaton in Fallout 3". Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play . Information Science Reference. pp. 41–45. ISBN 978-1-61520-845-6 . ^ de Wildt, Lars; Aupers, Stef; Krassen, Cindy; Coanda, Iulia (2018). " 'Things Greater than Thou': Post-Apocalyptic Religion in Games" . Religions . 9 (6): 169. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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

Ramit Sethi: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Very promo. Subject is good at talking about things in media, but no sources discuss him. One of many "experts" in the field of getting rich. Oaktree b ( talk ) 03:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why don't we just delete everyone. Wikipedia has tons of misinformation on the web site. Everyone has to find something wrong with everything. Just take Wikipedia down then there will never be anymore controversy. I have looked up multiple things which I knew a little bit about (don't ask what it was because I don't remember) and the info I knew was correct was not. I say take the whole web site down for misinformation. Lets add shut the freeways down because of the bill boards. Is the freeway driving, not for putting out advertising. So what if he is using a platform. Maybe you're just jealous!!!! 98.167.122.201 ( talk ) 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Netflix just released a whole series "How to get rich" with him as host. By 'rich', he doesn't mean wealth but a rich experience in life with proper importance given to money. He seems well-qualified. 173.2.25.98 ( talk ) 01:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He should be deleted. He is giving investment advice with no license, certification, education, and/or expertise. . He stuck on this lady firing her FP and having her do it her self. Literally the worse advice. 141.191.64.6 ( talk ) 03:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He advised firing the FP because the FP was charging 1% which is ridiculously high. He did talk about FP being helpful if it's a flat fee or hourly. I agree with that. 173.2.25.243 ( talk ) 02:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this particular article given the subject does not meet WP:N MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources 2023 sources about him after his Netflix show was released: Silverman, Sam (2023-04-18). " 'I Teach People How to Live Their Rich Life:' Finance Expert Ramit Sethi Gets a Netflix Show" . Entrepreneur . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "The show features Sethi on a six-week journey advising people in the U.S. including New York and California who are struggling to manage their finances with his approach to paying off debt, saving, and budgeting. ... Ramit Sethi grew up in a middle-class family in California. His journey to financial literally began when he devised a plan to apply to more than 60 scholarships so he could attend undergrad and grad school at Stanford University, according to his website." Morris, Lauren (2023-04-19). "Who is Ramit Sethi? Everything to know about How to Get Rich star" . Radio Times . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Brand new on Netflix this week is How to Get Rich – an eight-part docuseries that does exactly what it says on the tin. Hosted by finance expert and author Ramit Sethi, the series follows the entrepreneur as he travels across the US, helping those in need of financial advice to achieve "their richest lives". While the series covers everything from debt and saving for retirement to multi-level marketing schemes, you may be wondering who exactly Ramit Sethi is – and we're here to fill you in." Zuckerman, Sam (2007-11-04). "Blogger advises young adults on financial strategies" . San Francisco Chronicle . Archived from the original on 2022-12-01 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Ramit Sethi is a rising star in the world of personal finance writing. But he doesn't look like someone you'd rely on for advice about how to handle your money. ... Sethi, who lives in San Francisco's Marina district, seems like someone who might work at a Silicon Valley startup. And, in fact, his day job is vice president of marketing at PBwiki, a tiny, fast-growing producer of Internet tools. Sethi's blog, I Will Teach You to Be Rich, has rapidly become one of the most popular finance sites on the Internet for college students and young adults getting started in their careers, visited by 150,000 people a month. ... Sethi grew up in Sacramento, a middle-class child of immigrant parents. At Stanford University, he earned a bachelor's degree in science, technology and society, and a master's in sociology, while writing a comedy column for the Stanford Daily." Buck, Claudia (2009-06-07). "Money blogger shares hometown savings tips" . The Sacramento Bee . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Save $1,000 in four weeks: Can you do it? Ramit Sethi thinks so. The former Sacramentan and Stanford grad is on a personal finance mission. He's got a popular blog, write-ups in the Wall Street Journal and other high-profile business pubs, as well as a New York Times best-seller: "I Will Teach You to be Rich. " And he's only 26. A 2000 Bella Vista High School graduate, Sethi tailors much of his advice based on real-life encounters with friends and peers. Convinced that frugality is frumpy, he launched a hipper how-to savings challenge on his blog (iwillteachyoutoberich.com) last year: "Save $1,000 in 30 Days. "" Creamer, Anita (2007-11-16). "Bella Vista grad's financial advice geared to peers" . The Sacramento Bee . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Now the Bella Vista High School and Stanford University graduate rakes in sizable fees for his I Will Teach You To Be Rich speaking engagements, and he's writing a book on the subject, too. And that's not even his day job: He's also a co-founder of PBWiki.com. His parents -- Neelam, a teacher; and Prab, who works for the state -- still live in Fair Oaks. ... Hence, the blog, which he started in 2004. It now receives 150,000 hits a month, plus lots of comments from people who don't hesitate to argue with Sethi when ..." Kimes, Mina (2011-12-26). "New Guru on the Block" . Fortune . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Sethi's advice isn't terribly unusual: He wants young people to slash their debt, invest for retirement, and increase their earning power. It's his approach that makes him different. Unlike most people in the self-help business, Sethi eschews fuzzy affirmations in favor of specific directives. His tips are based on careful testing and paired with musings on the mysteries of human behavior. His technocratic style is similar to that of Tim Ferriss, author of the smash hit productivity guide The 4-Hour Workweek. Like Ferriss, Sethi specializes in coming up with simple tweaks--or hacks, as productivity junkies call them--that his readers can apply to their lives. ... Whenever Sethi promotes his products on iwillteachyoutoberich.com--which is often--commenters howl in protest. " Lieber, Ron (2012-05-05). "How To Raise A Financial Guru" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "A running theme throughout Ramit Sethi's book, blog and courses is the idea that we should all negotiate like Indians do. When I asked his mother, Neelam Sethi, whether anyone might take offense to the idea, she seemed surprised. ... It's the big purchases, however, that had the most impact on the 29-year-old Mr. Sethi, a Stanford University graduate who often tells the story of watching his father, Prab, a mechanical engineer, negotiate for days in pursuit of a fair price on a Honda. And why was the teenage Ramit dragged along for all the negotiating sessions? "When we were growing up in India, big purchases were very rare," said Mrs. Sethi, a teacher who moved to the United States in 1982." Cullen, Terri (2005-03-03). "Blogs Expose Personal Finance: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" . The Wall Street Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-04-27 . Retrieved 2023-04-27 . The article notes: "Musings like this one may be the reason readers keep coming back to the Iwillteachyoutoberich.com blog, or Web log, of Ramit Sethi. The blog, a running commentary on the 22-year-old Stanford University graduate student's personal finances and his views on financial planning, attracts several thousand readers a month. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ramit Sethi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I reviewed the article and do not consider the article to be overly promotional. It is neutrally written. Cunard ( talk ) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Pinging the only participant of the 2011 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramit Sethi who has been active in the last three years: Whpq ( talk · contribs ). Cunard ( talk ) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I was of the opinion that notability was met in 2011 and my opinion has not changed. Reading the text of the article at the time of this nomination, I fail to see how this article reads as an advertisement. -- Whpq ( talk ) 12:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This New York Times article [1] is also significant coverage, statisfies WP:GNG . However, unsourced material should immediately removed according to WP:BLPREMOVE . Tags can be added for tone, etc. BruceThomson ( talk ) 11:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG with significant coverage.-- Ortizesp ( talk ) 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the sources listed above (that said, this article needs some TLC). -- Gen. Quon [Talk] 21:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973: No sources. Fails WP:GNG . As an WP:ATD , a redirect to Jim Carroll would work. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Scanlon, Tom (1987-09-20). "Strong stomach required: Debauchery is revisited by Jim Carroll" (pages 1 and 2 ). Peninsula Times Tribune . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Forced Entries," with its short, terse chapters, is good reading, for the most part. Carroll's dialogue is stiff, however, and his insights are indeed at times "dubious" ("... one continues to inject the speed throughout the day for en- ergy, dubious insight, and social interaction"). Yet when Jim Carroll hits unselfconscious grooves, his writing has a beautiful rhythm, and a burning honesty. " Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (1987-07-09). "Books of the Times; By Christopher Lehmann-Haupt" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-23 . Retrieved 2023-07-23 . The review notes: "Despite the maturing voice of Forced Entries , the two diaries remain similar in their quest for extreme sensations and their eagerness to shock the reader. One is aware almost throughout that the author is more intelligent than he appears and that he takes a certain pride in dissipating his gifts. " Hochswender, Woody (1987-10-18). "The Way They Were in Greenwich Village: Down and in Life in the Underground by Ronald Sukenick (Beech Tree Books/William Morrow: $17.95; 288 pp.): Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973 by Jim Carroll (Penguin Books: $6.95; 184 pp" . Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-23 . Retrieved 2023-07-23 . The review notes: "As with any diary, at times the author seems quite full of himself, and, as a consequence, full of something else. For the poet, “not dying young can be a dilemma,” he tells us. And he’s a frenetic name-dropper. For example, the section entitled “Hello, Dali” consists of nothing more than a chance encounter on 57th Street, where Salvador Dali commandeers his cab. But somehow Carroll has the slick slang to carry it off. He’s a collector of fancy words, and at one point he makes a note to himself to use the words serpentine and abattoir in his poetry. Sure enough, both appear inconspicuously later in the book. " Delacorte, Peter (1987-07-12). "A Follow-Through Beyond The Hoop" (pages 1 and 2 ). San Francisco Examiner . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "And for the next 30 pages the book is incessantly boring, because Carroll is a fish out of water. In its meandering way, the book has been leading to this: the rite of purification, the great battle against the "small pink simian" that holds Carroll captive. But nothing happens. Carroll makes vapid observations about California. He gets a dog. He has teeth extracted. He makes his big attempt to kick drugs; little regard is paid to the major event. He returns to New York. " Finz, Stacy (1987-06-26). "After quitting a longtime heroin addiction, moving..." Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-23 . Retrieved 2023-07-23 . The article notes: "“Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973” is now in bookstores, and Carroll has since moved back to New York, where he resides on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The modern poet, songwriter and rock musician will read excerpts from “Forced Entries” and his last collection of poetry, “The Book of Nods,” at 9 p.m. Sunday at the Saigon Palace. ... “Forced Entries” follows Carroll through his rising stardom and presents intimate episodes in his life. " Menn, Joseph (1987-07-09). "Jim Carroll, escape article. A writer comes back from the edge" (pages 1 and 2 ). The Boston Globe . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "But the new book, "Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973". talks about those days and his mind-and-body escape to a temporary retreat in Northern California, where he kicked heroin and worked on his writing. The title is a pun on the difficulty of getting off hard drugs and continuing to write diary-like entries. ... His book is not a documentation of an era of ferment, as Penguin Books calls it. "Forced Entries" records Carroll's "obscure rite of passage" as he turned his knowledge of sophisticated, vacuous New York scene-making into personal, life-saving wisdom. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Forced Entries: The Downtown Diaries 1971–1973 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 05:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by Cunard. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:42, 26 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

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (disambiguation): The titles don't seem to be two completely different things. I read the examples in that page, but I don't see how it should apply to this page. I will getting a consensus on what to do with this. Interstellarity ( talk ) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Interstellarity ( talk ) 13:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the restorer. Per WP:PTM , "A link to an article title that merely contains part of the disambiguation page title ... should not be included." It doesn't get much clearer than that. What next? Should My Blue Heaven (disambiguation) be merged to Blue Heaven (disambiguation) ? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 14:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SMALLDETAILS . BD2412 T 19:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per MOS:DABGROUPING - Handy DAB - I never before realized how many variations there are on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. — Maile ( talk ) 23:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Id Tech 7: Merko ( talk ) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology . Merko ( talk ) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems like an ok WP:SPLIT , and also probably meets GNG/NSOFT on its own. [22] [23] , and note that there is a lot of secondary coverage of an interview that a developer gave (i.e. not the interview itself, but secondary coverage thereof), eg [24] [25] . — siro χ o 10:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Eurogamer article isn't inherently about id Tech 7. GND-Tech is a listicle which has passing mentions of id Tech, let alone id Tech 7. TechRadar and Vice articles are blogspam. Merko ( talk ) 13:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable (proprietary) software product used in a notable game ( Doom Eternal ). The engine has a sufficient amount of reporting on its own, but also there is a lot of reporting about the way it was used in the game. Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Okoslavia ( talk ) 12:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you give some examples? Merko ( talk ) 13:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disclaimer: I never actually played the any games created with Id Tech 7, so can't judge how accurate the reporting is, however I believe the following sources should be usable: - Doom Eternal ushers in idTech 7, bloody new powers ( Ars Technica - a tech news and editorial reviews site, generally considered reliable in technology matters, so probably is OK in gaming too) - Doom Eternal analysis: how id Tech 7 pushes current-gen consoles to the limit ( Eurogamer - gaming news site) - Doom Eternal on Stadia looks great - but the lag is just too high (Eurogamer - same gaming news site) Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in relation to other articles on Wikipedia, this is relatively notable. It's well referenced. I can't see a reason to delete this article. (Although the article itself could be improved). - Master Of Ninja ( talk ) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the article could be improved. Unfortunately, low quality is typical for most consumer software/technology product articles on Wikipedia, so it is sufficiently decent in its category. Anton.bersh ( talk ) 11:41, 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

Alen Kozić: Joeykai ( talk ) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below. Giant Snowman 17:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Serbia and Florida . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found [16] , [17] , and [18] , among many more sources. Played in MLS , America top flight and career in ealry 2000s so definitely has offline sources as well. Article needs improvement, not deletion . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Links 1 and 3 unavailable, link 2 is just a results page? Giant Snowman 14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , is it enough? I am not so sure. Depends on what others find, give me a ping, if other people find better sources. It does look like an article that can go either way of GNG. Govvy ( talk ) 19:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [23] [24] are match reports and [25] [26] mention him once each. He does however at least have some coverage in the The Tampa Tribune [27] [28] [29] Alvaldi ( talk ) 22:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with this significant coverage from the The Tampa Tribune [30] [31] [32] , South Florida Sun Sentinel [33] and the St. Petersburg Times [34] . Pinging @ GiantSnowman and @ Govvy if you want to review them. Alvaldi ( talk ) 22:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Cheers @ Alvaldi : Looks a lot better, the article still needs improving, fixing up better. Also the photo looks like it was a scan of a newspaper, is that a copyvio image? Govvy ( talk ) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 04:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Chad Kultgen: There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. The rest are all either reviews of his books, or minor article about being sued over a podcast. One or more of his books could possibly be considered notable, but notability is not inherited, so those articles need to be created separately. Also note this was deleted back in 2011 and re-created in 2012. I haven't seen the deleted version as the history is not merged. Iggy pop goes the weasel ( talk ) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Seems to pass AUTHOR with reviews [5] , [6] . With the NY Times article, I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Plenty of articles about the George Carlin AI special, mentioning this person, and the lawsuit involved. Depending how it goes, could either be famous or infamous. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : widespread, active coverage going on with George Carlin . She was a fairy 02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. is evidence of a BEFORE failure; the NYT so rarely writes about people that no other RS is covering, the more prudent move is to assume you've missed something else and keep looking. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:52, 21 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

2021–22 ÖFB-Frauenliga: While there are mentions of the team, obviously, there is no in-depth coverage of the season. Would have draftified, but that's no longer an option. Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 10:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Football , and Austria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of sources out there, see this and this and this . Top women's league in Austria, looks to be notable. Giant Snowman 12:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG. Article and BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval for above: Game schedule, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: https://www.oefb.at/oefb/Ligen-Bewerbe/Frauen/Planet-Pure-Frauen-Bundesliga Stats page, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: https://www.kicker.de/oefb-frauen-bundesliga/spieltag Stats page, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: https://sport.orf.at/tabellen/stories/2288303 Stat pages and game schedules do not show notability. None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It is better to leave it, as this article is very relevant, Владлен-товарищ ( talk ) 11:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Kante4 ( talk ) 10:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: None of the WP:PERX comments address Timothy's analysis of the sources or provide any additional sources, more discussion seems warranted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk ) 03:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Per above & topic is relevant enough PalauanReich ( talk ) 23:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: First relisting comment is still relevant. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - top national league. BEFORE failure as there are sources out there - in the last few days there's been sources from the current season - so I don't know why there'd be any doubt about the previous season - 1 , 2 . Also the nominator - User:onel5969 - seems to think this is a team. It's not only a league, it's the top league in Austria! Can Onel5969 expand on the "team", or withdraw this nomination? Nfitz ( talk ) 05:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 16:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per source analysis by Timothy. The league is notable (and already has its own article), but that is not inherited by this season in particular. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:11, 5 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

Paul Harris (film critic): Unable to find WP:SIGCOV . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Radio , and Australia . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The only indepth coverage is the first gnews hit, other than that he fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 00:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Was unable to find anything about him that would pass WP:SIGCOV . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With the new source it passes WP:GNG . I will admit it was hard to find sources on this guy, he had the perfect storm of problems, a common name and lots of material he wrote as a film critic. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep was easily able to find SIGCOV including specific coverage of his retirement from Sydney Morning herald. Linked in article. Please WP:BEFORE more thoroughly before advocating for deletions. Jack4576 ( talk ) 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been hard to find sources with Newspapers.com being down just wondering how did you find that article? I got swamped with a bunch of noise with other Paul Harris's and what I could find about him was just some of his reviews. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My search into Google read: ["Paul Harris" Melbourne] it was the 8th link on the first page Jack4576 ( talk ) 04:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well now I feel real silly thanks for letting me know. As I said when I changed my vote I think this guy is a strange edge case but still passes WP:GNG . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the last comment. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk ) 05:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rajeev Kumar (IPS): Nothing notable except the one event. All the other sources are from non- WP:SIGCOV sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , India , and West Bengal . UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: - Tagging @ Seawolf35 : , who reviewed, I would make two points on this. 1. From my side, I don't think being a director of the state police unit is the only notability that counts. He is also a former police commissioner of Kolkata and was involved in Saradha Group financial scandal . So, that also counts. 2. Even if it looks notable on 1E, his successors like Anuj Sharma and Rajesh Kumar also considered as 1E (only commissioner of Kolkata). These persons also don't provide significant coverage references. So they should also tagged as deleted. Since creating this page, I prefer to avoid voting. -- CSMention269 ( talk ) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I reviewed so I am involved. But aside from the 1E notability, he also seems to be notable for his appointment, his appointment was among controversy, see [17] , and [18] and [19] . There are some more sources, but he is notable for more than the 1E alone. v/r - Seawolf35 T -- C 15:09, 23 January 2024 (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 ) 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - it seems that his biggest claim to notability is the accusation against him. If that is true, it should be at least mentioned in the lede. Llajwa ( talk ) 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Heads of state police forces (which are generally pretty big) in Indian states should clearly be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point us to a notability policy that indicates this broad conclusion? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's an informed opinion, based on the fact that nobody in such a position in a western country would ever be deleted (and is therefore covered by WP:BIAS ). I can also point you to the sadly much overlooked WP:COMMONSENSE . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I refute this. Would you create Patrick J. Callahan who is the New Jersey State Police Superintendent purely based on being in that role? That's the equivalence you are making, and it is not held up by policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This exact same point has been raised before by American editors who don't understand how policing works in other countries, but no, I'm not making that equivalence at all. State police in India carry out all policing in the state. State police in the USA only have a very limited role, with local police departments carrying out most policing. You need to compare the size of the two forces (2,800 in NJ against 79,000 in West Bengal, and that's one of the smaller Indian state police forces), then you'd realise just what a lack of equivalence this really is. A closer equivalent would be the Chief of the NYPD, but more than doubled! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With West Bengal having a population of 10x that of NJ, that's only a difference of less than 3x the size per capita. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And still - there's no policy basis for your argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What on earth is your point? I'm talking about the size of the force the man heads, not the relative population of the two states. Somebody who heads a police force 79,000 strong which is responsible for all the policing in a state with a population of 91 million is clearly a notable player in the world. That is just WP:COMMONSENSE , as I said. In the real world, not wikiworld. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. The heads of those organizations do not have articles, unless they are otherwise notable. A prime example is Steven C. McCraw , director of the Texas Department of Public Safety . The department has an article, but the director doesn't. I'd wager the department is larger than the West Bengal police force, as it includes more than just police. Size of the department they run isn't a notability factor. WP:COMMONSENSE is just a wrapper to WP:IAR , the anti-policy. So I'll ask again, do you have a policy basis for your keep ! vote? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. What!? No, there really aren't! Now you really are joking. The NYPD, with 36,000 officers, is by far the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. The Texas Highway Patrol is 2,800 strong (and I'm damn sure the TDPS doesn't have an additional 76,000 people on top of that, or even close!). The California Highway Patrol, which provides state policing for the most populous state in the USA, has 7,000 officers. You do know IAR is a policy, right? Whether you like it or not. I'm sorry that you don't think it's common sense that an officer who heads an agency this size is notable, IAR or not, but I must agree to disagree. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 17:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Necrothesp , I agree with you, but not all persons who holds such positions is notable. For instance, Surajit Kar Purkayastha (predeccesor of Kumar as CP, Kolkata) has hold such post. But his successor, i.e. Virenda K. is not quite notable. Manoj Malaviya counts as notable as grandson of Madan Mohan Malaviya . However it would be appreciated if you answer @ UtherSRG 's question. CSMention269 ( talk ) 13:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody is notable as a relative of someone else. But these people are all notable because of the post they held. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Hi @ Necrothesp , agree with you, but can you or anyone clarify if he is just an acting DGP or full time DGP? (Full time DGP requires approval from UPSC , I guess). If he is acting, he can not be notable based on that appointment. Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 05:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User4edits , according to their official website , it stated that he is serving as principal secretary to IT department holding the charge of DGP West Bengal. I remember last time when Manoj Malaviya was appointed as acting DGP, before confirming by UPSC after few months as permanent DGP of the state. Though no acting word is mentioned in their website (as 24/01/2024 per website), some media stated he took charge as acting DGP on the time of his appointment. CSMention269 ( talk ) 03:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CSMention269 , I do not know of any full-time DGP of even small states such as Goa being the Principal Secy to IT Department; as you said he is holding the charge of DGP, and therefore is only acting DGP, and therefore I would vote for: Draftify until he is appointed as a full time DGP. User4edits ( talk ) 04:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These events include his appointment as DGP of West Bengal ( The Hindu , The Times of India , Hindustan Times , The Indian Express , Telegraph India , etc.) the Saradha chit-fund affair ( The Quint , The Indian Express 1 2 3 , NDTV 1 2 3 , Hindustan Times 1 2 , The Hindu etc.), and generally his role as Calcutta Police Comissioner ( The Indian Express , NDTV , The Quint , The Week , etc.). He clearly passes WP:NBASIC owing to these sources, and this pretty clearly isn't a WP:1E situation. Some complaints were made about the current state of the article at the time of the nomination, but deletion isn't cleanup and the immediate presence or citation of specific sources in an article are not required provided that notability-indicating sources merely exist (which they do). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:THREE : Can you specify which 3 references pass WP:SIRS ? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure. If you click through all of them, or conduct a brief online search, there's certainly more than three. Here are three examples for ya. Bhattacharya, Ravik (20 September 2019). "Explained: Who is Rajeev Kumar, Saradha-linked IPS officer who is now CBI's most wanted?" . The Indian Express . This source dedicates ~650 words to Kumar. The source describes a general overview of his career, beginning with him joining the IPS in 1989 and his appointment to head the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate in 2012. It then goes on to describe his involvement with investigating the Saradha chit fund scam , his appointment to the head of the Kolkata police comissioner, with a brief summary over his removal by the elections commission and his removal afterwards. It also describes some of his educational background ("BE in computer science from the University of Roorkee") and notes some of the posts he held as a policeman. (Another profile on Kumar from the same author was published after his recent appointment in West Bengal. I don't want to count this as a second of three sources, but there's more information there if you'd like to take a look.) "Controversial IPS Officer Rajeev Kumar Is Bengal's New Director General Of Police" . Press Trust of India . 27 December 2023. This source, from the Press Trust of India (link above via republisher NDTV ) dedicates ~800 words to this individual. The article describes Kumar's job, notes his relationship with Mamata Banerjee and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya , and provides a thorough summary of his career through that point. The article is particularly thorough for the parts of his career beginning in 2011 and ending in 2019, and notes his appointment to the head of West Bengal's police forces at around the time of his date. Chaudhuri, Monalisa (28 December 2023). "West Bengal: Rajeev Kumar gets DGP charge on Manoj Malviya's retirement" . The Telegraph . This article, from The Telegraph , was written shortly after the appointment to a post in West Bengal. The article, which is about 500 words, provides a brief overview of the positions that he has held, both before and after the chit fund scam, as well as some details on the appointment itself. There are of course many, many other sources that could be used here to satisfy SIGCOV, and this should not be taken as an exhaustive list. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 3 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

Libreboot: My assessment of citations is at Talk:Libreboot#AfD_or_Merge? , except a book cite I added, which would rate as passing mention. I have been unable to find sufficient sourcing to justify a stand-alone article on Libreboot.org (and/or the associated business). My suggestion is merge and redirect to Open-source_firmware , which also currently is not well sourced; however, PhotographyEdits prefers to merge into Coreboot , so I am here to ask for impartial opinions on delete, merge, and to where. Background: Since the approximate peak content in August 2021, [2] the article has been stubified, mostly by PhotographyEdits , partly by justified deletions of some poorly sourced living person information. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Yae4 ( talk ) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: I have found a few more, more or less reliable and independent sources covering "Libreboot", such as coverage in PC World . This gives more background, including existence of more companies' efforts to sell products with "Libreboot". I now feel, we will be able to have a decent article, after spending some time at WP:RSN , and probably WP:COIN , and maybe WP:SPI , unfortunately. This assumes proponents of one particular effort to sell products with Libreboot are unsuccessful in their painfully obvious efforts to control the article in biased directions. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Yae4 ( talk ) 18:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into coreboot , as already stated by the nominator. Coreboot meets the WP:GNG and Libreboot is essentially the same software without proprietary binaries. If merged to Open-source firmware , this would put undue weight on the Libreboot subject, in the coreboot article it would be appropriate. The current content of the article can be kept since it is reliable sourced. In case more in-depth articles can be found about Libreboot, I am open to change my mind and vote for keeping the article, but for now I agree with the nominator it does not meet the WP:GNG . PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Libreboot now is essentially one paragraph, not counting the repetition in the lead. One paragraph is hardly an over-weight addition to a stub like Open source firmware , which needs additions. Factual correction: As I understand it from citations, Libreboot from Libreboot.at will be "the same software without proprietary binaries." Libreboot from Libreboot.org has " some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot", quoting Libreboot . The existence of two separate "Libreboot" projects currently, and whether to mention this fact, with cite, is a point of contention. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 20:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should be merged into coreboot , as already stated by the nominator. Libreboot does not meet the general notability guideline. It still has has some verifiable facts, so it might be useful to discuss it within the coreboot article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edidds ( talk • contribs ) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — Edidds ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Merge into coreboot per PhotographyEdits . Dawnbails ( talk ) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think the Libreboot article should be deleted. It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. It has clear sources provided, from notable organizations and people. I can point to countless other articles on Wikipedia that are similarly light, but otherwise meet guidelines. If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it. The Libreboot's own homepage shows how different it is to coreboot; merging with coreboot would be like talking about GNU Emacs on the Linux article, just because Emacs happens to run under Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.0 ( talk ) 01:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.219.0 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and geolocates to UK, home of Libreboot org and their business. [ reply ] Emacs is an application that runs on Linux. Libreboot isn't an application that runs on Coreboot. Libreboot's own homepage explicitly says it's largely the same software, and characterizes the difference as: In the same way that Alpine Linux is a Linux distribution, Libreboot is a coreboot distribution. In a hypothetical world where there aren't very many Linux distributions, and one of them was notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia but not enough to get its own article, redirecting to a section of Linux seems like a reasonable thing to do. ℰ mi1y ⧼ T · C ⧽ 06:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a misleading argument anyway: Red_herring ? In fact, GNU Emacs is written about, or at least mentioned in a couple places, in Linux , but I still think Open-source firmware is a better place to merge into. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 07:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] > It is quite distinct from coreboot and clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Per WP:3REFS , please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, secondary, reliable and independent coverage. >If Libreboot is buried within the coreboot article, then people won't as easily be able to find out about it. This is true and a good reason to prefer keeping the article in my view. But for this, we need the sources. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Factual accuracy: WP:3REFS does not include the word "secondary". Yes, in general we say we prefer secondary, if we can agree what it is.  :) -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: (Nominator) I wish to withdraw the AfD, if possible. I've concluded it won't help to merge with Open-source firmware , as the same issues have already come up on Talk there, and it won't help to merge with Coreboot , which is better left as a more focused article. The problems here are probably better handled at WP:COIN and WP:RSN . Other suggestions from uninvolved editors would be welcome. The surface issue here is sourcing. The root issue here is WP:COI . Some editors want Libreboot to be solely about (i.e. advertising for) the latest manifestation of a small business trying to sell computers that boot with what they now call Libreboot. They want to include some self-published (or is it primary, or secondary?) cites for including selected, marketing info, such as devices available from the marketing arm of Libreboot-ORG. On the other hand, they want to exclude other similar, but maybe more reliable, cites for even mentioning Libreboot-AT, and what they also call Libreboot. It seems these editors also want to exclude basic history: What is currently called Libreboot-ORG, was previously called Gluglug, [3] but oddly this is only mentioned now in Coreboot . Gluglug and Libreboot-ORG were previously working with the Free Software Foundation , et al., on again, off again, naming, re-naming, all basic facts that should be included in a history with OK cites. Example: A glance at Crocfarts short, WP:SPA , and targeted edit contributions and Wikimedia uploads shows clearly what they did here: add to Libreboot and take away from Coreboot . Also, they ignored discussion of Phoronix as a source (no consensus, with puppetry), at User_talk:Crocfarts , and deleted Phoronix-cited info, at Coreboot. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has changed substantially since this AfD was opened, with many good edits by Yae4, so I think it would be prudent to accept the withdrawal of the AfD. The topic is in flux so there will be more work ahead, but that wouldn't be made easier by a merge to another article. Nemo 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't support the withdrawl of this AfD since other people already voted for different viewpoints. If everyone revises their standpoint then sure, but for now the closer needs to evaluate the consensus of this discussion. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 08:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strictly speaking, an AfD with only keep or merge opinions is SK1 . AfD isn't intended to be the place for merge discussions. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 12:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or keep look good to me, certainly not delete - David Gerard ( talk ) 14:11, 6 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

Shinohara Yoshiko: Refs are PR, profiles and interview and passing mentions. No indication of significance for a WP:BLP . scope_creep Talk 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Sexuality and gender , and Japan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep What an absurd nomination. Shinohara is Japan's first woman billionaire with coverage in CNBC [17] , FT [18] , Forbes [19] , Japan Times [20] , Independent [21] , and plenty more. No evidence of a WP:BEFORE search let alone WP:NOENG. DCsansei ( talk ) 19:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ref 1 is an interview, Ref 2 is a raw search url that points to two articles in the FT. The first one is a passing mention, the 2nd one is a passing mention. Ref 3 is another interview style article "she told Forbes Asia in 2015.". Can't read Ref 4. Ref 5 is more substantial. But a single reference isn't sufficient for WP:BLP . The references in the article are atrocious and typical of an agency managed article. scope_creep Talk 19:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want to clean up the article, feel free -- it's an old article that I started making edits to and admittedly needs work. However, claiming it's not notable is absurd. Did you actually do a search for sources? Note that ref 1 is not an interview but a profile CNBC that cites two previous interviews she did which constitutes significant coverage. Yes, the FT link is to multiple articles about her which constitute significant coverage (admittedly, the first two are passing on their own). Ref 3 is again an article about her (in 2017) that references a prior interview she gave in 2015, it is also significant coverage. Ref 4 is a full article about her and the fact that you can't read it does not mean it's not sigcov. And we already agree that ref 5 constitutes significant coverage. I'm confused if you did a search for sources yourself and, if so, included Japanese sources as per WP:BEFORE B7 "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)"? DCsansei ( talk ) 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you post three genuine WP:SECONDARY sources I will withdraw it. Not profiles, not interviews, not PR, not passing mention, not any AI generated articles. That is all any person needs for the Afd to close is to supply WP:THREE refs. Sometime it is very hard to do. scope_creep Talk 06:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nothing listed above is an AI article; not sure what that comment was supposed to apply to. Substantial independent coverage from reliable publications is included. Coverage in Japanese also exists (e.g. this program from TV Tokyo , this book from Heibonsha , this book from Bungeishunjū , etc.). Dekimasu よ! 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep , lazy nom, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE . -- C avarrone 22:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I will do a review of the references in the next couple of days. I do intend to get those two books described. One of them is certainly trade book published by interested parties that is not necessarily independent. It not that don't trust you as an admin but to say there is substanial coverage when the article doesn't have single valid reference, is problematic. @ Cavarrone : That was lazy drive-by Afd ! vote, dude. scope_creep Talk 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You already did a review of the sources here , which was arguably inaccurate (describing legitimate articles as "interviews" and significant coverage as passing mentions, dismissing sources just because you can't read them and so on) and was effectively rebutted by DCsansei's analysis, which you just choose to ignore in your counter-reply . So my friendly suggestion is to just drop the stick , "dude". -- C avarrone 23:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No I didn't. It was the article I was talking about, but you haven't even looked at the article have you. Interviews don't prove notability, nor does agency generated PR profiles, or passing mentions, all typical of the type of coverage you see on the type of individual here that use marketing and PR agencies to manage their own PR brand. I see nothing so far of value. I have two references to check. I've no confidence that this article is any different from the hundreds of other articles with the exact same type of trash sources, that I've seen at Afd, in the last 10 years. Anyway, why would say, "drop the stick" when this is the same type of Afd as any other one. When you have said "Lazy nom" when that article has got zero valid sources for a WP:BLP , that make me think that something is going here that I can't see. Why would say that? . I'm curious. scope_creep Talk 00:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggested you to "drop the stick" because DCsansei provided some good sources, you claimed they were not good and DCsansei successfully rebutted your claims. Then Dekimasu even provided further sources. This AfD should had been withdrawn a long time ago and do not require further bludgeoning, as there is no chance the article will be deleted, and the AfD itself could had avoided by a proper WP:BEFORE . C avarrone 11:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure I understand which book is supposed to have been a "trade book published by interested sources" (I think that comment was directed at me). The Heibonsha book is a standard mass-market book from a highly reputable publisher, written by a Jiji Press economics reporter. The Bungeishunju book is a standard mass-market book from a reputable publisher, written by a well-known freelance nonfiction writer who used to be an editor at Shukan Shinchō . Expert sources and involved sources are certainly different; the standard that's being used here would seem to render most books published in Japan unreliable. I could have tried to find more book sources, but I thought this was sufficient. Dekimasu よ! 04:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dekimasu : I wouldn't say that. I suspect the Gbook references are good, but I like to be absolutely sure, if possible. I know your are admin who makes it their business to supply high quality sources for difficult subjects. On these types of Afd, there is often an enormous amount of interested parties who are often paid by folk who make up the moneyed classes like the subject. In previous Afds, on these types of subjects, which I've done they often appear in the Afd and will argue black is white, to preserve the article. Billionaires who by the their definition are very private individuals, but often need to have a brand to help them make money, can pay any amount to preserve their Wikipedia brand. That has been shown in the past, multiple times. When I did the translations of the information on the two book references, one looked like a trade journal. In America publishing, you often see trade books that are amalgamations of company information. They are all surface and no depth. That kind of book may not be found in Japanese culture and it may be my lack of experience that I don't know that. But I want to be sure if possible. scope_creep Talk 09:27, 24 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

Steveston-London Secondary School: sources found in a quick search are trivial mentions ( [1] [2] [3] ). ltb d l ( talk ) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada . ltb d l ( talk ) 04:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 24 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! 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:GNG , as do pretty much all secondary schools in western countries. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ necrothesp : prove it. with sources. ltb d l ( talk ) 14:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep . Grand'mere Eugene has found 10 sources from newspapers.com that, in my assessment, show the subject to meets WP:GNG . As with many other secondary schools in the Richmond School District , they are under-sourced and written poorly. As opposed to deletion, these articles should all be drafted until additional sources are gathered to meet WP:GNG . Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:25, 5 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! 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep . I clipped 10 sources from newspapers.com and listed them on the article's talk page , demonstrating the subject's notability for User:ltbdl . However, the state of the current article is pretty bad, and other editors are welcome to use these sources in a WP:HEY effort. For now, I agree with Sink Cat that the appropriate action is to draftify It does needs a complete overhaul, but the available sources demonstrate it is a notable subject. . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree with this assessment. I've looked at the other articles in the school district as well ( some are full on stubs ), and put banners on the ones that needed additional citations or work done. Sink Cat ( talk ) 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Because in my admin judgement, draftify doesn't make sense when sourcing (thanks Grand'mere Eugene) has been identified. Please assess those sources to determine whether they're sufficient for the school to remain. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:46, 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

The Tao of Zen: Possible WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but I am not sure if the title is ambiguous. Boleyn ( talk ) 14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . @ Boleyn : Added some citations. There are also several books that cite Grigg extensively, including a University of Toronto Press one you can view through Project MUSE. (Sorry have to run now.) The book is actually from 1938. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:45, 16 June 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! 07:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , feel this makes the cut with what's been added. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 07:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep from me as well per WP:GNG . In addition to what's been added to the article, I found that the book is widely cited in other books, like this one and this one . Just haven't had a chance to go back to read carefully, assess what's most relevant/important, etc. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 20:50, 23 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

Balsamic Moon: Innisfree987 ( talk ) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality and Science . Innisfree987 ( talk ) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I'm seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in books from perfectly respectable publishers. It has an entry in DK's "Complete Idiot's Guide to Astrology , for instance. — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We consider the complete idiot’s guide a reliable source? Innisfree987 ( talk ) 06:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Depends. Bearian ( talk ) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would appreciate if you could elaborate. It’s not that I didn’t look at sources before nominating, it’s that they all seemed fringe rather than credibly fact-checked work. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Merge to Western astrology based on Moriwen 's BEFORE. Chetsford ( talk ) 05:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need clearer consensus for keep ! votes. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not discussed in sources outside the fringe bubble. XOR'easter ( talk ) 03:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. @ Innisfree987 , if the guide is published by Dorling Kindersley then I'd say it's more reliable than not. Did a cursory search (though I should be working) and the term does come up in terms of astrology... so it's fringe, but astrology was a big deal back in the day. Okay, to conclude lean keep . -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - discussed in many books - per WP:BEFORE . Bearian ( talk ) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Qlone: And because of Cross-wiki spam is globally locked. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Internet . ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because G5 quick delete does not apply to pages created by users who are only globally locked, but not blocked from the English Wikipedia. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Objection: Certainly has some qualitative shortcomings, but I do not see the requirements for a deletion met. The references here are quite remarkable and there are also real heavyweights, such as USA Today, BBC, etc. Style can be improved but for me, the article is sufficiently presented. Keep . FlyInTheOintment ( talk ) 05:21, 7 May 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! 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I am satisfied that GNG has been met, as SIGCOV can be established following a collective assessment of the linked references Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even though the user's intention might be promotional, it is still notable with unquestionable SIGCOV from RS. Please conduct BEFORE before nominations. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was lead to here after looking at a Reddit account u/QloneApp which is non stop spam of this brand. On one of the links that they are spamming - https://www.qlone.pro/armenu - there is a message at the bottom linking to this page labelled "Trusted by Wikipedia" to give false credence to their product. I thought I'd point this out here; it does look as though this page exists simply to give repute to the product. Apologies if this doesn't belong here, but I thought it might be relevent. LordGnomeMBE ( talk ) 12:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your kind message. However, I respectfully disagree with the significance of your message as the link you provided is a mere standard marketing channel and acting on your personal emotions is plainly not the guideline or threshold. As others point here it provides unquestionable SIGCOV and meets GNG so I still maintain my vote to keep. FlyInTheOintment ( talk ) 06:26, 21 May 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 ) 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The article was finally deleted on zhwiki due to advertising. Although the first creator User:JohnMcClaneSr disclosed the WP:COI , the main purpose of his account is to use Wikipedia to market related products. This user is locked globally due to Cross-wiki Spam. [39] ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) (your AFD nomination counts as your delete vote L iz Read! Talk! 02:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Strong Keep : Agreed with Jack4576 and Timothy. CastJared ( talk ) 08:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Objection : Spam through and through, and there is still a lot of advertising on this version, and it hasn't improved in days. ALSTROEMERIA 🌸 Čijukas Kuvajamas 09:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment for the benefit of whoever has to close this, it would help if some of those ! voting keep could point out maybe just three in-depth and independent articles about this software. Elemimele ( talk ) 09:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:GNG of this app is met by the USA Today and Gizmodo sources. Because this app received academic attention (see Qlone#Notable uses ), WP:SIGCOV is also met. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 22:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Maybe it needs cleaning up rather than deletion? Fad Ariff ( talk ) 13:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've cut down the article to be more neutral, if it helps at all. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Wikipedia:Notability is based on the existences of sources, not the state of the article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 04:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree with the latest comment of our IP contributor. The current state of the article doesn't matter, because it is fundamentally not possible to write a non-PROMO encyclopedia article exclusively from PRSOURCEs. With respect to Timothytyy , CastJared and our IP contributor here, I do not see any coverage that is significant, independent , reliable and secondary to the level required to meet our notability guidelines for organisations and companies (and their products). If the Reuters/USA Today and two Gizmodo sources are to be considered our three best sources (and I haven't really found any better), I can't see how any of the extant coverage can be considered SIGCOV. The two Gizmodo articles are essentially various levels of "hey, this thing exists, look at this youtube video they published". What about Reuters ? Leaving aside the fact that just having a different person voice about 10 seconds of introduction based on what the CEO says in the next 20 seconds doesn't make that content intellectually independent (amusingly, you can almost hear the audio of the original recording under the voiceover at about 0:26/27), does it provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article ? A summary of "this is a 3D scanning app", a brief how to and the fact that the company says there will be an android version soon? Forget CORPDEPTH, that isn't enough to meet SIGCOV requirements for basically any topic. I don't think there are any sources that fail less than two of SIRS, never mind zero. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and by a wide margin. Sources are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 ( talk • contribs ) 15:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TandyTRS80 , happy to see new users at AfD but any chance of naming a few of the best ones like our IP user did? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 04:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the warm welcome @ Alpha3031 . Sure, from my long tenure in the engineering space, being featured on the BBC Click show is not something you can buy and they only select notable newsworthy tech tools. Same goes for the Apple WWDC event, they only pick notable stories. Then you have Reuters, Gizmodo, TechCrunch, these are outstanding playbook independent outlets so if these are not considered GNG, we would need to delete most of Wikipedia. Lastly, as the IP contributor pointed out himself, there is also academic attention to the app and an ESA (European Space Agency) story which all add to real world SIGCOV. TandyTRS80 ( talk ) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying your interpretation here, TandyTRS80 and I do hope you like it enough to stay (both at AfD and WP in general). I was about 260 words into a much longer response before I decided that was going to be too long but, while I agree the BBC/WWDC/ESA are good claims of significance we do actually need direct and detailed coverage to meet the Wikipedia definition of "notability", a somewhat unfortunate choice of words. The requirements of the WP:N guideline essentially derives from our core content policies , we need enough facts to extract in order to write an article without original research, and at least a couple need to be substantive enough (and intellectually as well as editorially independent of the subject) to determine due and undue weight. The "how to" content that make up a lot of the coverage is also excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not , which details the type of content considered (in)appropriate for an encyclopedia. Reuters would be a good source, and the bulk of their content isn't going to be WP:PRSOURCE , but the specific video has indications of being that (besides being mostly direct quotes as well). TechCrunch has been discussed here before (see WP:TECHCRUNCH ) and there are issues (mostly surrounding ORGIND) that prevent it from being used to establish notability. Perhaps our standards are too strict, but it's a compromise. Especially with commercial orgs and products, content that would be WP:NOT tends to be added without the strict requirements in WP:CORP . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for sharing your detailed response @ Alpha3031 and I truly appreciate your extensive experience and adherence to the WP guidelines. I’m indeed new here but as mentioned I have a strong background in the knowledge of tech and its marketing which is why I decided to contribute from my experience to try and make WP better. Let’s continue in good faith this discussion for the benefit of everyone since I feel this is a case which requires considerable debate due to its strong set of sources which I just went over again and did another extensive WP:BEFORE. The WWDC event is held once a year and has a Wiki article by itself due to its huge exposure in all worldwide media (see last night’s Vision Pro announcement for example) and they rarely showcase an app unless its unusually notable. I just watched the videos in the Article and they extensively show and discuss the subject along with mentioning Unity and Cinema4D next to it, both also have a strong Wiki presence. So I think it is by itself a significant source of WP:N. Then you have the BBC which extensively covered the subject in a neutral way in their tech show about Artificial Intelligence and their standard requires that if its a paid or promotional exposure it cannot be part of the show or at least to mention that since they must adhere to their ethics code standard. Same goes for Reuters which I can only assume found the app in that trade show event and decided to cover it due to their thinking its highly notable and they also didn’t mention it was promotional as required from their standards. Then you have the ESA which describes one of the most beautiful use cases mentioned in the article - scanning rocks for Mars mission and they picked this app as their tool which is a very strong indication to its importance and lastly, from an Academia standpoint, you have a growing number of articles and citations such as these: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356423862_QloneR_A_Simple_Method_to_Create_360-Degree_Photogrammetry-Based_3-Dimensional_Model_of_Cadaveric_Specimens https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332504237_CAN_AN_INEXPENSIVE_PHONE_APP_COMPARE_TO_OTHER_METHODS_WHEN_IT_COMES_TO_3D_DIGITIZATION_OF_SHIP_MODELS https://www.cureus.com/articles/125929-virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality-in-anatomy-education-during-covid-19-pandemic#! / And here’s another recent one from the NSTA (National Science Teaching Association): https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-november-december-2022/low-cost-user-friendly I apologize for making this long response but I am beyond doubt it belong in WP and if you look at my recent track record on AfD you will see that I am not easily conveyed and I try to keep the strict guidelines as everyone should. If I felt I was wrong I would gladly change my mind which is only human. Thank you for your civilized discussion. TandyTRS80 ( talk ) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Agreeing with Alpha3031 . USA Today cite goes to a "Video provided by Reuters", so who really did it? In my other spot checks I'm seeing a few more promotional videos at Apple and Youtube, and a blog. In my web searches, I see mostly self-published stuff. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Went through all the refs in the article and none of them would qualify as SIGCOV on the product from a quality independent RS. There have been no other RS presented at this AfD. I did a WP:BEFORE, and found nothing that would prove GNG. I don't think another relist is going to change this situation. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing this to a Keep based on the journal sources provided above, including: [40] and [41] ; having read them, it is also possible that this product's notability could improve further so a keep now for me. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 09:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There's enough in-depth coverage in technical journals already referenced in the article to easily meet GNG. I have looked closely at 2 of the 34 references, and improved the links in the article to these 2 sources. The 7-page article (ref 27) in the peer-reviewed Operative Neurosurgery (reference is excellent, referencing Qlone a dozen times); a rare (and positive) comment was even made in a follow-up issue of the journal. The 6-page conference proceedings (ref 30) from the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing is also excellent, mentioning Qlone no less than Forty times!! I haven't reviewed the other 32 references, but can User:Fumikas Sagisavas withdraw this AFD? I don't understand how User:Alpha3031 , User:Yae4 , and User talk:Aszx5000 didn't find any GNG references or SIGCOV. Nfitz ( talk ) 06:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nfitz : I can't withdraw it for the time being. You need to verify all the 37 sources, which ones are valid introductions, which ones are just passing by, and which ones are self-promotion. In addition, the above-mentioned people do feel like they were mobilized to vote, but I have no evidence that they constitute a MEAT relationship. If you want to keep it, just stub it, and you may need to clean up many unnecessary sources, just have a few to form an effective introduction. Fumikas Sagisavas ( talk ) 07:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Verify 30+ sources? That's not how AFD works, User:Fumikas Sagisavas . If there's a couple of reliable sources, then it's a keep, or the content is moved somewhere - like EyeCue Vision Technologies . And in nearly 2 decades at AFD, I have never seen such good sources as the two I listed - two very in-depth academic papers. I don't know how you didn't see them when you did a BEFORE - given they were already in the article ... and they are quickly coming up in Proquest and Wikipedia Library as well - among other stuff. If two of the references meet GNG, for the purposes of AFD, the other 30+ are irrelevant. If the article needs cleaning it up - then you can do so. Remember that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup . If you have no issues with those 2 references I discussed (or do you?), you should at least put in a keep vote; withdrawing is technically difficult with the 3 delete votes. Nfitz ( talk ) 08:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:3REFS , please point out 3 sources that have in-depth, reliable and independent coverage. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 11:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two is more than sufficient when the references are such high quality; but there's more. I see that User:TandyTRS8 lists 2 other Sources above - the NSTA article is particularly good. However User:Yae4 , the third-best one I've come across (and I'm finding this by doing my own BEFORE and then finding they are already referenced in the article) is reference 33 - the 8-page paper in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Anatomy ; I'll improve the links to that reference in the article. Nfitz ( talk ) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies Nfitz , I had not written anything about the journal articles as consistent with GNG and CORP (which is generally applied to products) primary research, even if they are independent, are generally considered less useful in establishing notability. Since it has been brought up though, I will write something re. depth of coverage also once I reach a computer. eventually, assuming this discussion doesn't close before then, not that I expect it to make much difference. The Operative Neurosurgery article I do not consider to have meaningful coverage even discounting primary/secondary, and ISPRS is a solid maybe. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) amended 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Mentioning" or "referencing" is not necessarily "in depth" or "significant" coverage, but I agree that conference report is one example of significant coverage. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 10:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think an article in a peer-reviewed technical journal - with a positive follow-up comment by others, is not primary. But if there are concerns, see reference 33, which I mention in my response above. Nfitz ( talk ) 18:50, 7 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

Glengall Road (football ground): I redirected this to 1885–86 Millwall Rovers F.C. season , as this ground was only used for that season, and most of the article is about the season and not about the utterly unremarkable ground, "a piece of wasteland, which was roughly marked out as a football pitch", anyway. Whatever needs to be said about the ground can easily be included in the season article. Fram ( talk ) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England . Fram ( talk ) 15:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article is sourced, it's straight forward and to the point of what it is. I don't see a reason to delete it. If anything, I can see some room for improvement. There maybe other sources out there. Govvy ( talk ) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I just created the article and was in the process of expanding it and nine minutes later it was deleted. There are numerous other defunct football grounds ( List of defunct English football stadiums ) that were 'wasteland', parks or barely played on which have minimal articles, such as Athletic Grounds (Blackpool) and Abbs Field . West Ham's temporary ground Browning Road has its own article and was played on for just two months and hasn't been merged into 1896–97 Thames Ironworks F.C. season , so why single out Glengall Road? Most grounds before 1900 were wasteland or 'unremarkable', so I'm not sure why a clubs' humble beginnings is a deletion policy. It is of historical significance as it's Millwall's first ground and establishes their foundation. If you give me more time to research the ground I can expand the article. TheLostBoy ( talk ) 16:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are fine - there's no such deletion policy. Assuming it can be documented, then this would be notable, and looks too extensive to merge. The policy failure here is by User:Fram who should know better than redirecting and AFDing an article that is in progress minutes after creation (especially after they've been notified it is in progress); the AFD violates C.2 of WP:BEFORE which says " If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article ". Some book and/or article references would help the WP:GNG case; I added one from a 1909 London paper. Nfitz ( talk ) 00:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect - this is a well written and sourced article, but when you dig into it, none of it is about the stadium itself. As such, we don't need a standalone article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 16:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Restore redirect per GS. All of the sources are almost entirely about the team rather than about the stadium itself. There isn't significant coverage specifically about the stadium to show it passes WP:GNG . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ​Since the article was nominated I’ve added​ ​info on the pitch, its dimensions and condition​. W​​here players would chang​e, w​here fans would stand​, and h​ow many fans attended games​. I ​c​orrected when the ground opened and who it was​ ​against​, and I ​added when it closed and who ​the last game was ​played ​against. I marked the coordinates of where it would stand today and what stands there now​. I added a map from the era showing the road name changes from the current map​ and ​the distance from their second ground​. I added a newspaper quote on the ground from the era​.​ If you remove the little information I added about the formation of the club and the team, there is no context why they’re playing in the middle of an industrial estate or why they needed to move. Featured article North Road, Manchester , Man United's first ground, includes similar info. This is 1885 with minimal sources and info that wasn’t recorded, or has since been lost. The only info on this ground online is the repeated “Millwall were founded on a piece of wasteland on Glengall Road in 1885”. This article provides more significant historical info about it than anywhere else. It has authoritative sources from historians, reputable newspapers and government sources. No original research, as per WP:GNG . The article is notable as to why Millwall is called Millwall. This was the only ground they played at in the district of Millwall. This would all be lost in a redirect. TheLostBoy ( talk ) 11:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This is a tough one. Although this is an excellent article that clearly adds something to the encyclopedia, we still need to ensure the article meets GNG. I think it probably does, but I can't quite find the evidence yet. And I want to ensure this well-written article has a great policy-based reason for keep. The two book sources look very good, but I would like to know how different they are. They have very similar titles and one of the same authors. TheLostBoy can you confirm they are totally separate books? Let's take a look at the online sources (sorry I'm not knowledgeable enough to do a proper table) to see if they help the article meet GNG. 6 talks about the location without mentioning the club, 7 I'm unable to find the specific article in the newspage TheLostBoy can you help me out?, 8 may not be RS?, 11 doesn't mention the ground by name and is the club's own site so probably doesn't contribute to notability, 15 is one sentence about the ground and 16 is only a couple of sentences about the club's time at the ground. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 12:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ​Thanks for the kind words! Millwall: A Complete Record 1885-1991 by Lindsay (1991) was written by a club historian. Millwall: The Complete record by Tarrant (2010) is a completely separate book but used Lindsay’s as a basis to update, correct and go much more in depth into all aspects of the club and is referred to as the 'official record'. I used 6 to reference the road name change from Glengall Road to Tiller Road/Glengall Grove. I didn’t add 7 . I did sign up to research on there but have used up my free article views. Nfitz added it, maybe they could help? I can remove 11 if you don't think reliable. He is a Millwall historian and had helped with numerous corrections on wikipedia before. Moved 8 to correct reference point, stating when and who the club was founded by. As you can tell by 15 and 16 , references to the club at Glengall Road is scarce. Do a google search and there really is the same regurgitated sentence or two, usually from what I added myself on Millwall F.C. . This part of the clubs history at the ground is lost online. The meat and bones is in the books. I'm trying to get ahold of Millwall Football Club 1885-1939 , and a couple of others to gather more info on this elusive ground and Millwall's other three on the Isle of Dogs. But it will take time to do this. I got Millwall and Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry both good article status, so I hope you know this page is in good hands. Thanks for taking the time. Much appreciated! TheLostBoy ( talk ) 16:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think any of the sources need removing, if they were the only thing there, they might not be enough to prove GNG. But I think it's looking good overall. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think there is enough for a standalone article. There are some solid details about the ground itself and these were provided in two different books along with some other sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 01:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see opinion here split between Keep and Redirect with lots of discussion (which is refreshing to see). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There appears to be enough content about this ground to write a decent article and pass WP:GNG . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The ground appears to pass GNG, albeit not by much, and the article is a bit bloated with non-ground coverage. SportingFlyer T · C 23:44, 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

Yakob Elias: Source search (string:"yakob elias") returns nothing. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Diocesan bishops of major denominations have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you point me to a specific policy or discussion that supports that position? Bear in mind WP:BLP also applies here! — Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES illustrates the consensus. BLP is irrelevant as to his notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clean up and sourcing is not deletion. A Metropolitan of a major diocese is notable by virtue of his office per WP:BISHOPS . I still believe sources may exist offline. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. This church is a part of the wider Orthodox church and there is no reason why its bishops would not be notable. Keralan bishops of all denominations seem to be challenged more than European ones, presumably because most sources will be in the local languages and/or offline. Here are some additional Eng lang ones, searching on "Yakob Mar Elias": [59] , [60] , [61] . Ingratis ( talk ) 05:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Zhongli (Genshin Impact): This character has receive little to zero commentary. The only good sources were the criticism about its gameplay? but those doesn't really help; others were trivia. This source is the only good one [7] . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and China . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Alright so I'm going to begin this by stating that this article was created in translation of the Chinese version. Now The Chinese Wikipedia has its own reliable secondary sources list concerning video game articles. And yes, I'm well aware that the standards vary significantly between the two versions but some Chinese language sources are currently unavailable in the English Wikipedia as for example, references 8 and 41 are cited as a reliable source according to consensus . There are also entire secondary Chinese studies conducted on Zhongli including references 13 and 30, demonstrating notability in at least Chinese audiences. Furthermore, the character's popularity is well established by both English and Chinese reliable sources. Addressing the The only good sources were the criticism? but those doesn't really help argument, there are articles on the English Wikipedia that gained notability based on controversies or criticism involving either gameplay or characterization such as Tingle , Ashley Graham (GA), and The Outsider . Now you could make the argument that perhaps there should be a dedicated paragraph and a rewrite of the Zhongli Incident or that his reception section could use some work in terms of the overall writing and structure but that doesn't really warrant outright deletion/merging as per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP . Regardless, I'll look into finding further sources if other editors don't seem to find the current sourcing satisfactory enough. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either your rationale isn't really an "argument". That 3 articles you mentioned were being discussed by multiple sources, while this one doesn't really but the gameplay mostly; this falls under gamecruft. Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Greenish Pickle! : Now this: Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one . I'm getting an impression that apparently, only English sources are of any apparent significance when last time I checked, foreign-language secondary sources count as being equally reliable as their English counterparts per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GLOBAL . By the way, I could also name problems with the sourcing in the articles I've cited as for example, references 26, 27, and 30 of The Outsider article at best only have passing mentions which is insignificant coverage , even if there are decent sources in the other two paragraphs as well as the development section. Regardless, I've since added two more paragraphs going over analysis of his characterization referenced by scholarly sources as well as fully replaced every unreliable source prior to nomination. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As a Chinese Wikipedian working on the corresponding Chinese article, I was improving the Chinese article in the past few days. Although I haven't proposed Good Article Nomination yet, @ SuperSkaterDude45 : maybe you can check the revisions and start translating the new stuff, if that helps. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 06:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the commentary part, I cited four journal articles in the current Chinese version, all reaching the minimum of WP:SCHOLARSHIP . Adding them into the English article may help improve notability issues. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To List of Genshin Impact characters . Sources that are reliable in Chinese Wikipedia are not necessarily reliable in English Wikipedia, and editors should probably be cognizant of that before bringing over articles. Wikipedia is also not a popularity contest, per WP:ITSPOPULAR . This article reads like a FANDOM page. If this character really is notable, please include WP:THREE best sources in any language here, because the article lacks sufficient significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of all sources that I could find, probably this was only good one [8] . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that one is pretty good. Although WP:VG/S recommends to replace Siliconera sources with better ones, so it's definitely not enough on its own, much less being the best one in an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you guys only care about English reliable sources listed in WP:VG/S , I can add two more ( Dot Esports GamesRadar+ ) so we now have three. Multiple news article reporting the recent collab between Genshin Impact and Sanxingdui Museum (Zhongli as the collab character) can also prove notability, though they are in Chinese ( Jiefang Daily Wenhui Bao Sichuan Daily ). Supergrey1 ( talk ) 09:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dot itself isn't a good source that helps notability issue, plus the source just talks about his other name? That's it. On the other hand, its just a passing mentions at the GamesRadar source. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What you said may be correct, but that doesn't violate WP:GNG : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Unless there is an established consensus regarding the verifiability on Chinese-language sources that remain absent on the English Wikipedia as of writing this, established consensus on the Chinese Wikipedia will do. In addition, can you clarify your point on This article reads like a FANDOM page considering most of the article is paraphrased from secondary sources? This isn't even mentioning the contents within the article itself scholarly sources are being used within the contents since there are currently around four which as Supergrey pointed out, qualifies for WP:SCHOLARSHIP . I've already highlighted two independent references, but I've since translated even further content that has been added from the Chinese Wikipedia as well as replacing any unreliable sources remaining within the article. At this point, there isn't really any good reason to delete this article as secondary coverage has just been further reinforced. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SuperSkaterDude45 : The two Twitter sources and the two Forbes' Paul Tassi sources can also be replaced by other sources. I've replaced them on Chinese Wikipedia. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 11:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SuperSkaterDude45 : Also, I added a popularity ranking by Japanese media in "Commercial reception," and added more comments on art designs in the first paragraph of "Critical reception." You haven't translated them yet. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 12:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After these improvements, now the page looks so much better. Keep. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This seems pretty good. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the Chinese sources doesn't help WP:GNG at English Wikipedia. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 09:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NOTE , sources don't have to be in English to count towards GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 09:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. This is one of the four Chinese journal articles I mentioned (the first article below). 王清爽 (2023). "网游中的虚拟角色设计赏析——以《原神》为例". 大众文艺 (3): 57–59. doi : 10.3969/j.issn.1007-5828.2023.03.023 . CNKI DZLU202303019 . 蒙紫云; 邓桂英 (2023). "试论游戏符号的媒介隐喻提升跨文化传播". 新闻潮 (10): 39–42. CNKI XWCY202310011 . 甘丽华; 任执政; 欧阳敏; 鲍娟 (2023). "作为跨文化传播新载体的中国游戏：基于玩家的考察". 跨文化传播研究 第7辑 . pp. 122–134. ISBN 978-7-5657-3390-1 . CNKI KWHC202301007 . 刘姝秀 (2021). "游戏环境下的中国文化输出探索——以《原神》为例". 科技传播 (8): 112-114. doi : 10.3969/j.issn.1674-6708.2021.08.043 . CNKI KJCB202108063 . Supergrey1 ( talk ) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources listed above by Supergrey1 seem more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 11:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The scholar sources make this character meet WP:GNG . As noted by others and WP:NONENG , sources do not need to be in English to meet WP:GNG . Google Translate/DeepL/ChatGPT provide more than good enough translations nowadays to verify content. Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : @ Greenish Pickle! : Leaving that {{ canvassed }} note on the top of the page while not elaborating or participating in the discussion more? At least you have to point out who you were referring to, and why. Also, you forgot to subst: the template. Supergrey1 ( talk ) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to upset you or anything. If you still believe the article fails GNG, then say so, and explain your opinions. Saying all these editors who voted "Keep" to be canvassed by someone is not really helpful to the discussion (unless you actually found someone to be canvassing). Supergrey1 ( talk ) 14:13, 2 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

Ramrajya (2022 film): The only press it released was because the movie stars Rakul Preet Singh 's brother. Did not receive reviews from any major publication post release and therefore fails WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Hinduism , and India . Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At least 2 reviews, one here promising the film will go unnoticed and one in the Times of India , titled "This Ramrajya is not worth a cinema ticket'. MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 07:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if we consider the Times of India review, the Filminformation source is just a blog and not considered reliable according to our standards WP:ICTFSOURCES . It would therefore not pass the standard for 2 reviews from reliable sources. Jupitus Smart 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your input but I’m convinced it does, I’m afraid. For a better assessment of Film Information, see their page bottom About Us or read this , or Komal Nahta . - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are free to make your assumptions though it does not align with what we generally accept. And Komal Nahta owning Filminformation does not impart any automatic notability to the website as notability is not inherited. And looking at the review's quality it appears to not have been written by Komal Nahta ( it just mentions Filminformation as the author ) compared to other articles like this - [34] which explicitly mentions him as the author. Jupitus Smart 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not making any assumption, and my point is that I do think the film meets the criteria generally accepted. Here too, I ask you to kindly permit me to leave it at that. Thank you. - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 16:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this. Socking by a probable paid syndicate. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred Bucks , where the same comments have been posted. - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one editor who believes that the sources are sufficient and one editor who doesn't. We need to hear from more editors, especially those who are well acquainted with Film notability standards. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:34, 9 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! 02:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Interesting case of a film whose pre-release coverage seems to have been overwhelmingly vaster than its near zero post-release coverage. As to rules, NFILM provides some guideposts but defers entirely to the WP:GNG on substance. So the real question is whether the film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . Notably, while WP:NFF cautions us against overly hasty article creation for films that have not yet been released, there is no rule that states that pre-release coverage does not count toward notability for a film that has been released. The pre-release coverage here includes pieces in ICTF-approved outlets, including e.g. Indian Express . We also have these two interesting pieces from The Free Press Journal , the ICTF's view of which is not entirely clear to me but which it at least discusses alongside other reputable news sources. (While both of these last two contain a substantial interview component, as entertainment journalism often does, WP:INTERVIEWS cautions us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that all of these pieces contain sufficient actual reporting to meet the sigcov threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. .) On the whole, I wouldn't call this a slam dunk. But construing the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose , it seems to me that the article subject meets the minimum requirements of the GNG and thus NFILM. -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva . The coverage seems sufficient to support an article. It is pretty limited in both quantity and quality but in my opinion it's enough. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Salman Muqtadir: Didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of sources are interview (primary) or passing mentions and also promotional. Fails WP:GNG . আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with you. Hrksmp ( talk ) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , some celebrity coverage in RS, I think there's enough for a notability ! vote [16] , [17] and [18] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: WP:DAILYSTAR in relation to 3rd link. DhakaTribune articles demonstrate notability though. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nom. Not enough sources to support notability. Sources found are very weak. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete - only references are social media or local news media from Dhaka . Willing to change my mind with more, contradicting evidence. Bearian ( talk ) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep - Has persistent coverage in national media enough to pass notability guidelines. More sources are available, and the article should be expanded and improved. Deletion is not clean-up. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 05:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep articles from Dhaka Tribune from Oaktree b pursuade me as to notability. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Some of the cited sources seems sufficient in establishing notability. But the article certainly needs more improvement, since none of the sources supported the claims on his participation in dramas and enrollment in North South University. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 05:00, 12 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

Samsung Galaxy Tab A8: But, this article was moved to mainspace because of old article per WP:DRAFTIFY . Hajoon0102 💬 01:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hajoon0102 , didn't you create this article? L iz Read! Talk! 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I already know. But, the article has no references, and there must be comments from other users. Hajoon0102 💬 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has reviews from well established outlets like Android Police AndroidAuthority and Indian Express Sohom ( talk ) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have added the sources and expanded the article. -- StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets GNG and has received coverage. 777burger user talk contribs 22:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on coverage meets GNG. Bikerose ( talk ) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bob Vaughn: Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator : sources have been found and the article has been improved drastically. Happy to withdraw the nomination since the issues that caused it have been resolved. -- Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football . Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 01:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SIGCOV here . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice find! (For future reference in my own searching, how did you find that so quickly?) However, I believe we would need multiple sources like that one to satisfy WP:Athlete . If you think sources can be found though, I believe you since you edit football topics far more than I do. Do you want to add the information from your source into the article or should I? Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Normally when there's a historical topic for deletion from either the US or Canada I search Newspapers.com , and sometimes after that NewspaperArchive . That was the best source I located, but I saw a lot of other shorter ones so I think this might pass WP:NBASIC - I may expand this later. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nerd1a4i : I performed a decent expansion of the article, and while working on it was able to locate additional in-depth sources here (more than a decade after his career), here , here and here . Would you be willing to withdraw this nomination? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely yes - looks great now! Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 03:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added some more about his signing and his release off the team. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG , see above sources and the expansion performed on the article. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:34, 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

Alila Hotels and Resorts: Sources and coverage are promotional, trivial, routine announcements, interviews with company officers, and one passing mention. Fails ORGCRITE, CORPDEPTH, and GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:NOTADVERT . --- Steve Quinn ( talk ) 12:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Asia . Steve Quinn ( talk ) 12:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , China , Malaysia , Singapore , Oman , and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Selection of two sources: Mather, Victoria (2011-11-19). "Followers in Aman's Footsteps: Where Amanresorts leads, others imitate. But how successfully? Victoria Mather scrutinizses some copycat rivals" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: "Alila Villas. Where? Cambodia, India, and indonesia, with more openings to come, in China and the Middle East. What's the story: Private-pool villas, launched in Jakarta in 2000, the brand sprang to international consciousness when Alila Uluwatu opened in Bali in 2009, Alila, which is Sanskrit (thank you, Aman) for "surprise", was immediately hailed as heir to Aman: dramatic architecture, high aspirations about seamless service, and an apparent mission to spoil guests to death. Mark Edleson, US banker turned hotelier and the man behind Mandara spas, is the guiding light. The good: Super-eco, with a real determination to create a sense of place. Resorts are built with local materials and labour; only local staff are employed. Locally sourced, carbon-neutral foods are used in preference to imported. Service thinking, not by-the-manual. Some of the architecture is breathtaking. particularly the bird's-nest pavilion suspended above the sea in Bali. The Bad: Can deluxe privacy be too isolating? ... The aim is modernist and understated, making Aman's temple-inspired resorts look fussy and the Asian style imposed on its Villa Milocer in Montenegro seem inappropriate." Keays, Melina (2022-10-11). "Element of surprise: a canny design approach at Alila Hotels and Resorts" . Wallpaper . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "When Mark Edelson, Frederic Simon and Franky Tjahyadikarta and their partners launched Alila resorts back in 2001, they couldn’t have guessed that 17 years later, the brand would become known not just for its quiet parsing of restrained luxury, but also a byword for responsible, sustainable tourism. But then again, when the name of your brand is Sanskrit for ‘surprise’, the unexpected becomes par for the course. Most of Alila’s resorts are based in Asia – beginning with the originals in Indonesia and sweeping up sprawling bucolic estates in China – though, in recent years, it has gained footholds in the Middle East and America. But regardless of the destination, each resort features an absorbing mix of contemporary architecture accented with local flourishes, history, dramatic landscapes, and culture. It is a DNA that has served Alila well. Customisation to local nuances means that it avoids the monotonously repetitive and unadventurous design that can bedevil small boutique properties." Additional sources: Lee, Siew Hua (2015-10-12). "Alila Resort co-founder inspired by his encounters with locals in a Perak kampung decades ago" . The Straits Times . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "In essence, Alila combines innovative design and luxury in exquisite locations with natural beauty and cultural significance. Guests enjoy personalised hospitality in these stylish places - plus the experiences and privacy he mentions. ... The locations are largely within Asia. There is an Omani resort and the less-explored Gulf has been a zone of interest. North America and Europe will be next. ... Like Aman, Alila is collecting accolades. It is a long list that includes praise for the clifftop infinity pool and dinner at the Warung in Alila Villas Uluwatu, Bali; green credentials at Alila Villas Soori, also in Bali; and holistic approach and family fun at Alila Diwa Goa - with awards from CNN, TripAdvisor, Mr and Mrs Smith, Conde Nast, EarthCheck and more." Mowbray, Nicole (2012-05-11). "Bali Explored" . Evening Standard . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "Thankfully, there is an alternative. Alila is a small, independently owned hotel company eager to get visitors off the mass-tourist trail. The word alila means ‘surprise’ in Sanskrit and the company’s philosophy is to show guests local culture while cosseting them in spectacularly luxurious surroundings. Each hotel has its own menu of ‘journeys’ through which local guides will show you authentic Balinese culture. Alila Villas in Uluwatu, on the island’s southern tip, is perched high above the Indian Ocean on a limestone plateau. The hotel’s architects, the Singaporean company WOHA, have won shelf-loads of awards for the three-year-old property and it’s easy to see why." "Alila Jabal Akhdar" . Michelin Guide . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The review notes: "Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: Alila is Sanskrit for “surprise.” And it’s a surprise, indeed, to find one of the Alila group’s impeccably stylish luxury boutique hotels in so remote a corner of the Middle East — Oman’s Al Hajar mountain range, to be exact. It requires some effort to get to Alila Jabal Akhdar, and that’s exactly the appeal. This is not just a boutique hotel with serious design chops: it’s an oasis, secluded and self-contained, with a spectacular spa and an infinity pool that’s perfectly placed for drinking in views of the stark landscape." Inglis, Kim (2012). Asian Style Hotels: Bali, Java, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand . Singapore: Tuttle Publishing . ISBN 978-1-4629-0907-0 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 – via Google Books . The book notes: "When Alila Jakarta opened in 2001, it was a first for the capital. Most Indonesians equate luxury with opulence and international brands, so the understated style of the hotel came as a surprise. Where were the artworks, the huge floral arrangements, the fuss, the clutter? Why didn't the GM wear a suit and tie? Why was the Buzz restaurant called a cafe? Where was the banqueting hall? It took them a while to get used to the new concept of geometry, space and simplicity-but over time, Jakartans began to see its merits, and pragmatically took to its low-key vibe." Tantri, Gusti Ayu Diah; Ernawati, Ni Made; Astuti, Ni Nyoman Sri (2020). "Public Relations Strategy in Strengthening Brand Image at Alila Villas Uluwatu Bali" . Journal of Applied Sciences in Travel and Hospitality . 3 (2): 97–106. doi : 10.31940/jasth.v3i2.1914 . ISSN 2622-8319 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "Alila recently being acquired by Hyatt Hotels Corporation in 2018, the resort should blend the image that also representing Hyatt Brand. Alila Villas Uluwatu has been building a brand image as a unique and sustainable resort for high-end travelers with the tagline "Surprisingly Different". " Kinsman, Juliet. "Alila Villas Uluwatu: The striking latticework rectangles of this all-villa resort, set high on a cliff, has become an icon for contemporary Bali" . Condé Nast Traveler . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "Alila is a fast-growing chain, and this hotel shows it at its best. We loved the award-winning architecture and staggering sea views, as well as the impressive filtration and bottling system that keep the property plastic-free. ... Alila is never a slouch in the spa department, and here, just as you might expect from a hotel brand where the name translates from Sanskrit into “surprise," the property gives eons-old Asian wellness techniques a fresh spin. There's a spa with a steam room and hammam. " "Alila Napa Valley" . The Daily Telegraph . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The review notes: "The property feels more like an estate than a hotel. There’s no lobby per se. Acacia House, a restored Victorian-style mansion, originally constructed in 1905, serves as the social centre of the hotel. With grey-blue hues, antique glassware and just the right amount of gloss, it’s a comfortable but elegant space to relax with a drink, or read the newspaper. " Barraclough, Colin; Brady, Sallie; Gill, Nicholas; Hack, Susan; Narayan, Shoba; Shalgosky, Charlotte; Stevens, Tara; Williams, Gisela (2010-01-21). "From the Americas to Europe to Asia, we checked out dozens of foreign hotel brands to find the places you'll want to check in to" . Condé Nast Traveler . Archived from the original on 2023-05-16 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 . The article notes: "Brand Basics: Ten stylish small (mostly beach) hotels and villas in India, Indonesia, Laos, the Maldives, and Thailand. The Good: Outstanding design, creative cuisine, and superb spas. The Bad: Bauhaus brutalism at some properties. Best For: Design intelligentsia desperate for seclusion, space, and serenity. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alila Hotels and Resorts 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 ) 09:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per not bad independent and significant coverage in media. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rain (American band): GSS 💬 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This band was signed to Dischord Records , a label that has had substantial independent coverage, and had a member who later formed Girls Against Boys . It's rather plausible that, given those circumstances, this band would have received retrospective attention. I don't have them on hand, but these sources should probably be consulted in the event they have significant coverage of the band: Andersen, Mark; Jenkins, Mark (2009). Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital . New York: Akashic Books. Azerrad, Michael (2001). Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground, 1981–1991 . Boston: Little, Brown, and Company. Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History . Los Angeles: Feral House. -- Chubbles ( talk ) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a tricky subject to find sources for - due to both the generic band name, and the age since they were active. I have added 4 citations to non-trivial independent coverage, all from reliable sources. I am leaning keep as a result; they may have have been short-lived but their music does appear to have significance, and sustained impact - with independent commentary such as " La Vache Qui Rit is both aesthetically and historically valuable " ( [1] ), and " Songs like “Worlds at War” and “That Time of Year” stood alongside the best of their peers " ( [2] ). It's nearly 40 years since this band was active, so on current evidence we should be able to presume notability - as there was likely greater coverage in the 1980s we cannot access. (Note - I have not managed to access the books above mentioned by Chubbles ). Resonant Dis tor tion 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Sourcing found. There is evidence that more should be presumed to exist offline. Likely meets WP:NBAND . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on the work of the subsequent ! voters, I will move to keep the article. Chubbles ( talk ) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Receiver of the Metropolitan Police: This has been tagged since 2008, with little to no improvements made. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Considering that many of them have articles can be useful per WP:LISTPURP-NAV . -- PaulT2022 ( talk ) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Extremely notable position with plenty of available sources. Mostly in print, obviously, given it was abolished in 2000 and lost a lot of its standing after 1968. But before that, equal in status to the Commissioner. Easily meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merits a full 29-page chapter in John Moylan's definitive 1929 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police , plus sections in pretty much every other book about the history of the Met. As I said, relying on online sources for earlier topics is not the best idea. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Interesting article about a significant organisation with adequate WP:RS Lyndaship ( talk ) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please address the offline sources mentioned above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , nothing wrong with off-line sources, and the article is now well-referenced. Additionally, since the majority of holders of this post are of themselves notable, this article would have been a valid navigational list even without sourcing. But it's much better as a properly referenced article. Elemimele ( talk ) 13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Blockout 2024: Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Adequately covered trends have a place on Wikipedia, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TikTok Dabloons . No argument was provided for why it is irrelevant. The article sources its contextualization and the topic itself. Further references can still be added [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] . Per WP:GNG , it should be kept. XxTechnicianxX ( talk ) 14:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As the article creator, I went through extra effort to research and include enough references from reputable outlets to demonstrate it easily passes the general notability guideline . The sources that are reliable and constitute WP:SIGCOV include National Public Radio, Yahoo News, and the Miami Herald, among others. It is difficult to take this AfD in good faith when it does not reference any policy basis for the nomination. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No actual reasoning for this article to be deleted has been given. Cortador ( talk ) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ongoing trend/news event, but already documented by entertainment and non-entertainment websites. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk ) 17:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pretty ridiculous to vote for the deletion of a massive protest movement that significantly impacted the social media presence of dozens of celebrities. Especially considering a political climate that refuses to acknowledge the protests as legitimate and actively contributes to censuring folks who participate. Should #MeToo have been considered a random twitter hashtag? <IP removed> 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Keep This is a significant ongoing protest movement and no adequate reason has been given for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0a:ef40:61c:2c01:ddfc:1250:79c0:64d ( talk ) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Meets WP:GNG . S5A-0043 Talk 11:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Since this AfD was created, even more reliable sources have published stories about this, essentially making this a WP:SNOW situation. Might Jjj1238 be willing to kindly withdraw the nomination so that we can close this? Sources: Al Jazeera , Newsweek , Buzzfeed , Deseret News , NBC News , NBC Today.com , Jerusalem Post , South China Morning Post , Times of India , et al. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it covers a relevant protest movement linked to a conflict that is redefining the whole international system. 185.120.125.4 ( talk ) 01:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi ( Read! Talk! ) 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Topic properly covered in the media. I would also suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 08:46, 16 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

Matt Iacopelli: Joeykai ( talk ) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : American Hockey League player - you don't get much higher than that within ice hockey. Probably the third best league in the world. The nomination is not the third best in the world, though, it consists of a single word (plus one capital-letter abbreviation) which doesn't cast any light on the state of the article or its sourcing. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I am finding coverage, as might be expected for a USHL First Team All Star, even if his pro career hasn't amounted to much. Rlendog ( talk ) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rlendog. The Kip 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per expansion, and per the nomination rationale, which is unfulfilling to put it that way. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rlendog, expanding, and doesn't seem to fail GNG Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now it's been expanded easily shows hey pass WP:GNG KylieTastic ( talk ) 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV: List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network . Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television . — Maile ( talk ) 17:40, 10 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! 07:06, 18 May 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! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs ' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition , which has a lengthy chapter ( Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960) , pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson ( talk ) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Two more references for notability: ed. Stuart Hood, Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Broadcasting in the 1990s discusses ITV programming as a group in the Television, Audiences, Politics chapter; Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: a Social History of British Television contrasts BBC and ITV approaches across several genres. (Jeremy Potter's Independent Television in Britain , which picks up the history of UK TV from where Briggs left off, has loads of discussion of ITV programming, but it was commissioned by the IBA so it doesn't count for GNG.) Adam Sampson ( talk ) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I find the Keep vote and comment above convincing. Content was covered as a set so that this meets WP:NLIST ; and if this rather standard page should be deleted, it should indeed imply a broader discussion. The page is less a "TV guide" than a history of a notable network. Can be considered a split/detailed articles. At the very least, anyway, a redirect/merge, should be considered, if size is not an issue (but it is; 74 kB WKtext for the main article; 34 kB for the list). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Christian Brückner: 112.204.206.165 ( talk ) 10:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany . Primefac ( talk ) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note : filing requested in Special:Diff/1156736989 (copied verbatim above), quick check shows this is not entirely a specious request. Primefac ( talk ) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : Poor article, but according to de:Christian Brückner , he meets WP:ENT and WP:GNG . -- Dewritech ( talk ) 12:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dewritech. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 22:43, 31 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

Isabel Hodgson: - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Football , and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question What is the reason the article was restored? That could give a good start for this discussion. Pinging @ Primefac : who refunded the article. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 17:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because someone asked ? Primefac ( talk ) 17:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Primefac ! Yes, I assumed it was a request by someone, but wasn't sure who or how to find it (previous cases I've seen have linked the request in the refund edit summary). I thought that there needs to be a stronger reason to undelete an article, but if I understand correctly, that would be only for an article which had gone through AfD and would then need a full undeletion review. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, which is why I mentioned the PROD, as that allows just a simple request for restoration. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Captains a club for which she has made almost 100 apperances in Australia's (11th place world ranking) professional highest level league. Has also played 78 games in US (3rd place world ranking) college system (the most notable college system in the world). Also this and this are great sources discussing her and her career at length which satisfy WP:SIGCOV . -- SuperJew ( talk ) 19:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First source possibly not independent, second source is good - anything else? I noticed the number of apps and so I'm looking for reasons to keep tbh... Giant Snowman 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why do you reckon FIFPRO isn't independent? It's a worldwide representative organisation for professional footballers. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why isn't a representative body independent? Perhaps because they are representative? TarnishedPath talk 04:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not of her directly, but of the PFA . -- SuperJew ( talk ) 16:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To me it's no different to an article by FIFA/her team etc. Giant Snowman 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : this source makes a few passing mentions. ––– GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG. FIFPRO isn't independent of it's members. The article contains zero independent coverage and is just a lengthy quote from her. Beyond90 contains 3 lines specifically on Hodgson. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this comment. This Adelaide Now article contains a few sentences about her so that, with the Beyond90 article, seem to be the best sources that anyone has found thus far. I feel that it's one good source away from GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - is anyone able to access this Adelaide Now source? Does it contain SIGCOV? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can read it on WebArchive -- SuperJew ( talk ) 16:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - although I am concerned with the fact that Hodgson herself seems to be the person that has requested this article be restored , there is just enough to pass GNG, in my view. Beyond90 has a few sentences as does the Adelaide Now article linked above. Impetus Football also has a few articles on her. From the one I've linked just now, we have some non-routine bits of coverage on her such as Hodgson is a popular player amongst the Adelaide faithful. She is a skilful and tenacious fullback who is also capable of driving upfield and setting up goals. In the last match of the 2020/21 season she was thrust into an attacking role as The Reds needed to increase their goal difference. She responded with a sensational goal in front of a record crowd. There are quite a few more sentences written about her as well so I would say this just about scrapes GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , See Spiderone's analysis below. Per SuperJew and Spiderone. Player with ongoing pro career. Article needs imporvemen,t not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 07:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a player profile. This [2] and this [3] from above are interviews and fails WP:IS, not even close to sourced properly for a standard article and this is a BLP. BEFORE found database entries and mentions in game recaps, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 20:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's some decent sources mentioned above. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per Spiderone. TarnishedPath talk 02:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC which allows us to stitch together parts of different articles, even where Hodgson is not necessarily the main focus. She may not have been notable in the Wikipedia sense when this article was first created, but easily satisfies the basic criteria for notability now. Her main problem is that she gives so many interviews and is quoted a lot...so we need to look for objective coverage / analysis / facts outside of any direct quotes. But the good news is that more than enough secondary sources have now been added to the article which has been expanded significantly (per WP:HEY ). Some of the best secondary sources include "A fine 50 for United captain" , a feature article about Hodgson's achievement of 50 matches in The Advertiser in Adelaide, which has covered her very regularly over the years (helping her to satisfy the WP:SUSTAINED requirement), in addition to the Beyond90 and Impetus articles mentioned above, plus all the other pieces which discuss her as a person which are now cited in the article. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

John Richard Sheaffer: Created by an SPA, also. BD2412 T 02:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . BD2412 T 02:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep analog/digital and spelling issue here I think. Likely meets WP:BIO though likely some copyediting is necessary. Seems some promising sigcov here via the EPA, I'm almost sure this is the same person despite the (common) spelling error: "Land Disposal of Wastewater: A Land Use Case Study" [43] [44] Here's some barely readable coverage that seems to cover some principles as well as citing a statement to a subcommittee [45] Seems to be some traction on subject's book [46] 14 citations is pretty high for a 1983 work. This seems to demonstrate subject's published participation in a conference, which may lead to futher citations, probably need a proper citation index for that [47] — siro χ o 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think, he's used as the intro to an editorial in the journal Groundwater [48] , got an obituary in the Chicago Tribune [49] and attention from the Washington Post [50] . The article isn't great, it needs cleaning up, but I think the man has made sufficient impact to be included. Elemimele ( talk ) 06:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some more evidence for WP:ACADEMIC : "Encouraging wise use of floodplains with market-based incentives" has 19 citations, "Cities under water: A comparative evaluation of ten cities' efforts to manage floodplain land use" has seemingly over 100. — siro χ o 08:41, 5 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! 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided by Elemimele and siroxo. Probably passes NACADEMIC too, but I think we're fine with WP:NBASIC here. We've got a staff-written obit in the Chicago Trib, a full-length profile in the Washington Post, and via the excruciating NEPIS interface we also have this EPA report containing several pages on his wastewater disposal innovations (and others as linked above). All of these appear to be reliable, independent of the subject and to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all the digging, researching and 'splaining by others above. I didn't even have to dig up any refs myself this time -- just opine on others' fine work. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

28th Guam Legislature: Redivy ( talk ) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Redivy ( talk ) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Articles like these are always notable. There is always going to be coverage of legislative sessions (as can be seen with [ this query on newspapers.com, for instance) for WP:GNG purposes; I'd also argue these articles pass WP:NLIST too as a list of a group of notable people (Guam legislators pass WP:NPOL ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Curbon7. There's a decent amount of coverage of the activities of this legislature, like others in different localities. Skynxnex ( talk ) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's possible this isn't notable on sourcing grounds, but that argument hasn't been made, and legislatures are almost always notable. SportingFlyer T · C 22:06, 12 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

Property Shop: This was created in good faith in 2009, a time when we essentially extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television series that was verifiable as existing regardless of the quality of its sources -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a television series now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG . I've found very little sourcing of value on a WP:BEFORE search, however: I was able to replace the primary sourcing that this was formerly based on with one newspaper article about the show, but other than that one source I only found glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, such as other similar TV shows about other people and Tatiana Londono's later career ups and downs after this show ended, which might support a BLP of her as a person but doesn't establish the notability of this show as a show. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 20:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Doyle, John (2008-07-09). "Big hair and a loud personality can take you only so far" . The Globe and Mail . ProQuest 382724423 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The review notes: "So I watched The Property Shop , which is the vehicle for the allegedly original and startling Tatiana. Besides, the come-on from the PR machine and the existence of Tatiana raise an interesting question: What makes for a good TV personality? ... The Property Shop (HGTV, 8 p.m.) is all about Tatiana. The premise is that we watch as real-estate-agent-turned-broker Tatiana opens up her own agency and attempts to conquer the urban real-estate world in Montreal. ... Tatiana is all pep and vinegar, and charmingly certain that she is unique, a true star. In the first 60 seconds of the episode I saw, she makes the assertion about her hair and her boobs and coming to get you. ... Usually, with the sort of TV personalities who are part of the firmament that Tatiana wants to join, there's either a narrative about the personality or the personality is merely a bland facilitator who helps the narrative unfold." Gravenor, J D (2008-08-09). "Real estate meets reality TV; Montreal agent Tatiana Londono stars in her own HGTV series - a "docu-soap" chronicling her rise in the real-estate world". The Gazette . ProQuest 434694385 . The article notes: "Canadians across the country are now getting to know Londono, too, because of her documentary-style television show, The Property Shop, which airs three times a week on HGTV. ... But it takes a lot of video footage to make a 13-part, fly-on-the-wall reality series. So production crews tailed Londono for more than a year. Occasionally the camera penetrated her personal spheres, like the sanctuary of Londono's bedroom and the hospital room where her husband laid deathly ill. ... No, she's not shy. In fact, Londono came up with the idea of a TV show documenting her ballsy scramble to the top of Montreal's real-estate heap, taking on the big national firms and exploring the drama of wheeling and dealing. ... Episodes of The Property Shop debuted last month on HGTV. Now, the producers hope to find a home with the format they've worked out." McDonough, Kevin (2009-01-08). "TV Guy: A 'Wake-Up Call' to help couples" . Times Herald-Record . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "Set in Montreal, the Canadian series "The Property Shop" (10:30 p.m., HGTV) follows real estate agent-turned-broker Tatiana Londono as she multitasks furiously under a helmet of golden ringlets. In this episode, she raises her kids, rents and renovates a new office, studies for her brokerage exam and attempts to land a slightly shady new client and sell his ugly property to dubious investors. With its emphasis on the "flipping" market, this import seems as if it's at least a couple of years old. The whole point of "Property" is to follow Tatiana, a sexy and slightly frazzled woman with a great sense of style, a youthful entourage and a flirtatious business manner. "Property" may not break any new ground in the real estate genre, but it shows off the slightly exotic Tatiana to her best advantage." Newsome, Brad (2009-09-10). "Pay TV - Sunday, September 13" . The Age . ProQuest 364293422 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The review notes: "Here's an even less sympathetic protagonist, Canadian real estate agent Tatiana Londono. Theoretically it might be possible to feel sympathy for a real estate agent in certain circumstances — they've just been run over by a bus, perhaps — but tonight Londono succeeds in looking both ways before crossing the road. Londono explains that she's been making seven figures selling houses at an estate agency in Montreal but has decided to go into business for herself. She's determined to complain every step of the way, too. The vacant offices she looks at are crummy, her new clients don't know what's good for them and she has even less time to spend with her kids. Buyers and sellers remain stoic as they endure Londono's aggressive badgering." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Property Shop to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In addition to Cunard's sources, I also found significant coverage in the Montreal Gazette: " Real Estate Meets Reality TV " (August 9, 2008). There is enough here to demonstrate notability. (It should be noted that the correct title is "The Property Shop". When this discussion closes, the page should be moved.) Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I hate such tiny stubs, but as far as notability is concerned, sources provided above (and I found a few more via WPLIBRARY) are sufficient. SIG coverage from multiple major independent and reliable outlet exists. X ( talk ) 01:06, 16 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

Hizon–Ocampo House: GNews, GScholar, Gbooks and GNews Archives turns out negative results. Google turned a 2013 website whose text was lifted from the 2011 iteration of this article -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Lenticel ( talk ) 07:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not really decisive but I also found this and this , but enough that I don’t feel comfortable with deleting. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Several structures in the San Fernando Heritage District have been marked by the National Historical Institute (now known as the National Historical Commission of the Philippines) as heritage houses, because of the architectural significance and also their current state of preservation. This is one of them. Djflem ( talk ) 22:01, 7 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! 07:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Filipino heritage listing is a bit confusing, but this would suggest that it is heritage listed . It therefore meets WP:GEOFEAT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks...#1044 Djflem ( talk ) 18:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT per Djflem's argument. SBKSPP ( talk ) 23:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shenaaz Nanji: She is a private person and no longer wants a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilers1982 ( talk • contribs ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Are saying that you are acting in behalf of author of this article? Probably creator of this article Princelibra ! Then creator have to apply WP:G7 . Alright, sorry for misunderstanding. The subject is the author/writer. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) * Delete : The nomination was bit confusing but this article lacks WP:SIGCOV as I don't find any significant coverage subjecting this author and fails WP:GNG . Keep : Satisfied with Bearcat 's explanation and improvements in the article. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Medicine , and Canada . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We can certainly discuss what information should or shouldn't be included in the article, if the subject has privacy concerns, but the question of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not is not their own decision to make, it's our notability criteria 's decision to make. The subject is a writer who has received a nomination for Canada's top-level national literary awards, which is precisely the kind of inherent notability claim where we have to have something — every single person whose name appears in either 2008 Governor General's Awards (the year she got the nomination in) or Governor General's Award for English-language children's literature (the category) has to be either already a bluelinked article or fair game to have an article created as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be absolutely nobody in either of those articles who is ever off limits for us to have an article about: the importance of the award is such that we need to have an article about everybody who was nominated for it, and cannot deem some nominees to be special no-go cases for some other reason outside of the criteria. Further, I suspect that the subject's real problem was the WP:SPA who's been spending several months trying to insert and revert-war over claims that the subject is part owner of an abortion clinic, while providing neither valid sourcing nor a reason why it would be Wikipedia's job to even give a flying honk in the first place — but that's not a reason to delete the article, it's a reason to resort to the other mechanisms (such as the temporary page protection I've already applied to it, and blocking the offending editor) that we have in place to protect our articles from abuse. And, for added bonus, I'm in the middle of repairing the sourcing problems right now, so there isn't even a GNG failure in the first place. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While I appreciate your observations, could you please clarify if being nominated for a notable award without winning it, and lacking coverage in accordance with Wikipedia's significant coverage WP:SIGCOV , meets the criteria outlined in the General notability guideline WP:GNG ? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, look at the article again, because she doesn't lack for SIGCOV — I've already added a whole bunch of solid sourcing from GNG-compliant publications. Secondly, winning an award is not the base requirement for "notable because award" — for top-level awards, such as the Oscars, the Grammys or the most prominent national literary awards, that curate a shortlist of finalists between the "evaluation of all valid submissions" and "announcement of the ultimate winner" phases of the process, even just the nomination itself is a valid notability claim, because the nomination itself already represents a significant distinction over and above the 100 other peers who didn't get nominated at all. Obviously there can sometimes still be cases where there's no other valid sourcing at all besides the technical verification of the nomination itself, thus posing a problem actually writing a GNG-compliant article — but as I already pointed out, that isn't applicable here, because I've already added improved GNG-compliant sourcing . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this explanation; it has greatly expanded my knowledge base. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 15:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with Bearcat 's reasoning. Author is notable. I'll also keep an eye on this article going forward since there's a SPA attacking it. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the coverage uncovered by Bearcat since the beginning of this AfD demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a dedicated page. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on wide coverage. I concur with Bearcat . Sourcing demonstrates notability. Easily meets WP:GNG . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 02:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Bearcat . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:38, 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

Torrent file: Take away all the unsourced info and you'd be left with an article that doesn't really have a purpose to be its own - the content could really easily just be a part of BitTorrent instead of separate here. Even if sources are added right now in this article, I still think it's wiser to have this info about torrent files just be a part of BitTorrent . Chifonr ( talk ) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 'unsourced info' seems verifiable and, frankly, much better written than BitTorrent#Design (which doesn't have references either). Would've been preferable to incorporate the content from the article into BitTorrent before considering deleting. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd prefer that too. I wouldn't want to see content lost if it is verifiable. In either case though this article would be deleted/redirected anyway right? A contributor can attempt to source the info here and publish in BitTorrent. Chifonr ( talk ) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have a strong opinion on that, I mostly commented to note that there are no obvious issues with the unreferenced portion of it in terms of WP:V . BitTorrent seems a little too big to merge Torrent file into it as of now, making Torrent file a viable content split per Wikipedia:Summary style . It's not like there are not enough reliable sources that discuss how torrent files are organised and work in depth, even if they aren't referenced currently. My impression on a cursory reading of BitTorrent , however, was that it's excessively bloated, especially BitTorrent#Design , and it might be possible to incorporate Torrent file content into it without making it too large, but it'd require cleaning up BitTorrent first and probably easier done through a regular editing process than an AfD-mandated merge. I wonder what other editors think. I also pinged a second major contributor to Torrent file , who wrote most of its content, although they don't seem to be active very often nowadays. PaulT2022 ( talk ) 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely agree, I too noticed it the other day when looking at BitTorrent: very bloated and lack of sources in places (which led to me reporting it ). In my view the Torrent file article goes hand in hand with it in terms of cleaning up and restructuring. I still support the deletion of this article, assuming some of the good info here would make its way to a cleaned up BitTorrent. Chifonr ( talk ) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Poor sourcing is a problem but that is probably fixable. If content is moved to BitTorrent, this should become a redirect not a red link. So keep without prejudice to reworking of content which might leave this a redirect. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 21:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: From discussion so far it seems like merge or redirect might be appropriate, but more input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 22:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are 17 articles currently present in the Template:BitTorrent "technology" subsection, all dealing with technical aspects of the BitTorrent protocol. The nominator hasn't advanced an argument for why this particular article should be merged into the BitTorrent article - which would imply the topic has some sort of general interest above all the other technical aspects of the protocol, which I don't think is true. And if the argument is that all 17 articles should be merged (after significant condensations), that's something I really think should be done only after consulting related WikiProjects. I also don't see a sourcing issue. Technical articles on recent software often rely on primary source documentation. Ceconhistorian ( talk ) 01:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ceconhistorian. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:52, 2 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

Nora Sumberg: A search in gnews reveals nothing. Gbooks and Australian search engine trove yields little. She has not won any major awards nor meets WP:ARTIST . LibStar ( talk ) 05:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Women , Visual arts , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 05:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , works are held in numerous collections Hermann Heilner Giebenrath ( talk ) 12:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep, Comment I don't see sources in the article or here that support the sentence saying "Examples of Sumberg's art are held in The National Gallery of Victoria, The Queensland Art Gallery, The Heide Museum of Modern Art and the Smorgan Collection." Elspea756 ( talk ) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Queensland Art Gallery I've found a painting in the Queensland Art Gallery collection at https://collection.qagoma.qld.gov.au/objects/5042 Elspea756 ( talk ) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update, Heide Museum I've been unable to find any source supporting this artist's work in the collection of The Heide Museum of Modern Art, A search of their collection at https://collection.heide.com.au/objects? query=Sumberg returns no results for "Sumberg." Elspea756 ( talk ) 15:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update, Smorgon Collection The mention of a "Smorgan" Collection appears to actually be correctly spelled as the "Smorgon" Collection, with an "o," not an "a." The Loti and Victor Smorgon Collection of Contemporary Australian Art was donated to the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia in 1995 according to https://www.mca.com.au/collection/loti-and-victor-smorgon-collection-contemporary-australian-art/ and there is a list of artists in that donated collection. This artist is not among those listed however that list does not appear to be complete. Elspea756 ( talk ) 15:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update, National Gallery of Victoria There is one result for a painting by this artist in the National Gallery of Victoria at https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/? type=collection&s=sumberg Elspea756 ( talk ) 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have added the sources I have found to the article. I am saying "weak keep" on this as the sources are currently fairly weak but I expect that is just due to the difficulty of finding online sources for an artist who created and exhibited much of their work in the 70s, 80s, and 90. Elspea756 ( talk ) 15:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :I have been through the sources and added a link to a copy of the article if I could find it through Newspapers.com. I also found a biographical entry in a book (see further reading). I wish I could see more of the listed sources but can see enough to say she meets notability based on sources. Rublamb ( talk ) 06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Muhammad Qasim Sadiq: BEFORE hasn't turned up anything, though sources may be available in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Islam , and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I am surprised that even after the first deletion discussions which closed as Keep it was again tagged for deletion discussion. These are some references I would like to mention: [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] Kkb091 ( talk ) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Seems to me Kkb091 has provided many additional sources shown above. Also, today I looked and saw that he has worked on the article and further improved it, so there are no lack of sources any more at the article for notability. This Sufi sheikh (1845 - 1942) has a large number of followers in Pakistan. Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 16:41, 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

Mel Rey Uy: Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Philippines . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Although there appear to be some database entries referring to this individual, none of them meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO , particularly with regards to significant coverage. The only reference currently provided in the article (aside from the in-text external link) is also not SIGCOV, as it by no means covers the individual in any depth. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BISHOPS . Nominator makes no suggestion that a BEFORE has utterly failed to substantiate this, although I bet he was born in 1968, not 1868. A paucity of information is likely to represent systemic bias reflecting existing coverage disparities of Filipino topics and people in general, and not a good reason to delete this article when North American/European equivalents will have plenty of obvious, easy-to-find-on-the-Internet coverage. Jclemens ( talk ) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BISHOPS is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline or policy. I personally couldn't find any high quality sources on this individual, but if you do find any, please point us to them so we can evaluate the notability of this individual. Your claim that the lack of reliable sources is due to systemic biases of coverage may be true, but that's not really relevant. It is not our place to attempt to calculate the relative reporting biases of all reliable sources in the world, and this consideration is not a particularly good argument, because again, it's not part of how notability is evaluated on Wikipedia. We cannot and do not Keep articles based on the idea that they would meet notability criteria in some hypothetical scenario designed by individual editors. If there are no good sources on this individual (and none have been provided so far), then they are not considered notable and the article should be deleted. Any speculation on what equitable reporting practices might look like is, well, speculative and based on individual editor opinion instead of the relevant policies and guidelines. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bishop notability is a longstanding precedent, if Wikipedia had them, even in other languages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy for example. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BISHOPS per Jclemens's argument. SBKSPP ( talk ) 05:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How does this pass GNG? I could find no sigcov. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 13:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was explained by Jclemens and Sojourner in the earth that it really meets GNG. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP ( talk ) 02:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The only significant coverage I can find is in articles that simply regurgitate the contents of this Vatican announcement ; but on the other hand, I tend to agree, per WP:BISHOPS , that Mel Rey Uy is very likely to be notable by virtue of his status, even if the sources that would demonstrate this are offline or non-English. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability requires at least some verifiable evidence per WP:NRV . If no such evidence can be provided beyond his occupation, I think it would be a stretch to call him notable. I'm aware of the issue of offline or non-English sources, but if there is nothing verifiable that establishes notability, that's a problem. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm honestly not sure what that part of the guideline means; what would constitute verifiable evidence that sources exist, other than the sources themselves? As far as online sources go, there is significant coverage in several articles such as [70] , [71] , [72] , but since these are all functionally identical I only count them as one source for notability purposes; and then there are numerous passing mentions such as [73] , [74] , [75] . If we had little or no information on this person then I would argue for deletion; but since there's enough information available to write a decent-sized article, and since it's almost certain that there will have been plenty more written about him in local papers etc., I'm leaning keep. Note that the section you cited, WP:NRV , also says: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Sojourner in the earth ( talk ) 23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 05:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There is clear consensus to keep diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the point of guidelines like WP:BISHOPS is that we can presume there are sources off-line and/or in other languages that would enable a WP:GNG pass. St Anselm ( talk ) 21:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - these essays are non-binding but strongly indicate we should keep this article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide ("WP:BISHOPS") Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide ("WP:NBISHOPS") Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Clergy and religious persons ("WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES") There are sufficient reliable sources to make a reliable article. Some examples: [76] [77] [78] [79] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

SwiftUI: Was draftified in hopes of improvement, then moved back by an editor without improvement. Onel 5969 TT me 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Had many books written about it, including Wiley , Springer , Packt Publishing (programming-focused) and others. Also received SIGCOV in tech news outlets alone: [18] [19] . DFlhb ( talk ) 02:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As DFlhb mentioned, this software is used in independent instructional manuals giving it presumed notability following WP:NSOFT . WP:NEGLECT is not a strong rationale for deletion. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 ( talk ) 22:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Libyan Post Telecommunications & Information Technology Company: ~ T P W 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The corresponding article in Arabic has multiple references. This is the parent company of a national postal administration and of some telecommunications carriers, so it can be expected to be notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We're not deleting an article about Libya's major telecommunications and postal authority, and two words=a really bad rationale. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but draftify if no citations or sources are added. It is certainly notable enough but needs verification. ww2censor ( talk ) 10:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs to be updated with sources . -- Devoke water 14:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Defiant (band): I tried, but couldn't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yielded some sources, but they mostly consist of passing mentions or routine coverage. IMO, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBAND and is a possible case of WP:NOTINHERITED . GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and United States of America . GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:BAND#C6 , coverage in the Boston Globe and Phoenix New Times . Mach61 08:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I doubt these sources discuss the band in detail; rather, they likely provide routine coverage. GSS 💬 08:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GSS why are you writing this as if you haven't actually read the linked articles Mach61 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's your assumption; nothing else. Could you explain how the sources you mentioned above satisfy WP:INDEPTH ? GSS 💬 17:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GSS The New Times piece is over 1000 words long Tangential:INDEPTH links to WP:Notability (events) , which is obviously not applicable in this case. Perhaps you caught a case of WP:UPPERCASE ? Mach61 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ⁤I agree that the article is lengthy, but it seems to lack sufficient independent focus on the band itself. ⁤⁤Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing. ⁤⁤It's quite normal to receive such attention in the media when the subject is linked to notable people. ⁤⁤However, as of now, since the band was formed, it hasn't achieved anything notable. ⁤⁤They have released a few single and only one album, and that too on a non-notable label. ⁤⁤While the band has garnered some attention because of its notable founding members, this doesn't establish independent notability. Therefore, I would say it's too soon for an independent article until the band becomes independently notable. GSS 💬 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GSS Your statement that Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing } is nonsensical, the term "passing mention" refers to coverage 1-2 sentences long in an article. Obviously, an article about the band is not a passing mention of them. Your statement that the band hasn't "achieved" anything notable is just an opinion; I've already shown two sources covering them in detail Mach61 23:16, 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! 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NMUSIC #6 and #12 (featured on Jimmy Kimmel Live). I don't think the Boston Globe article meets SIGCOV because it only really states the band has formed and the members; the rest of it is about Barrett and the Bosstone's. However, the Phoenix New Times does meet SIGCOV with a nice overview of their debut album which in combination with the other criteria, gets it over the hump for me. S0091 ( talk ) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County: I fail to see how this could be considered notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have many articles about formerly inhabited places, sometimes known as ghost towns. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a documented history of human habitation there, so this qualifies as a gazetteer entry under WP:5P1 . If you click around the other language links, they have more information and graphs showing when the village was inhabited, so there's WP:POTENTIAL to expand this. It's not a lot, but it is conceivable that this would be of use to an average English reader who might stumble upon the location, like any other empty village. ( Keep ) -- Joy ( talk ) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete In spite of what people are saying, there's not enough reliable information here. A single census entry fails both ways: if it says it isn't populated, it doesn't say that it was, and if it says that it was populated, that's not a source for a lack of population now. Furthermore, the location given in the article (uncited and imprecise) does seem to go to a place that could be a tiny village, only GMaps assigns it a different name. Our experience sourcing articles entirely from census results has been poor, with a lot of misinterpretation. We do not need to be so desperate to keep every supposed dot on a map (which we do not have, I note) to keep this quite doubtful article. If someone comes up with better data it could be recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe ( talk • contribs ) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think this argument about verifiability is useful because this is in fact easily verifiable if you know where to look. The Croatian Bureau of Statistics has on their website the "PC Axis" database for their dataset called Naselja i stanovništvo Republike Hrvatske 1857.-2001. ( lit. ' Settlements and population of the Republic of Croatia 1857-2001. ' ) which lists this Završje under Brod Moravice in the somewhat complex forms at [22] and we can easily verify the table at the other language Wikipedia, confirming continuous habitation between the first census of 1857 and 1981. Likewise an even more trivial Završje search at the Croatian State Geodetic Administration Geoportal website https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ produces it at the top, and that website also has an option to generate a deep link like this . -- Joy ( talk ) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing I notice in the Geoportal map is that the former village itself is named "Završje", but so is a yellow outline of a number of surrounding villages with an uppercase form "ZAVRŠJE". I'm not sure what this layer with yellow outlines means, possibly a cadastral municipality or something? This probably adds some more value to continuing to document this toponym. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep You just have to look at the Croatian article to see that its population has been tracked through time and has only been uninhabited for the past 30 years or so, peaking at 83 people, making it eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T · C 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - Clearly a keep. My bad. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SportingFlyer. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:32, 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

David Mindich: Every source is a passing mention, if not a single quote from Mindich. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Journalism , and News media . ben ǝʇᴉɯ 06:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Pennsylvania , and Vermont . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Enough published reviews of multiple books (now added to the article) for a pass of WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 08:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per sources presently in article, SIGCOV addressing this individual's work/career directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on having over 1700 citations in Google Scholar , he would meet WP:NACADEMIC . Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a reasonably widely reviewed author, but it would be even better if the reviews were worked into the article. Geschichte ( talk ) 13:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reasonable pass of WP:Prof#C1 . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:32, 3 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