Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Paul Christiano (researcher): There are two RSes, one of which is an interview with a personal friend and the other is from a single press tour in July which supplied almost all the RS coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE . Neither is a biographical piece. The article has many other references, but they're all primary. Request for better sourcing to address the issue on the talk page for two weeks, no response; PROD removed without addressing the sourcing deficiencies. What are the three best independent third-party RSes supplying significant biographical coverage to the requirements of WP:BLP ? - David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America . David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , California , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hi David, I didn't see the message you put up on the talk page. I think Paul Christiano meets the following criterion from WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He's first author of "Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences" and co-author many other RLHF-related papers, which are extremely highly cited and a core technique used in training large language models like ChatGPT. See his Google Scholar here . Additionally, he is featured in an article in Time's list of 100 most influential people in AI . Enervation ( talk ) 08:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as evidenced by recognition on cover of TIME magazine (one of 28 faces) and feature article in corresponding issue about the TIME 100 Most Influential People in AI (TIME 100/AI), as well as the Fortune magazine article which nominator agreed counted toward notability on the article Talk page. In addition, the 2017 New York Times article "Teaching AI systems to behave themselves" did feature Christiano alongside another colleague at OpenAI. These have all been added to the article now. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely now meets GNG with the additional material added during the afd. Thriley ( talk ) 20:31, 22 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

George Griffith: No showing of SIGCOV. More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and England . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but yes, rewrite. Certainly a notable author, see e.g. the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and likewise in Don D'Ammassa 's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction . I'll see if I can find the time to fix the article while the AfD discussion is open. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about DRAFTIFY as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merits entries in The Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction (1997) and The Oxford Companion to English Literature (2009). DuncanHill ( talk ) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep discussed as a subject in academic literature: Mollmann, Steven. “Air-Ships and the Technological Revolution: Detached Violence in George Griffith and H.G. Wells.” Science Fiction Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2015): 20–41. doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.42.1.0020. Stoil, Michael J. 2007. “Globalization by Gaslight: Literary Anticipation of Technology’s Effect on State Sovereignty, 1871-1918.” Conference Papers -- International Studies Association, 1–20 WOOD, HARRY. “Competing Prophets: H. G. Wells, George Griffith, and Visions of Future War, 1893-1914.” Wellsian, no. 38 (January 2015): 5–23. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: At this point, I'm willing to withdraw the nom, but before I do, I'd like some assurance that those who've voted so far are in turn willing to start work on overhauling this article. I don't want to close the discussion and have everyone go their separate ways, ignoring the work that needs to be done here. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... And why should we do it, rather than you? You assume some privileged position to nominate stuff for deletion, and then when other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea, turn around and demand they do the rest of the work? Do read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY , please, and when you've done so, please decide whether you want to fix this article, or leave it unenhanced and move on to critique some other article without expending any effort to fix this article, which your efforts have correctly identified as not living up to its potential. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything? You've already found two good sources, so why not use them? I suppose I could have just stubified this article to remove all the unsourced material, but I'd rather try and motivate people to get something done. Or perhaps we should just let it sit dormant for another decade while everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you intend to motivate people by threatening articles with deletion just because they could be improved but haven't been, I have a real problem with that approach. It's not limited to you, but it is inappropriate wherever it shows up. If you want to improve articles, or simply don't know how to tell if something is notable or not, come to my talk page with a question and I'll teach you how to source things. Others can teach you how to edit problematic articles appropriately, so that they are improved, but still have a roadmap for further improvement. Much more productive and collegial. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate the offer. I'll consider that in the future. For now, TompaDompa's doing a great job overhauling this article without your help. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jclemens , that was needlessly antagonistic. Just Another Cringy Username nominated this for deletion on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, an observation that is correct , and offered the compromise solution of turning it into a draft which is a fairly reasonable suggestion considering that the article was in a terrible state and most of the sources are not exactly easily accessible ( The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notwithstanding). I don't think it's fair to characterize that as assuming a privileged position, nor do I think it's accurate to say that "other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea". When the objection is that the article is in need of a complete rewrite, as in this case, it's reasonable to want to make sure that that will actually happen rather than just establish that it would be possible before withdrawing one's objection. At any rate, I've started rewriting this and requested a few sources from WP:RX for that purpose. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion, and neither is "everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows". Any editor who makes a habit of nominating articles for deletion because they think they need rewrites is very likely to find themselves topic banned from AfD. If an editor think an article needs a rewrite then they can do it themself, ask on the article talk page, find a relevant wikiproject and ask there, or just move on and accept that the world is not perfect. What they must not do is abuse AfD to get it. DuncanHill ( talk ) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beat me to it, thank you. "Needs a rewrite" is a good argument for... wait for it... a rewrite. Not a deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Needing a complete rewrite actually can be grounds for deletion, canonically, under WP:DELREASON#14 : Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia . But of course a rewrite is preferable in such instances, and that is currently underway. You are both very welcome to join the effort. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having looked over two of the sources added to the article, most of the content pre-nomination was justifiable and what it wanted was sourcing more than a re-write. The specifics of Deletion reason 14 don't look to apply in this case GraemeLeggett ( talk ) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TompaDompa , Once again you're demonstrating a skewed and inaccurate view of deletion policy. Which part of WP:NOT says "badly written articles should be deleted"? It doesn't. "Not suitable" in deletion reason 14 is a reference to WP:NOT and nothing else : if it isn't in NOT, it's not covered by deletion reason 14. Do you acknowledge your error here? Jclemens ( talk ) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination says More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. That's covered by WP:NOT ( WP:NOTESSAY ), and that's what I was referring to. I could have been clearer about that, I suppose. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Extremely notable early science fiction author. And with regards to fixing the article, it's not currently in horrible shape (although yes, it needs work). But that said, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very clear that notability is established by the subject of the article, not the content or the condition of the article itself. Also worth noting that the same Wikipedia notability guideline states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability is shown in the reliable sources about the subject. The article needs cleaning up, but that does not justify deleting it. Passes WP:GNG and BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Chrysanthemums for a Bunch of Swine: None of these contribute to notability. My BEFORE check just found more wikis and databases, and Google Scholar only had one result. The articles on other Wikipedias also do not seem to have any helpful sources. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I’ll improve the page today when I have more time. Added a few things that in my view show it's notable enough for a standalone page. The nominator’s rationale clearly shows that AT LEAST a redirect to Sergio Pastore was warranted anyway. Strongly opposed to deletion . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not sure what the nom's search was, but searching a few film texts turns up a number of sources. It's a spaghetti Western, so it is not surprisingly found in books about that topic. I see that additional sources have been added since the nom. I'm sure there are others (what I found already indicates that's the case). The article needs to be expanded, but that's not a reason to delete. Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I clearly missed some things when performing my search. The sources now in the article seem to be sufficient, and I withdraw this nomination. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:05, 1 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

You Are in Love: The track is not subject of significant coverage, and the current information leaves something to be desired. Suggest redirecting it back to 1989 (album) as a standalone article does not look promising for inclusion atp. Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect No significant coverage in sources other than album reviews . We have to start becoming stricter (or at least enforcing the guidelines more harshly) on the notability of album tracks. ‍  PSA 🏕️ ( talk ) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think album reviews are fine as long as it satisfies GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") So imo it's really a case by case thing, and in this case the encyclopedic content extracted from the existing sources is subpar for a standalone article. Ippantekina ( talk ) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are sources that do have significant coverage of the song, other than album reviews. [1] [2] [3] These are the three sources that best demonstrate its notability. Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even so, the encyclopedic content of this article is of merger quality and there is no need for a standalone article when such content could be integrated into the article 1989 (album) . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How so? Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Branchy0008 . Even the charting satisfies notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NSONG charting suggests that "a song or single may be notable enough" but it is not a guarantee. Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most articles about recordings and musicians are notable because of charting especially from Billboard charts. Some articles only rely on chart history sources to establish significant coverage. May or not, as long as it is a criteria for notability, it is what it is! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lol ok Ippantekina ( talk ) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 1989 (album) per PSA . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – received significant independent coverage in American Songwriter , Billboard , etc. There's also an extensive paragraph in Perone 2017. Combined with other album reviews I don't see why this can't be a great article. Heartfox ( talk ) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the song charting as well as the sources shown in this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli ( talk • contribs ) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral @ Brachy0008 , @ TheChineseGroundnut , @ Heartfox and @ Elli : If we let this article stand, with doubts about minimum compliance with standards, what will happen is that it will stand, but it would not meet the GA criteria. If the GA criteria are not met, then the 1989 topic will be at risk and will be forced to be removed as a featured topic . What a shame to say (because I know a lot of effort has gone into this article), but the existing articles about the album are better done than this one. Also, you can't do the same thing as with the songs from Midnights (you can notice that all the songs in its standard edition have an article and they are all GA), because the ones from 1989 don't have the same coverage. However, I'll not vote for or against its removal so as not to harm anyone. Santi ( talk ) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it can be GA. Topic demotion grace period is three months. If by that time it is clear it can't meet GA I would vote to redirect, but right now there are still many sources that aren't used and this article is not near its final state. Heartfox ( talk ) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Heartfox : Ok, and how which ones? I haven't been able to sit down to review it yet because I have a super tight schedule that I suppose will be light on May 3. Santi ( talk ) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Words and Music of Taylor Swift has a paragraph about the song, for example. Heartfox ( talk ) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. But it would then be more complicated because, in my case, I cannot go around buying information books that I will not use later, because I have several old encyclopedias in the library. I don't know about Brachy in this case. Santi ( talk ) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven’t got much books pertaining this article (or TayTay in general). However, my country has a lot of libraries (one of them having a book about Taylor Swift for children). Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...and I can’t access TWAMOTC Brachy 08 (Talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can make a request at WP:RX . Heartfox ( talk ) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It clearly meets WP:NSONG #1 because it charted in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, and even earned Gold certification in Australia. Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Minecraft server: While there are a small number of notable Minecraft servers, such as Mineplex and Hypixel , there's no indication that Minecraft servers in general are notable as a distinct topic from the game that runs on them. The server is just a component of the game; what notable features of multiplayer Minecraft are included here could easily be described in the main article without making it too long , and other things like the "Management" section are descriptions of aspects of running any popular multi-user server which are certainly not unique to this game. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move to List of Minecraft servers and orient the article around that. Some of the listed servers are independently notable, so it seems to serve a valid navigational purpose . The concept seems at least somewhat notable . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in addition to everything already on the page, USA Today covers this in general as a distinct topic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5D4F:EE1B:4A41:2B4A ( talk ) 19:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Blablubbs ( talk ) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable topic passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. I don't see how this fails either INDISCRIMINATE or NOTINHERITED. The main article is already way too long, let alone if this content was there. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per replies. Panamitsu ( talk ) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article provides encyclopedic content, and very much not indiscriminate in what it includes. Neither is the topic inherited solely because Hypixel and Mineplex have been reported on a lot while the subject of servers has less of it. In fact, there is enough written on the subject , which has historical , legal, and financial differences from traditional game servers that make it unique. Though the 'Notable servers' section takes up a chunk of the article, there's substantial prose independent of it. (Worth mentioning that the list's selection criteria, unwritten, is high and that people keep trying to add their server onto the list . Making it a pure list is going in the opposite direction of the raised nomination statement.) Merging it with the Minecraft article is a bad idea because it's bloated and unfocused already. SWinxy ( talk ) 23:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV , but agree with ZX on moving the page. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per hellknowz, oppose move / listification. I do not understand how this fails WP:SIGCOV or how it's WP:IINFO . I see more than enough sources that are clearly specifically about Minecraft multiplayer servers and not WP:INHERITED from Minecraft. Leijurv ( talk ) 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I don't believe this article is indiscriminate. However, I do think there is an argument that there is a significant overlap with game server , hence the listification in order to emphasize what parts about it are worthy of separate mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , separate standalone topic per the replies, and the Minecraft article is also hell when it comes to length, merging a servers list into the main article could possibly fall under game guide territory. No opinion on moving to List of Minecraft servers or to keep it here, I just think it's worth keeping in some form. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 01:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an overwhelming consensus that at least some of the 67 references in this article provide SIGCOV to this subject and the article should be Kept...in the future, it would be helpful to other participants and the closer if you identified at least 3 that were particularly crucial in establishing notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the WP:THREE , probably: Blocks with friends: How to run your own Minecraft server , The Future Of Minecraft's Biggest Servers , and Minecraft Realms hopes to make an increasingly complex game more family-friendly . SWinxy ( talk ) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, SWinxy , I usually don't get an immediate response like that to a relisting comment. L iz Read! Talk! 01:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Five Mile House (Illinois): Not listed on the NRHP [21] . Sourcing is all primary. Appears PROMO for a tourist attraction. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Consdering the AfD posting was the third-ever edit to this new page, and the page is only sourced to primary sources, a good WP:BEFORE search is necessary and it's crystal clear this house comes up often in multiple local news sources (newspaper and television), and has been referenced in several books. There's a chance the coverage as a whole doesn't add up to GNG, but there's definitely coverage out there, and I haven't even searched old newspapers yet. SportingFlyer T · C 14:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Historical buildings don't have to be on the NRHP to be notable, and this one has plenty of coverage in non-primary sources: see [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] . It's included in the Illinois Historic Sites Survey Inventory , though their database is under construction so finding info is a bit of a pain right now. It's also been referenced in books, as SportingFlyer mentioned. The article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 17:06, 25 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

Brooke Barrettsmith: Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Illinois . Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jpcase . WhichUser AmI 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : Does not fail WP:NSINGER . Her album charted on Billboard . -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It peaked at No. 36. That meets the criteria for notability? I'm genuinely asking. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely. Any placement on Billboard should generally be considered enough to establish notability. WP:NSINGER simply says that notability is shown if an artist "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It doesn't say that the single or album has to reach an especially high point on the chart. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And even those Billboard subcharts qualify? I read through WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS , but all of the different iterations of Billboard charts were confusing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I'm not aware of any Billboard chart that wouldn't be considered a major chart for notability purposes. Barrettsmith's album charted on the Top Christian Albums chart, which certainly qualifies. It apparently also charted on the Heatseekers chart, (though her Billboard page doesn't seem to be online anymore, and unfortunately, it seems that the Way Back Machine only archived the page showing her placement on the Christian chart). -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi all, Brooke here! I meet several criteria. Here they are by number: Criterion 1 a) My self-titled album release on Essential/Provident/Sony BMG in 2008 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006P8JUU2/ref=sr_1_1? crid=3T96CHX2AB1K3&keywords=brooke+barrettsmith&qid=1684802487&sprefix=%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1 b) Several notable print publications. I can find more if you'd like me to dive deeper into my storage space - https://bbarrettsmith.wixsite.com/bb-photos Criterion 2 a) Billboard's Top Christian Album chart b) Billboard's Heatseekers Albums chart (Maybe call Provident for a backdated resource. My former A&R rep is still there and he can confirm.) Criterion 4 a) Opening act on Pillar 's national tour "For the Love of the Game" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/01/28.PILLAR%20ANNOUNCES%20FOR%20THE%20LOVE%20OF%20THE%20GAME%20TOUR%20DATES.asp b) Opening act on BarlowGirl 's national tour "Million Voices Tour" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/09/03.BarlowGirl%20To%20Release%20First%20Holiday%20Project%20Home%20For%20Christmas.asp Criterion 11 a) I was in rotation on several Christian radio stations in 2008-2010 across the country. 90.1 WMBI, K-Love stations, The Fish stations, etc. (Most cities we toured through played my music on rotation, if only for that season. Please call them or Provident for a backlog.) Positivelynonegatives ( talk ) 00:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart link. I peaked at number 40: https://books.google.com/books? id=EhQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA49&dq=billboard+barrettsmith&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl1fiFoor_AhXakYkEHYwOBPYQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=billboard%20barrettsmith&f=false Positivelynonegatives ( talk ) 01:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Charted on Billboard , so WP:NSINGER is fulfilled. 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Keep : In addition to the above, she has been profiled by the Arlington Heights Daily Herald ("Faith leads Spring Grove woman into limelight") and had her album reviewed by the Great Falls Tribune ("Barrettsmith's new album offers clean, but forgettable, tunes"); there is also a capsule (editorial, not user-generated) review in All Music Guide . Being on a reality show does not automatically fail WP:NSINGER or override WP:GNG . Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as charted on a Billboard chart and also has christian music reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:26, 26 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

Djabrail Chahkiev: - TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Djabrail Chahkiev was a prominent Ingush historian and archeologist, had a lot of great works on Ingush towers like the monographs Drevnosti Gornoy Ingushetii . He contributed a lot to the formation and development of archival affairs in Ingushetia being the Deputy Head of the State Archive Service of Ingushetia from 2015. Had articles in journal Sovetskaya etnografia and in encyclopedias Narody Rossii , Narody i religii mira [ ru ] , Entsiklopediya narodov Yuga Rossii . WikiEditor 123… 17:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . FWIW he is the subject of several articles in major newspapers such as Moskovsky Komsomolets [13] and AiF [14] in which his contributions to the republican archives (he was the deputy director), restoration of Ingush defence towers and a number of books are mentioned. Alaexis ¿question? 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the sources posted by Alaexis and those already in the article are enough to demonstrate a likely WP:GNG pass. The current article is primarily sourced to what appears to be (if I'm interpreting machine translations correctly) a 17-page biography in a journal published by наследие кубани "Heritage of Kuban", a Russian state-owned archeological services company. I don't know if Chahkiev was in some way associated with this organization or if this source is fully independent. Maybe a native speaker can shed some light. Jfire ( talk ) 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Djabrail Chakhkiev, as pointed out by Jfire, was associated with research projects from Russian state-owned archeological services company "Heritage of Kuban". Another famous work in association with famous scholars Vitaly and Yevgeny Narozhny, is "Military Archeology: Ancient and Medieval Weapons of Eurasia // Burials of spearmen of the Keliya burial ground in highland Ingushetia" (2017) [15] . Dzhabrail Chakhkiev was an employee of the State Archive Service of the Republic of Ingushetia. Muqale (talk) 04:26, 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

Lucifer (magazine): The 3 sources on the article austheos.org.au all link to an offline website managed by the Theosophical Society. The magazine has no academic or scholarly coverage. Per lack of independent reliable sources the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy ( talk ) 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is the primary subject of Ferguson, Christine (2020). "The Luciferian Public Sphere: Theosophy and Editorial Seekership in the 1880s" . Victorian Periodicals Review . 53 (1): 76–101. doi : 10.1353/vpr.2020.0012 . ISSN 1712-526X . It also has significant coverage in Morrisson, Mark S. (2007). "The Periodical Culture of the Occult Revival: Esoteric Wisdom, Modernity and Counter-Public Spheres" . Journal of Modern Literature . 31 (2): 1–22. ISSN 0022-281X . Chapter 5 of Beauchesne, Nicholas L. (Spring 2021). "Adepts of Modernism: Magical Magazine Culture, 1887-1922" . ERA . doi : 10.7939/r3-6q13-d562 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . is devoted to it, although this is a doctoral dissertation so per WP:SCHOLARSHIP should not be given as much weight as other sources. Citations from these sources may reveal additional coverage. Jfire ( talk ) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -whilst at this temporal remove a lot of potential sources are hardly disinterested -see for example "Open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, archived 2007-10-08" . www.theosophische-informationsstelle.de . , the title of the publication drew extensive criticism both contemporaneously and since, (as evidenced by a simple search ), much of which will provide further source material. Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Whilst fixing no target errors I've taken the opportunity to add archive urls to the article. They are all just listings so don't add anything to the discussion. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested « @ » ° ∆t ° 15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions about the sources brought up in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources from Jfire appear to demonstrate significant coverage of this article's subject by multiple independent reliable sources. As such, this magazine appears to pass the general notability guideline , and it seems reasonable to keep it. The content could be improved, but there is certainly scholarly coverage, contrary to as stated in nom's rationale. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:44, 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

Andrea Mohr: Fails all relevant notability policies: WP:GNG , WP:BIO , and WP:NAUTHOR . - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Women , Crime , Japan , Thailand , Germany , Australia , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The previous AfD was closed as soft delete; the article was undeleted upon request today. Given the requestor is an experienced editor who listed 5 likely sources in the UDR, it would be best to have given them more than an hour to work on the article before re-nominating it. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources shown by pburka in the undeletion request: She was the subject of S15E02 of National Geographic's Banged Up Abroad ; profiled in Bild ; and her trial was sensational and widely covered (and [63] and [64] ) in Australia Jfire ( talk ) 04:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The 2010 Bild profile and 2022 National Geographic episode represent significant and persistent coverage in reliable sources. pburka ( talk ) 05:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep sigcov. Reliable sources. NG coverage is significant as well. WP:GNG applies. BabbaQ ( talk ) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've just spent a bit of time adding sources, some of which are in-depth. I think it's fairly comfortable to say the article passes WP:GNG . It still has problems as far needing more citations for the claims made in it. It also appears to have been generated from a translation so it could do with a bit of a rewrite, but those are not reasons for deletion. Tar nis hed Path talk 12:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per pburka. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ UtherSRG : aside from the obvious lack of WP:BEFORE , as a minimum in your rationale you should have addressed the sources provided by Pburka in the undeletion request and explain how they do not count toward the GNG. C avarrone 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I prefer that refunds for soft deletes and PRODs go through AFC. Barring that, I will AFD them. Either way, the community gets a shot at having a say instead of a unilateral overturn of a legitimate deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ UtherSRG : There is no policy-based reason that refunds go through AfC, and there is absolutely no policy that supports taking undeleted articles immediately back to AfD before anyone has even had a chance to work on them. To insist that an editor with 30,000 edits and 250+ articles created, who has been trusted by the community with autopatrol and pending changes review, should have to go through AfC is utterly ridiculous. Failing to perform BEFORE and claiming lack of notability while ignoring sources listed in an undeletion request is very poor behavior indeed. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sufficient sources have been found, article could do with a bit of a cleanup which has started. AusLondonder ( talk ) 00:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Vedran Mimica: I suggest redirecting to Berlage Institute per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP . gidonb ( talk ) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Architecture , Croatia , and Netherlands . gidonb ( talk ) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, the article is a stub, but it can be expanded from the corresponding article in Spanish, es:Vedran Mimica . Surprisingly, there is no corresponding article in the Croatian Wikipedia, although a search for his name there does get a few hits. See also Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vedran+Mimica&btnG= The Library of Congress authority page refers to these references, although I'm not sure what they are: Randić & Turato, 2000:t.p. (Vedran Mimica) Suvremena hrvatska arhitektura, 2007:t.p. (Vedran Mimica) p. 654 (b. Zagreb, 1954) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quick Google search brings up some mainstream media coverage in Croatia, such as a 2017 interview in Globus (weekly) and a 2013 interview in Slobodna Dalmacija "Plus" (whatever that section or edition is), so there might well be WP:POTENTIAL . -- Joy ( talk ) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Maybe it will be helpful to summarize my recent nominations/edits. The NN creator of these articles was recently nominated by another editor. Not by me. After the article she wrote on herself, she created articles on her study friends and spun off their projects into seperate articles on their architectural firms. I only nominated these unjustified spinoffs. For this friend, who is just a NN person that has a job, she created a twoliner. In other words, nothing surprising about there not being an article on Hrwiki. For yet another friend she created a longer article that I only cleaned up. As always, I just reacted to what I saw in the articles and elsewhere to the best of my judgement. No spite or mass nominations. I will also not argue for any of the suggested resolutions. Just doing my WP chores. gidonb ( talk ) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He's appeared numerous times in mainstream Croatian newspapers to the point of passing GNG. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T · C 21:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as some references have been added since nomination and no one has responded to the nominator's suggestion of redirection. But being a short article has never been a valid reason for deletion by itself alone and no other deletion rationale has been offered. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz : I find your relisting comment strange, as no one has supported redirection apart from the nominator, and it clearly passes WP:GNG . If you look at the AfD history, the nominator posted and then removed something which said "deletion was never the issue." I respect the work you've been doing relisting and closing these discussions, but why not just close this? SportingFlyer T · C 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe because I look at every single open AFD every day and I wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote my comment. It's late where I'm at right now but I'll review this one again in the morning. #EditingWhileSleepy L iz Read! Talk! 09:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dorothy Steel (actress): I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron ( talk • contribs ) 08:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An article's stubbiness is not a valid reason to delete it, and the subject passes the GNG. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 01:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 01:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist: AfD discussion was never transcluded to the log. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 01:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Subject passes GNG. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 01:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Actress in major film franchise with multiple instances of whole-article coverage from major media outlets. Easily meets WP:GNG . Oblivy ( talk ) 06:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Michigan . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . While most coverage arose from her death, not all of it did, and therefore she at least meets WP:BASIC and probably meets WP:GNG in my opinion. Analysis based on existing sources in the article. CT55555 ( talk ) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets the criteria of WP:GNG . -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Unquestionably meets the criteria. No good reasons to delete. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 03:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I 100% see how this was a borderline case and even I had to go deep into Google to find them. But this annoyingly counts "technically". Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Profile in The New York Times [30] . Notable. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Borderline case but well-sourced. She has acted in some of the most recognisable films and has minimum coverage to pass WP:GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Adrian Galliani: All I could find were trivial coverage, transfer reports (mostly involving youth football) and little more: [11] Angelo ( talk ) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . Angelo ( talk ) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , among many more sources . Young player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are literally just marginal interviews that are mostly about his relationship with his grandfather, plus transfer reports. And we all can agree notability is not inherited. His career is merely amateur, his current team being in the amateur Spanish fifth tier and he has never played a single professional game or even been part of a senior professional first team in any form. Angelo ( talk ) 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those aren't merely are deinfilty not "mostly about his relationship with his grandfather" and are denfitlty not merely "transfer reports" and his career is definitely not "merely amateur", young player with ongoing career having played for Olympiacos B in the fully pro Super League Greece 2. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this article adheres to the notability guidelines for sportspeople, as Galliani has played at fully professional leagues in multiple countries and multiple sources are available. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since NFOOTBALL was deprecated, we don't consider playing in a "fully pro" league as providing a presumption of notability. Instead, the article needs to satisfy WP:GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article fails WP:GNG ; while The Athletic article contains some useful coverage of his career (and the inevitable links to his grandfather's career), I don't see anything else that is in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The Sky Sport (Italy) piece is very short, and the Tutto Mercato piece is almost entirely a quotes from the subject. It appears that Galliani receives attention due to being a grandson of a famous football figure, but I just don't see that attention translating into WP:SIGCOV . Jogurney ( talk ) 19:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 02:58, 2 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

Minrui Road station: However, most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line . On a WP:BEFORE search on both Google and Baidu in both English and Chinese, I could not find any significant coverage on the stations themselves, but only minor mentions on articles on the Pujiang line. These stations thus fail WP:NSTATION and WP:GNG , and in my opinion should be redirected to Pujiang line#Stations . I am also nominating the following pages as well: Sanlu Highway station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Puhang Road station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Dongchengyi Road station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Huizhen Road station ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) S5A-0043 Talk 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect all per nom. Thryduulf ( talk ) 11:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment User:S5A-0043 , this nomination is not in the correct format for a bundled nomination so it will make a closure, whatever that is, very difficult. You can't just list a group of articles, there is code you must use. Please review WP:AFD and reformat your nomination so that it is done correctly according to the guidelines descripted there. Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Sligo Intermediate Football Championship as an example of a correctly formatted bundled nomination. L iz Read! Talk! 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, I’ll get to it later. S5A-0043 Talk 07:46, 6 November 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 ) 14:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appear to satisfy WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all five per sources in the articles, WP:GNG , WP:NEXIST and Necrothesp . gidonb ( talk ) 14:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d like to point out once again that most of the sources talk about the line which they serve, Pujiang line , and not of the stations themselves. I checked through and the sources generally contain WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the stations themselves, and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV (part of the criteria of WP:GNG ), and also that notability is not WP:INHERENT . I’ll offer a source check in a few hours. S5A-0043 Talk 20:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source check based on WP:GNG : In the article: [20] : Can’t open so can’t comment. [21] : Significant? N (passing mention of Huizhen Road and not even a single mention of everything else) Reliable? Y Secondary? N (Primary, Shanghai Keolis is the operator of the line) Independent? N (Same as secondary) [22] : Not actually archived for some reason so no comment [23] Significant? N (Passing mentions for all stations). Independent? Y Reliable? ? (State media but since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? Y . I grabbed a few extra random sources from Google and Baidu since someone mentioned WP:NEXIST : [24] : Significant? ? (A bunch of images of the stations but not much prose). Independent? ? (Sounds promotional but not 100% sure) Reliable? Y Secondary? Y [25] Significant? N (Passing mentions for all). Independent? Y Reliable? ? (Via Baidu Baijiahao, a WP:UGC platform, but authored by state media. Like above no.4 since this isn’t political coverage I think it should still be OK). Secondary? Y . [26] Significant? N (Passing mention of transfer info for each station. BTW this should also be routine coverage.) Independent? N (Authored by Shanghai Metro, system operating organization). Reliable? Y Secondary? N . Apologies for the mess, I tried using the source assessment table but mobile editing is a headache. But anyway, I honestly doubt these stations meet WP:GNG based on the above. S5A-0043 Talk 20:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Multiple reliable secondary sources. And also per WP:BASIC : If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . 213.239.67.134 ( talk ) 21:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BASIC also says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and that a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not (non-trivial coverage). Could you kindly explain why WP:BASIC is satisfied in this case? S5A-0043 Talk 21:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those of us who care about equity tend to be a touch more lenient when it comes to Africa, much of Asia, most of the Caribbean, and other regions with serious deficiencies in quality sources. Out of equity considerations and not replacing the need for quality sources. Just relaxing it slightly. If we wouldn't, such regions would suffer even a larger coverage gap at Wikipedia. In general, there is no need for the nominator to respond to almost every diverging opinion in AfDs. In fact, there is a strong recommendation against that. Please assume that ALL opinionators have read the AfD-rationale and are taking it into full consideration! gidonb ( talk ) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dietrich Unkrodt: Current sources are either unreliable (discogs) or a funeral home (I think?). German WP article is almost identical, as this one is a translation. – Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Germany . Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The person composed and played unusual recordings for an unusual instrument, and taught, all this before the time of web coverage, and most of his career in East Germany. metason.net Verlag Neue Musik Zerbe orchestra jazz rbb jazzzeitung.de student (and there are more) too tired to look for more -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are all just passing mentions though... Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, his main career was before the internet, and in East Germany. He made recordings that were mentioned decades later, which tells me to keep. [15] . Perhaps SusunW can dig up newspapers? Anyway, I'll have no time for him today, but promise to look tomorrow. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , noting I was called here by Gerda Arendt . As she said likely many off-line sources. East German, allowed to tour the US and internationally, was really unusual. [16] , [17] , [18] , VP of the Tuba International Brotherhood Association, the inaugural VP . There are also bits [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , and then there is this [23] "Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra" by Joachim Gunner (p 131, 133), "Sieben Miniaturen für Vier Tuben" by Gunter Kochan (p 226); and Fanfare for a Friend by John Stevens (p 254) were all written for Unkrodt. Book also includes people he taught. Would need input from someone who has access to a library (I don't, but possibly the RX, where I've ordered .) to see the bios here: "Dietrich Unkrodt studied at the Berlin Conservatory from 1952-1955 and was a member of Landeskapelle" (p 28), "Dietrich Unkrodt of the tuba jury displayed musical and instrumental vision which went far beyond the standard limits…He showed an adventurousness and determination to extend the limits of the tuba…" p 44. Clearly notable from other musicians' perspectives from what I can see. Has a bio Kürschners Musiker-Handbuch, p. 487. SusunW ( talk ) 13:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , much improved, clearly shows notability now. — Kusma ( talk ) 16:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is multiple reliable sources coverage such as a number of books identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:02, 21 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

Yaroslav Hunka: This man is famous as of yesterday for one event . Not notable. cagliost ( talk ) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep . It is preferable that the page be renamed the "Yaroslav Hunka Affair" or "Yaroslav Hunka Controversy" and go into detail on the whole incident instead as it affects more than just Mr. Hunka. Factchecker72946482 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep . Removing this summary from Wikipedia will remove one of the most detailed summaries about this Nazi from the internet, which will aid conspiracy theorists and the like. Having a detailed summary (including that he continued to be an activist for officers like himself in later life) is important to the understanding of a major political scandal surrounding the most important war of the twenties. Jamesjansson ( talk ) 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete , This article is defamatory harrassment and it infringes on the privacy of mr. Hunka. 23.236.83.249 ( talk ) 01:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Single person - perhaps true. But, he is a classic example of washing up the Ukrainian/SS-Galizien history of genocide and crimes against the humanity. Shall be kept in place. 157.231.243.194 ( talk ) 07:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Making the atrocities of the Nazis is paramount to the education of all generations and the prevention of such horrors happening again - I hope. Not a perfect model, but one that can help. 2607:FEA8:E2C0:61E0:B0C5:22CC:2429:37FF ( talk ) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or rename and rewrite , as the defined subject is not a notable individual.   — Michael Z . 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] :*The individual is notable as he and his attendance at the Canadian parliament and the praise given him by the Canadian house speaker, makes him notable. his presence in Canada along with others from Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division is also notable and worthy of mention in this article as well. 208.123.202.108 ( talk ) 14:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) :*This assertion is false. Hunka is a Nazi SS officer that has been the subject of global news. If he didn't want to be known, he should have kept a low profile. 2604:3D09:147F:F910:19F5:E9C8:F704:754F ( talk ) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit this project discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR .   — Michael Z . 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, I haven't delved deep into Ukrainian-language sources but there's evidence that he has been active in Waffen-SS veteran's circles post-war and information that makes him more notable beyond a single event could be find. But even if there isn't, I think the controversy surrounding his summon to Parliament is receiving such a great deal of attention that's going to be known for a long time that it's notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ::Could not agree more. This was an historical event. Gary 7vn ( talk ) 14:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ MAINEiac4434 Killuminator ( talk ) 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move to "Yaroslav Hunka affair" ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk ) 07:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but make the article about the incident and not Hunka himself GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk ) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed El819 ( talk ) 01:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed TheUnabashedUkrainian ( talk ) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Ukraine , and Canada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move the article as per suggestions above, and have it focus on the incident first and Hunka second, as opposed the other way around. Hunka is primarily covered because of this incident. Cortador ( talk ) 09:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and thus WP:NOTNEWS . This person warrants no notability by themselves, is in the media for a brief instant, then is gone. 14.2.192.61 ( talk ) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article looks fine to me, the incident has made Hunka a major topic. Maybe a page about the incident itself would be better. LilJohnnyWimple ( talk ) 10:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is no real problem with it. Jingiby ( talk ) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Considering that due to the controversy more of the subject's history are being bought to light and how it has become a scandal in the Canadian politics of recent time. Toadboy123 ( talk ) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep Deletion the article after the person become scandalous compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. 37.186.45.57 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article was not created until the scandal. That's why cagliost nominated referring to WP:1E . glman ( talk ) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I also agree that the article should be named "Yaroslav Hunka affair". -- Mhorg ( talk ) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why would the retitle be to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". Is that phrasing used in any sources? I feel like it's a very vague title. glman ( talk ) 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is international news coverage and Poland is now seeking his extradition as a war criminal. MAINEiac4434 ( talk ) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *:Agreed. 170.63.193.132 ( talk ) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , wide-spread international coverage of the subject Crackjack ( talk ) 13:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect either to the "Hunka affair" which doesn't yet exist, or to the article about the current session of Parliament. He's not notable, the kerfuffle around it is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm not opposed to moving the article to cover the scandal, or even making it part of a larger article highlighting Zelenskyy's trip to Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Maybe rename it to "Yaroslav Hunka scandal" or "Yaroslav Hunka controversy"? Sidney.Cortez ( talk ) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This subject meets WP:GNG as it stands through the sources provided in the article (although I'm open to a discussion of a title change in the talk section here). A note to the closer, this deletion discussion has been discussed off wiki on various social media platforms, such as [ [20] ]. User:Let'srun 15:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure what outside discussion has to do with this. WP:BLACKMAIL is not a good argument. glman ( talk ) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm in favor of keeping the article, the last thing we should be doing is making our decisions based on what far-right provocateurs think. MAINEiac4434 ( talk ) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He has received international notoriety and coverage. Hunka is now a public figure. Evans1982 ( talk ) 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) ---- [ reply ] Redirect to a new page on the event, or on the trip to Canada. I agree with the nominator, policy WP:1E applies. However, the event seems notable. I'm not sure we've shown that it's lasting effects, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. Could we roll it into an article about the visit as a whole? At least until we have evidence it's an event with sustained effects? Lots of arguments in the comments that to not reference any Wikipedia policy. glman ( talk ) 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep . While the recent incident has certainly put the spotlight on him, he has a well-documented history and as apparently had a leadership role among the Nazi-collaborator Ukrainian veterans in Canada. Given the integral role that he's played in this national and international event, his bio is deserving of inclusion. Note that, following this event, Poland may seek his extradition on war crimes charges. [21] - 2003:CA:8707:C60:1E85:2D36:7F42:DCF4 ( talk ) 16:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] :I went to several news sites trying to figure out how easy his involvement with the SS was. I found it in this article. I would be very concerned about this article being deleted. While I agree that he has achieved national notoriety for the one event, is irrelevant. It appears that a very superficial vetting of this person would find concerns. Don't hide this information. 96.30.130.38 ( talk ) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He is the subject of a notable international incident and Canadian political scandal. This article should be kept, either as one about him or about the affair. DrOwl19 ( talk ) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . the incident and the person has now made international news and can be cited on multiple reliable sources. Anvib ( talk ) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename . The incident is notable at least as part of Rota's biography, but the person is not necessarily notable. There were more notable members of SS Galizien living in Canada and the US. Also, it's a curious cultural phenomenon: Canada accepted many of the SS Galizien veterans in the aftermath of WWII, but the headlines appear only 70 years later. -- Amakuha ( talk ) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "Honorary Citizen" of a Ukrainian town and a philanthropist. So narrowly notable. -- Amakuha ( talk ) 17:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the 1st and to date only Nazi SS officer honoured in Canada's Parliament, during a high profile visit by the Ukrainian PM during the war with Russia, and the subject of international news coverage- he is very notable. -- TheTruthiness ( talk ) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Rename/Merge . Deletion of this article would be politically motivated in my view. I would like this to be kept or renamed/merged into something like the "Hunka Affair" etc. This is a major scandal in Canada and has had international ramifications now that it appears that Poland is seeking this individual's extradition. TheEpicGhosty ( talk ) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Move . This individual is only notable for one event, and as per WP:1E , the general rule is to cover the event, and not the person. If anything, this should be covered under an article about the event. Mr. No Funny Nickname ( talk ) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "only notable for one event". That is not exactly true, it appears he has been in the media before at least in Canada; there are other sources from 2022 which noted his presence at protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anvib ( talk ) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While the subject may not have been very notable on his own for his actions during the war, the politization of him in recent times has definitely made him notable enough to keep. At the very most, this article should be renamed/recentered around the events that took place in Canada and not in Europe. EytanMelech ( talk ) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though renaming or moving to a “Hunka controversy “ article would be acceptable. Both the man and the controversy over his being honored in the Canadian Parliament are notable. His individual case, which may extend to war crimes charges and trial, and the history of the SS Galizien division as a whole are complicated and nuanced. A rational, sourced article that can help shed light on them is of significant value. Brons ( talk ) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for tapping the wrong level of reply 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Brons ( talk ) 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep or Rename . It's especially become notable now with the Speaker resigning as a result of the event. Either move to new article or keep the article as is.  : Emkut7 ( talk ) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep : It is important not to delete history, especially a chapter as pertinent as this 101.78.67.231 ( talk ) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree with above, deleting this article is trying to sweep the event under the rug as a political move. People deserve to know who was honoured by the Canadian parliament. There are plenty of secondary sources even without the controversy to substantiate Hunka's notability. Deathying ( talk ) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep but note how many people visit the page. If the visit count is sufficient, then retain longer term as important. User:meteorquake — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the comments of User:GLORIOUSEXISTENCE . Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 19:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Managed to single handedly destroy the political career of the canadian speaker. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 19:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep . Wikipedia has plenty of articles about people who are known for one or few things - someone which is at the heart of a national/international political "incident" figures relatively high-up in the "encyclopaedia-worthy" list. Whilst Mr Hunka may have become famous for the incident, it does not appear as if that is his only history-worthy fact, given that by definition there may well be citeable research in the near future into his actual contribution to the war/his biography between the war and showing up in the Canadian parliament. Peter Kelford ( talk ) 19:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply for the following reasons: Hunka was the central figure in the event, rather than being only incidentally involved. The controversy occurred in large part due to Hunka's overall biography and personal history, rather than some specific action he took during his visit to the Canadian Parliament. The reporting on Hunka in many cases covers his entire life as relevant to the central controversy rather than merely for color. Many journalists have focused specifically on Hunka's past and thus his life story has now become notable, even if he only originally gained widespread public attention due to his Canadian Parliament appearance. Hunka has been profiled as an individual in both Canadian and international media. Hunka has become involved in other events beyond his initial appearance at the Canadian Parliament. The Polish government has publicly announced that it is investigating him and may seek to extradite him to Poland. This constitutes another event in which Hunka has been implicated and of relevance to this article. Accordingly, the article should be kept and not moved to another name referring only to a single incident. D. Benjamin Miller ( talk ) 19:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1. Anthony Rota is the central figure. 2. seems to contradict your 1 if the subject’s actions at the event were not central. He’s in the news because the speaker acknowledged him; not because he was a person present at the event, and not because he’s one of the one of the Canadian immigrants who’d been members of the Galicia Division. 3. The biography seems to be based on one blog post by the subject, reporting about the blog post, and incidental mentions elsewhere. 4. Here’s the crux: is there any SIGCOV from before the current event? 5. One Polish minister tweeted. I’m not aware that the Polish government announced anything.   — Michael Z . 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per

keep

General order: Unless someone can improve this, perhaps a redirect will suffice for now? To Operations order , perhaps? Or better, to Military order (instruction) , which seems to be the parent topic? (Btw, if anyone cares for those topics both operations and the military order are very poor, barely referenced, and all fail to show WP:GNG , although common sense suggests that at least the general concept of a military order is notable, and I'd not be surprised to find out that general and operations have stand-alone notability as well - but until that is shown with sources, some redirecting may be in order (pun not intended), also given that 99% of the content is unreferenced and possibly WP:ORish in all of these articles :( ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep: Given your comment that you think [t]his might be notable , I presume you did not follow WP:BEFORE and conduct a search, so I ! vote to procedurally keep this article without prejudice to opening another AfD if this topic proves to be not notable. If my assumption is wrong, please correct me. As an independent reason for my procedural keep, deletion is not for cleanup and since the proposal here is to redirect, the proper course would have been to boldly blank and redirect , rather than open a deletion discussion. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 02:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) ; striking per TompaDompa 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability , notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources . and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability ). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential merges and redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED : If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Favor keep : It is a terminology in actual use, but the desired acceptable proof may lie elsewhere. I may have contributed to that article in the course of dumping general knowledge . knoodelhed ( talk ) 21:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I find myself somewhat one the border between a keep and a merge. Fundamentally, I think there's a broad-concept article to be written here. For one, searching google scholar for " "general order" military " gives quite a lot of results. While most are about specific general orders, there are also some about the limitations of such order. See e.g. Hiromoto, Lee (2021). "No, Sir: Can a Military Doctor Be Prosecuted for Refusing an Order from the President?" (PDF) . Penn State Law Review . 125 (2). ISSN 1545-7877 . . It also appears to be discussed in the abstract in some textbook-style texts, such as Tutherly, Herbert Everett (1898). Elementary Treatise on Military Science and the Art of War . . That said, broad-concept articles are notoriously difficult to write and I can't help but wonder whether at the present a merger into Military order (instruction) would result in a stronger, more coherent article . Even if merged, I naturally would not oppose separating the relevant content into a dedicated article down the line when the amount of content so dictates. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As in many other AFDs, the choice seems between relisting and closing as No consensus. I'll try one relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See Special:Allpages/General_Order for a list of articles about individual general orders, both real and fictitious. References from these other articles which might improve this article. The term "general order" is also used by regulatory agencies. See General Order 32 for an order from the Federal Communications Commission , and Potato General Order, Man Reg 123/2000 for Manitoba's Potato General Order. See this Supreme Court of Canada case for a discussion of General Order 162 of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and General Order T-40 of Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep As per my comment above, I think there's an article to be written here, and my uncertainty is more about whether at the present a merger would result in a stronger article. That discussion, however, can be held at the article talk page down the line if someone feels strong enough to start it. Thus, in the absence of any good reason to ! vote anything else, I'll mark myself down as a weak keep. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 13:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep without prejudice to a merge down the road (in either direction) per Ljleppan. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:40, 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

Yemisi Ransome-Kuti: Shellwood ( talk ) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify for improvement. I see press coverage stretching back years in a Google news search and a Google book search, enough to suggest a strong GNG pass. Our current article is not well written but deletion is not cleanup and the subject seems notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific source assessment would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG, also, indeed, AfD isn't for articles that just need cleanup. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 14:31, 4 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

Anbe Vaa (TV series): Tirishan ( talk ) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Delete or Keep The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future. -- P.Karthik.95 ( talk ) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source 1 is routine coverage that talks about an actress' participation in the serial Source 2 is routine coverage that talks about an actress' participation in the serial Source 3 is routine coverage on the serial starting Source 4 is tabloid coverage spammed with actor pictures and is about the serial starting Source 5 is routine updates on actor joining Source 6 is routine updates on actress leaving This is all mainly starting fluff/hype, and coverage does not extend to this point in time. Please elaborate on these 'important updates' too. None of this shows how the serial is notable for Wikipedia Karnataka ( talk ) 15:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 12 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! 23:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We don't seem to have a straightforward guide on soaps. All I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Notability standards . That makes some reference to coverage of soaps. Ultimately, we need to understand that the way media covers soaps is different than the way media covers other TV shows or film, it's all character and cast updates and so on. There seems to be what amounts to SIGCOV for a soap in Tamil language in The Indian Express , which is reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES — siro χ o 00:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think some participants above may be overinterpreting WP:SIGCOV , which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. In other words, significant coverage does not mean extraordinary or remarkable coverage, it just means coverage that has enough depth that it can be used as source material without violating WP:NOR . I am a bit confused by the above discussion of sources, as there are currently only three cited in the article and on review of the history it doesn't seem that any have been removed. But taking it as given that at least six such sources exist, it seems like this would comfortably meet the GNG. Moreover, I think it meets the GNG even if relying only on the sources adduced above and in the article. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:21, 28 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

Lisa McKenzie: She certainly fails WP:PROF . (I suspect the article is out of date -- I don't think she is employed by Durham anymore, and I'm not sure she's employed as an academic anywhere.) There is of course a bit of coverage regarding her arrest, but not enough to satisfy WP:PERP . Most of the sources are not secondary; there's too much use of sources authored by her. I don't think we need this one. Nomoskedasticity ( talk ) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Nomoskedasticity ( talk ) 17:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Have changed my ! vote based upon what others have found and added to the article. Delete per nom . Clearly, notability has not been shown. A search turned up nothing but a mention here and there about the subject or her children. Very few secondary sources found and not enough to show notability. − AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There are a few reviews of her Policy Press book. (1) Guillaume, Céile. Revue Française de Science Politique , vol. 66, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1049–51. JSTOR , http://www.jstor.org/stable/44122354. Accessed 26 Oct. 2023. (2) link (3) link . Suspect it's not enough for an WP:NAUTHOR pass, but editors with more knowledge about academic reviews will have to chime in. Suriname0 ( talk ) 18:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Politicians , Women , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep her book has multiple reviews and a high citation count for this field (over 500) which means she is close to the bar to pass NAUTHOR or by an academic criterion. Taking this together with her political activism and her coverage there paints a picture of multiple independent pillars of notability adding up to a weak keep. Each by itself would not sufficient but taking together it seems they are. -- hroest 19:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Her book Getting by: Estates, class and culture in austerity Britain has 579 citations in GS and several reviews, and another research paper has >100 citations; there are also multiple independent sources covering her activism and political candidacy already in the article. ETA: She is still an academic, now at the University of Bedfordshire [7] . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Espresso Addict : So, which notability standard does she meet, in your view? e.g., which component of PROF? Nomoskedasticity ( talk ) 06:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [For some reason your ping did not go through.] A mixture of WP:PROF by citations in a niche area, WP:AUTHOR by reviews, plus GNG by other coverage, but fundamentally how does it improve the encyclopedia to delete this article on an unsual case of a working-class woman in academia? Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have updated the article to show her current status as senior lecturer at the University of Bedfordshire, which the nominator didn't find. Appears clearly notable - articles about her, as well as by, in The Guardian, etc. Pam D 07:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment My expansion of the article to discuss Lockdown Diaries was removed by the deletion proposer with the complaint that it relied on primary sources. Tagging with {{ cn }} or similar might have been more constructive, in the spirit of working to improve the encyclopedia as opposed to being keen to get rid of this article. I don't think the Middlesex uni news item can be called primary, but anyway have reinstated the paragraph, added a new independent source and reused one which was used elsewhere. Pam D 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I added seven published reviews to her 2015 book (the three linked above and four more) and two more of a 2017 co-edited volume. If we had that many reviews in total of two authored books it would be enough for me. The "articles about her" in the Guardian appear to be routine election coverage of a type that would not appear to pass WP:NPOL . Which leaves only the "Cereal Killer" affair, which by itself would not pass WP:BIO1E . But adding it all together I think she squeaks by. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have added her Scopus profile to her wikidata record: [8] ; it provides further evidence of a healthy number of academic citations. Coupled with secondary book reviews identified above, and further coverage in WP:RS then I consider this a pass. Resonant Dis tor tion 12:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . If memory serves, the late DGG used to advise the following threshold for humanities/social studies PROF 1 test: at least 2 books by solid commercial or academic publishers. Getting By would seem to be one of these. However, McKenzie seems to be at least mid-career, but does not have a publication record that clearly places her above the average professor in this sense. Much of the article is about her political activism, for which she is not notable. I presume this article will be kept, which I think reflects the notability standards have eroded considerably over time. 128.252.172.17 ( talk ) 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Going by the book-review standard alone, this would be a borderline case, with considerations pointing in different directions. On the one hand, one of the books has well over the minimum number of reviews we'd ask for. On the other hand, the other two books are an edited collection and a co-edited volume. Having coverage of other things pushes in the direction of a keep. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:05, 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

Lighthouse Beach, New South Wales: I couldn't find any sources either. EternalNub ( talk ) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . EternalNub ( talk ) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources Delete Reywas92 Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY Reywas92 Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Needs adoption, not deletion. SportingFlyer T · C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.) SportingFlyer T · C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 12:03, 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

Third Junior & Senior High School of Nihon University: 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Japan . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 16:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] COMMENT: Even though I as nominator have decided to keep the article we are NOT CLOSING this discussion for the time being as we are waiting for input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo . 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A quick Google News search for the school's Japanese name brings up well over 30,000 results. Google Books also brings up quite a few results. While I haven't gone through them all, unless the nominator has , there's little doubt that this is a highly notable high school affiliated with Nihon University . WP:GLOBAL is relevant here. DCsansei ( talk ) 15:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DCsansei I can't translate those pages so i'll have to take your word for it, but could you provide a source analysis table to better show how some of them meet GNG? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 15:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] With due respect, you're supposed to do a search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. As it notes: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." If you haven't done this and reviewed the literal tens of thousands Japanese-language sources about a high school in Japan, then it seems that this nomination is premature. DCsansei ( talk ) 15:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did a google search, the minimum search expected is ONE of the ones you listed not ALL, and the google search ended up with no Reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 18:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Personally I would have conducted at least single search with the official English name and a separate search with the Japanese name, as reliable sources are more likely to be numerous in Japanese. Also, there may be variant English names in which the Japanese name is translated differently. Anyway, I asked for help at ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo to get input from Japanese editors on how to find reliable sources for this topic. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 23:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ WhisperToMe Thanks, after looking at the Japanese article I no longer feel this article should be deleted, but the Japanese article is cited for insufficient references from reliable sources, & I can't read Japanese so I would have no Idea weather or not a source is even about the school let alone if it is reliable. I am not going to google translate every single link I click on when looking for sources, so hopefully someone on that noticeboard will be able to help. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 16:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have translated a few pages & added them to the article. Hopefuly we will get feedback from the ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo on where to find reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 14:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 16:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We already have decided to keep the article(as nom) but we are NOT CLOSING it, due to waiting for input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo , we want to get as reliable sources as we can, as we don't speak japanese & are not from japan so we don't know which sources are truly reliable, we have found a few with significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please remember ! voting in this Discussion has been put on Hold as we are Waiting for Input from ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo , you are welcome to list any sources(preferably in Japanese) with significant coverage that seem reliable. And we will Verify with ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 ( talk ) 17:54, 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

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College: Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 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 Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才（楊殷有娣）書院 特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院（下稱優才）為直資一條龍學校，小學初小部（小一至小三）位於旺角校舍，高小部（小四至小六）及中學部（中一至中六）則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是，優才以推動資優教育見稱，校名英文縮寫G.T.，G代表Gifted，即與生俱來的天賦；T是Talent，表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華，因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。" From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children." Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰｜直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部　5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance｜Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部共有兩個校舍，小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街，高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦，多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式，老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組，每班6組、每組約4人，不同科目也採用此形式上課。" From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class." Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名 校長分享3大面試貼士 小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [ zh ] . Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一，學校推行獨特的教學模式，及深受家長喜歡小班教學，以每級5班、每班不超過26人，每年提供約130個小一學位，平均27人爭1學位，競爭非常激烈。本周六（13日）為2024／25年度小一報名日期，陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時，分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校，逾九成學生直升中一，而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試（DSE）及國際預科文憑（IB）雙軌課程，小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下，可充分享受校園學習生活。" From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life." Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校｜優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程 特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School｜G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中，更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面，學校前年出了3位IB狀元，在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11，香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗：有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中，該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績，能入讀心儀大學及課程，" From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages ​​such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice." "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools" . South China Morning Post . 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15 . Retrieved 2024-05-15 . The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College ( traditional Chinese : 優才（楊殷有娣）書院 ; simplified Chinese : 优才（杨殷有娣）书院 )) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply , promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) . According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , a non-profit educational institution like G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which this school does. Cunard ( talk ) 08:33, 16 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! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A very decent search of sources by Cunard. I personally have some doubts on the reliability of Sundaykiss (as well as all outlets of New Media Group [ zh ] ), but the other sources from Hong Kong Economic Journal , HK01 , am730 , and South China Morning Post are fine and all demonstrated notability of the school. I disagree with Timothy's claims that the sources are based on the same information and are simply for promotional purposes. For instance, the SCMP source was published in 2009, the HKEJ source was published in 2022, while the am730 source was published in 2024, so these sources are very unlikely to be based on the same source of information or sharing the same source materials. Besides, the sources are also obviously covering different topics. For instance, the SCMP source was discussing the schools of the Direct Subsidy Scheme , an educational policy in Hong Kong. The HKEJ source is about gifted education in the school. The am730 source is about the curriculum and academic results of the school in recent years. I think these few sources are quite neutral, at least hardly be considered as advertising the school or whatsoever, and obviously covering different aspects of the school. Moreover, the sources provided by Cunard are also only the tip of an iceberg, as there are in fact a lot more older sources. (For instance, a Sing Tao Daily article in 2015 about the school's public examination results [23] , a TOPick article in 2018 about the school's reform policies on examinations [24] , a Sky Post article in 2018 about the school's extra-curricular activities [25] , a HK01 article in 2019 about the school's application and interview details [26] , a Tai Kung Pao article in 2019 about the school being the first three schools to introduce the Citizenship and Social Development subject [27] , etc.) Therefore, I agree that this article has well passed GNG and fulfilled the requirement of WP:NSCHOOL . — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:02, 31 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

Bruno Maximus: There are mentions and his art is listed for sale in some places, but nothing that talks about him. CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - Unfortunately, I cannot close this myself due to another delete vote so would request an administrator do so when reviewing. At least two editors have found significant coverage to satisfy WP:ANYBIO . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 09:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, it's perfectly understandable that you'd not find the coverage identified during this AfD: in my experience, Google really dislikes showing Finnish results unless searching from within Finland, machine translation continues to be abysmal for Finnish and the largest Finnish newspapers have their archives pretty tightly locked :) Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article in Helsingin Sanomat seems to be significant coverage, for example. There are also articles like this one . He's also been presented as artist of the week in Lauantaivekkari on Yle . I've also found shorter articles, like "Bruno Maximus ställer ut verk om Sibelius" in Hufvudstadsbladet in 2016 (perhaps not online?) in the Swedish media archive, an exhibition which also got some coverage elsewhere . These results after a quick search for Swedish and Finnish sources convinces me that our threshold for notability has been reached, and that someone who speaks better Finnish than I do and has better access to Finnish sources should easily be able to expand this article. / Julle ( talk ) 15:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you able to add these by chance? Of course you are not required but it would be a big help since this was originally tagged as an unreferenced BLP. I find plenty of this in English as well which doesn't show notability. The others likely do but I cannot read the language and they are behind paywalls. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd love to see this reflected in the article, but it would really be better if someone else did since my Finnish is abysmally bad; I know there are Finnish-speakers who keep track of Finland-related AfDs who should be able to do a far better job than I would. The point of the page you link to isn't the remaining text content, but that it's presenting the Yle programme Lauantaivekkari; it's not about the page but the installment of Lauantaivekkari which focused on Bruno Maximus. / Julle ( talk ) 20:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact you knew the language was Finnish means you understand it better than I. lol. If someone is able to add to the page and confirm they also feel it suffices for notability I will happily withdraw the nomination. Main goal was to deal with an unreferenced BLP where I couldn't locate anything useful. Thanks for the help. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:ARTIST . He hasn't been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. The article has no references and I cannot find anything to back up the basic biographical information. The only thing of note I found was a page on Helsinki Capital Partners (HCP) https://www.hcp.fi/en/portfolio-item/bruno-maximus/ , but unclear if they are a management company for his work. Certainly not a RS. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on Finnish language sources identified both above and added by myself into the article. Coverage is both broad (from multiple outlets), lasting (spanning decades), and sufficiently in-depth to reach WP:GNG . - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! / Julle ( talk ) 09:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado: Having a separate article to cover the same information is a WP:CONTENTFORK . The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado , which was overwhelming merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado . United States Man ( talk ) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – As a test before article creation/move into mainspace, I copied and pasted the entire section for the Jarrell tornado into my sandbox ( User:WeatherWriter/sandbox ), which came out to 22,500 bytes. The article, pre-AFD was 45,690 bytes. For reference, the article is twice the size of the section, meaning not a clear WP:CONTENTFORK . The article clearly passes WP:NEVENT as well as WP:LASTING , with articles like this and this decades later, specifically on the tornado. Other rational in the nominator's statement involves WP:Other Stuff Doesn't Exist and the nominator specifically brought up the article's creator, meaning they did not focus on content (article) and choose to focus on the contributor (creator) . No clear reason to delete has been provided. This is also a WP:COAL for me, as I think I made my reasoning clear and I do not want to respond to questions or others in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Much of the excess character number comes from the lead section and the "Case studies" section which uses unnecessarily long quotes and could be entirely condensed into one paragraph. Quantity does not equal quality. United States Man ( talk ) 03:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lead section is perfectly acceptable in length, and I will say that the quotes can be sheared down a little bit. It still doesn’t make it a complete content fork, however. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge? Delete? - From what I can tell looking over these articles for the first time, this article is just a regurgitation of what is provided more succulently on the 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak page. The fatalities section in particular is almost identical word for word. If there are new details in this tornado article that were not provided on that outbreak page, they should be merged into the outbreak page. Otherwise, this appears to be an unacceptable content fork and should be deleted. In theory, I'm not against an individual page for the Jarrell tornado, but I think the main outbreak page presents the information so thoroughly that it would be inferior in every case. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 03:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - It is over twice as long, and thus does not meet the criteria to be deleted under Wikipedia:Content forks . MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry for the note again, but the entire section has been fixed and expanded upon further. Feel free to check it out, and there shouldn't be any copyvios there anymore. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 11:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - the main outbreak article is what… 23,000 bytes? This article is over 2 times longer (over 43,000 bytes). Also “more than covers the tornado”? Does it go over national reactions, documentation of the event; including the famous “dead man walking” photo, case studies, and even road names? “More than covers tornado” isn’t a good reason for deletion in this case. Also, no need to bring 2024 Sulphur tornado up in this. Even after removing the “case studies” part that you had talked about, it was still over 4,300 bytes. So that isn’t really an excuse to delete either. This includes the copyvios in the ""fatalities" section, lead length, "case studies" length, among other things. I will continue to work on rewrites as this fine Tuesday progresses. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] one more note , this article has like 10 more images than the main summary, and I oulfnt work with merging, as you can’t merge “documentation” and “case studies” into it. Also, the case studies part is perfectly acceptable, and both sources are confirmed to be Public Domain. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep – One of the most powerful and deadliest tornados in US history. It is also the last EF5 tornado to happen in Texas as of 2014. No reason what so ever to remove. Gengeros ( talk ) 06:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep: The article discusses about a major tornado event in US history. There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. Just expand the page and that would be all. RandomWikiPerson_277 talk page or something 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At ~49k bytes it's enough to stand on its own and the Jarrell tornado itself is the main source of notability for the outbreak article. TornadoLGS ( talk ) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - as far as I can tell, there isn't enough unique information in the article, compared to the outbreak article, which, by the way, is only 6,622 words. The article for the individual article is 4,245 words, but as far as I can tell, there is little, if any information, that isn't already in the outbreak article. Since the article started as a copy and paste, I think whatever unique information that is here should be merged back into the outbreak article, which is already a good article. I'd like to remind other users that article length is based on words, not the number of bytes. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - As of now, this page now has enough information that it would be unreasonable to merge this with the parent outbreak page. I don't see a reason for a delete or even a merge when casual readers will look for a direct page on the topic instead of looking at the outbreak synopsis. humbaba!! ( talk ) 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep as there is enough information in the article to keep it solo. Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 23:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep – There is enough information in this article to stand on its own. Poodle23 ( talk ) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly KEEP - There is more than enough information for this article to stand on its own. It definitely meets WP:Lasting. 12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So yeah, I am very very strongly in favor of KEEPING this article. 12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reiterating, please don’t delete. 12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why on earth is this article even nominated for deletion in the first place??? 12.74.221.43 ( talk ) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Because much of it was copied and pasted from 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak . ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Initially. It’s been heavily improved since then and was assigned as a B-class article. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep I’m surprised Jarrell doesn’t have an article already, that tornado was so significant. It deserves its own article. There are also articles of less destructive tornadoes and other F5/EF5 tornadoes. JulesTheKilla ( talk ) 15:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It previously existed as part of 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak . ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There are numerous comments here arguing to keep the article because of how severe the Jarrell tornado was. The significance of the event is not in question, though. The deletion argument is not based on notability, it is based on being an unacceptable kind of content fork. Even now, the vast majority of the article has just been copy and pasted from the outbreak article, with some minor rewording since this nomination. That does not change the fact that very little information here is distinct. Things that are distinct, such as the dead man walking photograph and case studies surrounding the tornado, can be (and previously were) succinctly described instead of being purposely drawn out to fill out the article. Nobody argues this was a notable tornado. That is also not the point here. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions ) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We’ve already gone over this, the vast majority are still in support in keeping this article, and the fact that people don’t realize it even was a content form says a lot. As of writing this, the article has been expanded enough to not qualify as a content fork, and copyvio-wise the vast majority agree that it is not, as of now, a content fork. Community concensus goes, too. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I do apologize if that came off as aggressive. MemeGod . _. ( My talk page , my contributions and my creations! ) 23:41, 21 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

Katie Beth Hall: The creator of the article removed the Notability tag from a couple editors (including myself), so I thought it'd be worth gaining a consensus one way or the other. Cerebral726 ( talk ) 17:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , and Theatre . Cerebral726 ( talk ) 17:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A lead role on an HBO Max TV show (that's in the Warner vault now because of Discovery) and a Disney+ film covers WP:NACTOR to me. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My concern was that in neither of those was she the lead: While she is in all ten episodes of the HBO show ( Head of the Class (2021 TV series) ), in the Disney+ film ( Home Sweet Home Alone ), her role seems not to be a "significant" role from my reading of the plot summary. Combined with a lack of real WP:SIGCOV , I wasn't sure that Notability was proved with basically one major role. Cerebral726 ( talk ) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Not being sure" is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion. You should be pretty sure before you nominate things for deletion. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are vanity articles or articles created for a flash in the pan. This isn't one of them. No one has even mentioned her 6 episodes on Happy . -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was leaving an opening for humility and acknowledging my ability to be wrong with "not sure". If you like, I "felt confident" that the lack of in depth sourcing was not enough to meet WP:GNG , and that her roles were not major enough to counteract that dearth of SIGCOV. Cerebral726 ( talk ) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The notability test for actors doesn't hinge on the having of roles, it hinges on the depth and quality of reliable source coverage about her and her performances that can be shown to exist in WP:GNG -worthy third party media. Bearcat ( talk ) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the fact that she has multiple notable roles on both the stage and in film/television. This is just deletionist silliness and needs to stop. Kevin Hallward's Ghost ( Let's talk ) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete they all appear to be bit parts, not seeing ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'd say that the Variety and Rolling Stone articles are Sig coverage. She also appeared in Bull , which the article doesn't mention. Her stage role was a leading role, and she appeared in it at the Mitzi Newhouse Theater , which is a major venue. Based also on her recent TV roles, I agree that she is already notable. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article used to mention that role. One of the people trying to delete the article removed it from the article. Kevin Hallward's Ghost ( Let's talk ) 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wanted to make sure I didn't accidentally remove any significant roles during my copy edits, and I couldn't find any revision where Bull was mentioned or removed. It seems maybe it was never mentioned before (though I could've missed it!), so I added in her appearance on an episode of that show. Cerebral726 ( talk ) 13:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Head of the Class (2021 TV series) , which is her only significant role. - the Home Sweet Home Alone role is a minor part. The Rolling Stone piece "significant coverage" consists, in its entirety of, "young Kim (still played by Katie Beth Hall, with her hair pulled partially back, but not yet in the full power- ponytail of adult Kim)". The Variety piece is a nice one. But the only coverage which could be considered more than a trivial mention. Onel 5969 TT me 21:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE : Those advocating for deletion have been denigrating Hall's role in Home Sweet Home Alone as some kind of bit part akin to "kid in the background" or something. So I just watched the film and noted her lines and screentime. Depending on how you figure it, she has 20+ lines of dialogue and 10+ minutes of dedicated screentime in the film. Her character is an important supporting character in the film and not some bit part. Kevin Hallward's Ghost ( Let's talk ) 16:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't call 10 minutes of total dialogue an an hour and a half movie as significant, it's about 10%. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would call it a significant supporting role. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the inclusion test for actors does not hinge on the having of roles per se. The "significance" of a role is not measured by arguing about how much screen time she did or didn't have, or how many lines of dialogue she did or didn't have — it's measured by the amount of WP:GNG -worthy media coverage that her performance did or didn't generate in reliable sources . A person can be the top billed star of a movie and still not pass NACTOR if the film itself doesn't pass NFILM, because an actor isn't notable if reliable sources didn't write about the film or the actor's performance in it — because it's not the amount of screen time the person did or didn't have that distinguishes an NACTOR-passing role from an NACTOR-failing role, it's the amount of media coverage that the person's performance did or didn't receive . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Head of the Class (2021 TV series) as an AtD. I see one IS RS with SIGCOV (1.   Lemon, Brendan (December 10, 2018).  "Katie Beth Hall: Teen Actor".  Lincoln Center Theater. Retrieved April 8, 2023) The rest of the sources and BEFORE showed promo, mentions, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV for a BLP. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Mitzi E. Newhouse Theatre is part of the Lincoln Center Theater (see e.g. Playbill , 2018), so the 2018 "Katie Beth Hall: Teen Actor" Lincoln Center Theater source does not appear to be independent. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage in Variety — "‘Head of the Class’ Reboot at HBO Max Casts Katie Beth Hall," — plus Timothy's items above seems to get us over the Notability threshold. Carrite ( talk ) 16:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Hall's role in Better Call Saul was also "significant" (see WP:ENT ) and attracted significant coverage; a few more sources have been added to the article, and I think it should be re-assessed as a "start" article now. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 02:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the fact that they have different roles in various television series. Just because they aren't a "big name" actor, that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a page. Justwatchmee ( talk ) 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - it appears WP:TOOSOON based on available sources to support WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC notability. A 2021 Hollywood Reporter review of the first three episodes of Head of the Class (2021 TV series) mentions "Eventually the group is joined by the seemingly more popular Sarah (Katie Beth Hall), daughter of the school’s terrifying principal", and "Escalona and the expertly snarky Hall — Young Kim Wexler from Better Call Saul — can sell any punchline, however broad" but otherwise states, "the show is probably more likely to offer select memorable elements — Gomez and Escalona, particularly — than to be uniformly memorable." Hall is not listed as having a starring role in a 2021 AV Club review , although she is mentioned ("by the second episode, viewers are introduced to Sarah (Katie Beth Hall), a.k.a. Principal Maris’ daughter and a possible love interest for one of the other students.") The Bleeding Cool review in the article also does not present her as a lead character. The Variety announcement noted above seems promotional and less supportive of notability in light of the reviews and how the show was cancelled after one season. As to her other work, a role in two episodes of Better Call Saul seems demonstrably not significant, and more so based on the limited secondary coverage - the sources in the article are the Den of Geek blog, the Slashfilm blog, and ComingSoon.net website. Reviews of The Hard Problem at the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theatre are collected by Playbill in 2018, and her role is mentioned in a Hollywood Reporter review without specific commentary about her performance, and noted in the New York Times as: "The cast — which also includes Nina Grollman, Tara Summers and Katie Beth Hall (as a little girl who looks a lot like Hilary) — exudes an easygoing smoothness even when plowing through the stoniest fields of metaphysics", but reviews otherwise seem focused on lead actors e.g. Vulture ; Newsday ; The Wrap . Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable. Jack1956 ( talk ) 22:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC . The Variety article is focused and in-depth, covering career highlights, and the article in its current state contains several quotes from independent reviewers commenting on her performances (e.g. in The Hollywood Reporter ), which is just enough to establish notability beyond simply stating that she was cast or played in those roles. Suggest this article is expanded further with an infobox and filmography section. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 16:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG, given the weight of some of the sources - Variety being the pretty much enough on its own, but backed up with the others there's enough there. - SchroCat ( talk ) 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Variety source announces she has been cast in the reboot pilot, lists the lead actress and other cast members in the show, briefly describes what the "rebooted series revolves around", has two brief sentences describing her role, one sentence describing previous "appearances", one sentence listing her agents, and two grafs about the show generally. Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Variety article's headline proclaims her casting, followed by a gigantic photo of her, and three paragraphs about her. That's SIGCOV. To argue otherwise defies reality. 3 reviews praised Hall's work in Better Call Saul , one specifically ranking her scene as one of the whole series' "Best Cold Opens". The Cinema Blend article has a whole section about her. The Screen Rant article is also primarily about Hall, mentioning her name 9 times and praising her earlier work. Plenty of coverage. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beccaynr, It's generally considered good practice to ping people when replying to one of their comments - I only came back by chance and found you had commented. I am entirely aware of what the Variety article contains: I read it before making my comment; it is also only one of several articles on which I have based my ! vote, which I make clear in my comment. - SchroCat ( talk ) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comment is about a source discussed by multiple participants in this discussion, and generally echoes the comments above by Bearcat , because there does not appear to be support for WP:ENT notability based on having had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." From my view, there is limited support for WP:BASIC notability from e.g. 3 sentences in the CinemaBlend blog ("The actress might be best remembered for her one-episode guest spot on Better Call Saul, where she played Young Kim in the “Wexler v. Goodman” episode from 2020"), and Screenrant , which cites Variety as its source, repeats the Variety announcement in two sentences, describes her role "important" and later states "Hall has demonstrated her acting prowess in shows like Happy! and Bull. So now, her fans must really be looking forward to her take on the challenging character in the new show." From my view, without WP:ENT clearly supported, WP:BASIC notability needs stronger support from secondary sources than what appears to be available. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) (replying to this version [1] Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Yes, you've posted twice on the point now, and I don't think anyone is in doubt of your position. There is no right or wrong answer in weighing these up, but my judgement is that there are sufficient sources of sufficient weight. - SchroCat ( talk ) Keep - has enough references to meet GNG. 1keyhole ( talk ) 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per the source analysis by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 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

Charade (1953 film): I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes ] and only passing mentions on Newspapers.com . I continued my WP:BEFORE and found a capsule review from Leonard Maltin via Google Books , and capsule reviews are considered “insufficient to fully establish notability” per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well there's all of the stuff about this film in Hirschhorn 1977 , pp. 26, 108–110 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHirschhorn1977 ( help ) to start with. And maybe Morley 1989 , p. 89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorley1989 ( help ) has something about this. Craddock 2000 , p. 195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCraddock2000 ( help ) has an entry. Then there are detail sources like Barlow 2004 , p. 83 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarlow2004 ( help ) . Uncle G ( talk ) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hirschhorn, Clive (1977). The Films of James Mason . Citadel Press. ISBN 9780806505848 . Morley, Sheridan (1989). James Mason: Odd Man Out . Orion Publishing Group. ISBN 9780297793236 . Craddock, Jim (2000). "Charade". Video Hounds Golden Movie Retrievee: The Complete Guide to Movies on Videocassette, DVD and Laserdisc . Visible Ink Press. ISBN 9781578591206 . Barlow, Aaron (2004). The DVD Revolution: Movies, Culture, and Technology . Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 9780313024535 . To which one can at least add Focus on Film Films in Review So obviously Keep ! - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I would be shocked if we're getting rid of any part of James Mason's filmography. Kazamzam ( talk ) 15:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per WP:NFIC : "The film features significant involvement [...] by a notable person and is a major part of their career." James Mason played one of the leads in all three segments and was also producer and writer. -- Bensin ( talk ) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 10:01, 20 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

Mark L. Ascher: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators . Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 22:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Simply being an orphan for a long time is not a valid rationale for deletion. The subject appears to pass WP:NPROF #5 as a named chair (actually, multiple named chairs). Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve, the subject of the article meets notability criteria for professors per Curbon7's note above. It seems they have two named chairs. Netherzone ( talk ) 23:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the above, this guy is so known in his field that his textbook is named after him ( Scott and Ascher on Trusts ). -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as above. The nominator, who has been editing for less than two months, might like to study WP:Before . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Being an orphan is no grounds for deletion. As others have pointed out the multiple named chairs meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 21:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I fleshed out the article some. Still needs work. A Google search turned up wide coverage, including in law reviews. Meets notability criteria for professors as cited above and passes WP:GNG . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 22:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

List of Father Brown episodes: Possible WP:ATD would be merge/redirect to Father Brown (2013 TV series)#Episodes , but would probably unbalance that article. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , and United Kingdom . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is an extremely common type of page that is used very widely on Wikipedia for television series with many seasons' worth of episodes. There's no way to establish that the concept "episodes of the program" is covered in reliable sources, as separate from the program itself. It's a notable show, and this is an ordinary split that keeps the article on the show at a reasonable length. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , if a show is notable (and this one is), then it is perfectly acceptable and allowed to split off the episodes into their own page if them being on the page of the show makes it too large to navigate...which I feel like you are saying when you say that a merge would "probably unbalance that article", which it would. Donald D23 talk to me 21:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see you first tried to delete this page a couple of times, and were reverted. I have a little bit of experience in this area with both American and British television shows. I've made it my goal to source those episodes where I can find the sourcing. And I agree with the advice given above - if a show is notable, the episodes are split off, and often without sourcing. These types of lists go way back to early television, where sourcing is often extremely hard to find. But that doesn't mean the shows were not notable. It's just one of those phenomenons we have to work around, and source them when we can. — Maile ( talk ) 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If this episode guide is deleted then nearly every other guide would go. The summaries are short and only if individual episodes pages were created would you need longer plot summaries and ideally real world information. See MOS:TVPLOT REVUpminster ( talk ) 23:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Episode list for notable shows have always been considered acceptable on Wikipedia. A valid WP:spinout article. D r e a m Focus 02:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , deleting episode lists of notable series would require a more general guidelines discussion, because this kind of WP:SUBARTICLEs have always been acceptable. Killarnee ( talk ) 01:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Burdickville, Rhode Island: – dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island . – dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found this reference: "Burdickville: Rhode Island Blueways" . exploreri.org . Retrieved 2023-05-07 . Google Maps shows Burdickville with boundaries, not just as a point, and there is a Burdickville Road. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography . While it did exist, it does not appear to have ever had official recognition and does not satisfy WP:NGEO . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I found a "census" listing from 1885 which named this as a town. Also, the presence of the dam would indicate a mill of some sort in the past. That siad the documentation is extremely scanty. Mangoe ( talk ) 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I found some additional sourcing and content to add. if anyone has free newsbank access, the original of that Aug 23, 1931 article I cite can be pulled, as well as others, it looks like at [16] . -- Milowent • has spoken 17:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep population of 52 in the 1865 Rhode Island census [17] . A mill was operated there earlier in the 19th century [18] . Jahaza ( talk ) 00:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sourcing identified by Milowent, especially the Providence Journal article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 02:38, 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

Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration: Coddlebean ( talk ) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : WP:CSK #3. Those three articles are obviously about different topics. Li Keqiang Government refers only to the composition of the State Council of the People's Republic of China after the 12th (2013-2018) and 13th (2018-2023) National People's Congress . China under Xi Jinping covers the socio-political governance and influence of China during Xi's chairmanship, which extends past 2023 as Xi remains Chairman after the 14th National People's Congress. The subject article is about the Fifth Generations of Chinese leadership , which is a common term coined for categorizing distinct periods of communist leaderships and inherited from the Hu–Wen Administration . In other words, the article is about political institutions of China during the combined rule of Xi and Li from the period 2013-2023, which discusses the distribution and swift of power between Xi and Li during their governance. A simple BEFORE already shows the broad usage and actual meaning of this term , and the nominator (once again) did not provide a deletion rationale grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : as above. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per Prince of Erebor. Agree that WP:CSK #3 applies. Sal2100 ( talk ) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Li Keqiang Government is the Central People's Government of China from 15 March 2013, when Premier Li Keqiang took office, until March 2023 , while Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration is the administration of China from 2013 to 2023 . Both articles list the State Council members, and do little else; it's not obvious that the articles should not be merged. (I agree that China under Xi Jinping is clearly very different). Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walsh90210 : Not really, they are quite distinctive. The key difference is that the subject article includes details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li, which Li Keqiang Government would and should not cover. Another distinction is that the discussion/analysis of this term usually focuses on the power shift from a more equally distributed structure to one more heavily leaning towards Xi, as well as the conflicts between Xi and Li's policies and governance. This is clearly differentiated from Li Keqiang government again, which solely covers the administrative structure of the State Council. Rather than a merge, this article requires an expansion. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 05:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think I lean towards merging this article with Li Keqiang Government . Either title is fine, but these are quite redundant. I don't see why details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li cannot be included in Li Keqiang Government . What bothers me more is the title. Shouldn't this be at Xi–Li Administration , per the Chinese name and Hu–Wen example given above? Toadspike [Talk] 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike : I beg to differ. The term "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" (習李體制) has both broad and specific usage. (See Radio Free Asia [31] , Radio Taiwan International [32] , and academic journals from Journal of East Asian Studies [33] , Peterson Institute for International Economics 's Policy Briefs [34] , etc.) Merging (/redirecting) it to Li Keqiang Government would not be helpful unless there is a whole subsection explaining the nuances. However, the discussion of power shifts and struggles would cause the focus to swift more towards describing Xi Jinping's political influence, rather than Li Keqiang, and the article would digress (similar to the corresponding article in zhwiki where Xi was given significantly more content). So I do not think merging X–L Administration into Li Keqiang Government would be a good option. Instead, Wen Jiabao Government currently does not exist, and articles mentioning Wen Jiabao Government is pipe-linked to Hu-Wen Administration , which makes more sense, as the discussion of power distribution is broader than just the composition of the State Council. However, whether Li Keqiang Government should be redirected to X-L Administration is another discussion at another time, and this current AFD is not going in the right direction as it proposes to delete the article that is more worthwhile to be kept. A rename is also unnecessary, since Li Keqiang's successor, Li Qiang , is also surnamed Li, redirecting the article to Xi-Li Administration would cause confusion (I think Xi-Li Administration should be turned into a disambiguation page if Xi Jinping-Li Qiang Administration is created in the future). Given the above, I still think WP:CSK #3 should apply, as the nominator has misinterpreted the subject article's topic (at least everyone in the discussion agrees that the subject article differs from China under Xi Jinping ), and this article clearly has enough notability to exist. Walsh90210 and Toadspike's suggestions of a potential merge of Li Keqiang Government can be done on the article's talk page or in another AFD. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you're saying that "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" is the COMMONNAME and that certain content is appropriate only under that title and not under Li Keqiang Government . In that case, we should merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration . I think your second paragraph agrees with this. Just because AfD is "Articles for Deletion" doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus to merge instead. As for renaming the page, Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration is a redlink. If you are correct that Xi–Li Administration ( 习李体制 ; 習李體制 ; Xí Lǐ tǐzhì ) is the COMMONNAME of the Li Keqiang Administration, and I believe you are, then we should move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration . Once someone creates Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration , we can add a hatnote to that page, but I am fairly certain that right now the Li Keqiang Administration is the primary topic of "Xi–Li Administration" by a wide margin. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify for the closer, my current ! vote is to: Merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration , and Move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toadspike : Yes, you have interpreted my rationales correctly, although I am only suggesting that a merge of Li Keqiang Government article into this article makes more sense. Personally, I still have some reservations, given that both articles are about very different topics. There might also be opinions from other Wikipedians regarding that potential merge, so I think another discussion on Li Keqiang Government is much needed. But since this current discussion is about the fate of X-L Administration, I do not think it is the right place to discuss how to deal with another article, especially since we both seem to agree that X-L Administration is the more notable and worthwhile one to keep (along with some speedy keep !votes agreeing that all three articles are covering different topics). That is why I was suggesting a new and separate discussion for Li Keqiang Government, and this current discussion should be closed as a Keep, since Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration will not be not going anywhere. Regarding the renaming, the sources I listed in this discussion all use the term "Xi Jinping-Li Keqiang Administration", and I think this should be the COMMONNAME (due to more frequent use in reliable sources). But I also found some using the shortened Xi-Li Administration (like The Straits Times [35] and South China Morning Post [36] ), and I do not oppose a rename per WP:CONCISE . The full term could be mentioned in the lead. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

For Want of a Nail: Great for TVTropes, but not WP. Plenty of sources, but all they do is provide examples, which by itself does not confer notability. Perfect example of CARGO. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely could stand improvement, but it is a proverb that has been discussed as such [2] [3] [4] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms uses it as an example of a rhetorical climax . It is also cited as illustrating how to make a sorites using symploce . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, since it was pretty clear that we could prune the example farm and write a sourced analysis with these sources, meaning that we surely are now in the realm of AfD not being cleanup rather than having to blow up everything and start over , I went ahead and did that. It's not a great article by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not TV Tropes either. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is essentially a transplant of a TVtropes article. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 09:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - A well known proverb is very likely a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. "List of every time a well known proverb was referenced", which is what this mess is, is not. I was initially going to suggest just stubifying it by removing the example farm and just leaving in the lead and analysis section, but then I saw those are both completely unsourced. No prejudice against actually creating a genuine article on the topic after deletion, but the current version should not remain. Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Still not a great article, but its now more or less what I had in mind when I was considering suggesting stubifying it. As such, I'm striking my delete vote. Rorshacma ( talk ) 05:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss improvements made during the discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If just an ordinary frequent user is permitted to comment, I would like to see this article kept in. I just used it in communicating with a friend who pulled ancient hand made nails out of an ancestral home in Norway. They were not horse shoe nails, but I thought the proverb was apt just for our amusement. I also did find another source that turned the proverb into an essay on the need for organizations, from armies to corporations, to pay attention to the smallest details to avoid disaster. This is the link in case it can provide substance. https://web.citadel.edu/root/images/commandant/assistant-commandant-leadership/for-the-want-of-a-nail.pdf Perhaps it might also apply to the case of the small cracked insulation tile that doomed the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 (and of course I checked this with Wikipedia just now). 2601:152:4001:4370:CDD3:529D:2E57:8B9F ( talk ) 07:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Well known proverb, meets WP:GNG per sources from XOR'easter . Link farm has been removed. ARandomName123 ( talk ) 06:38, 23 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

Silver Jubilee Government Degree College: Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 02:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've found two newspaper articles, one in The Hindu , and there are a variety of primary sources. The article needs to be cut down, but AFD is not cleanup. I don't think there's serious contention that this tertiary educational institution doesn't exist. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 04:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . English language coverage including several more short articles from The Hindu on ProQuest, puts it right at the edge of GNG, which is what is required here by WP:NSCHOOL . I presume there is also coverage in Telugu. — siro χ o 06:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , India , and Andhra Pradesh . — Karnataka talk 07:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG with new sourcing. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:44, 1 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

Emmymade: Sometimes celebrities may appear in trivial mentions, which doesnt mean they meet WP:SIRS . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Entertainment , and United States of America . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism. BD2412 T 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Food and drink , Internet , Japan , California , and Rhode Island . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Mitchell, Justin (2022-02-09). "A famous YouTube chef tried a beloved Mississippi recipe. The video went viral in hours" . Sun Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-07-14 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article notes: "A popular YouTube and Facebook chef cooked up a beloved Mississippi recipe for her followers, and the video garnered millions of views in just hours after it was published Tuesday. Emmymade, a content creator based in Rhode Island who is known for cooking viral recipes and trying military ration meals from around the world — including the MRE meals from the U.S. — ... The viral cooking star, who also travels to Japan frequently and tries cuisine there for her followers, said the roast was fork-tender and delicious." Landeck, Katie (2023-03-28). "Want to cook something creative? Here are 3 RI influencer chefs with big followings" . The Providence Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-06-02 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article notes: "Emmeline Mayline "Emmy" Cho ... Fun, upbeat and lovely, Emmeline Cho, better known as Emmy, started her YouTube channel in 2010, while she was living overseas in Japan. It started when she posted a video of her using a Japanese candy-making kit and grew from there to her tasting and cooking recipes from all over the world. Now living in Rhode Island, she posts new videos to YouTube twice a week and posts regular updates on Facebook, including regular appearances from her backyard chickens." Lanning, Carly (2015-06-17). "Meet YouTube's greatest foodie, #WCW EmmyMade in Japan" . The Daily Dot . Archived from the original on 2024-07-14 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article notes: "Emmy originally started her channel with the dual intention of combating the loneliness of moving away from home and documenting her adventures as a foreigner living in Japan. She began filming herself thoughts about Japanese snacks, and over time, she has built her channel into an empire of taste-testing and international recipes." "Youtube sensation eats her way through Israel" . The Jerusalem Post . 2013-09-24. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article notes: "After sampling foods from various countries around the world, Youtube sensation Emmy Made in Japan has released a video of herself sampling a selection of Israeli treats. ... Emmy Made in Japan has become a Youtube sensation by filming herself sampling food from all over the world sent to her in packages by subscribers." Blom, Ashley (2017-04-27). "YouTube's 7 Best Food Channels" . Paste . Archived from the original on 2024-07-14 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article notes: "Emmy’s channel is an all-encompassing food channel. She taste tests, she travels, she cooks, she demonstrates kitchen products. Some examples of categories within her amazing channel are “Fruity Fruits,” “Emmy Eats,” “You Ate WHAT?” and other mini-series featuring prison food and outrageous hot dogs. What makes Emmy unique is her clear, gentle voice and honest reviews. When she tastes something terrible, there’s no overdramatic declarations of “gross!” only a furrowed brow and an “Oh, I don’t think I like that.” One viewing, and you’ll be hooked." Less significant coverage: Scrumptious, Julie (2022-01-16). "Fudge the numbers - There are just a few ingredients in this fast and foolproof recipe" . Daily Record . Archived from the original on 2024-07-14 . Retrieved 2024-07-14 . The article provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "I also love Emmymade, the American recipe taster and tester who will give anything a go. She has a lovely easygoing manner and is very honest and realistic about whatever she is making or testing." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Emmymade to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with keeping the article this time. Courtesy ping to BD2412 . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 10:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources have been identified, but the article remains unchanged. It is therefore still unsuitable for mainspace in its current state. BD2412 T 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article passes the GNG with the sources identified by Cunard. The article should be expanded to incorporate those sources but that's not the discussion at AfD, only whether it passes the notability threshold. DCsansei ( talk ) 11:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the article using Cunard's sources and a few others I found. I think she's over the hump on notability. Valereee ( talk ) 13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Anna Leszczyńska (1660–1727): Seems to only have notability due to being a relative of notable people, which seems to be a case of WP:INHERIT . Browsing across the web shown nothing remotely able to give her enough notability to have an article. ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and Poland . ''Flux55'' ( talk ) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . Keep . I cannot find any sources about her, pl wiki article is completely unreferenced and even shorter. I'll AfD it there - there is a small chance someone else will find sources (I'll report here if they do), and, sadly, equal chance folks there will just pile on with 'mother of Polish king has inherent notability' or similar, as Polish wiki is more inclusionist. Oh well, not our problem. PS. Searching more under a name variant "Anna z Jabłonowskich Leszczyńska". Snippet views in [1] suggest potential notability - at least there are several sentences about her, unfortunately mostly not visible, but what I see suggests she was involved in court politics. This snippet mentions she had a strong connection to her son, eventual king. Similar content is in the snippet here; she is called the "real soul of the kings] court". Another snippet where it is said she had a major influence on her son: [2] . Ditto here . While I cannot be sure at this point which of these meet WP:SIGCOV , I think she is notable. PPS. I've added a bit to pl wiki, and can add it here if the article is kept. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:04, 21 February 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! 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . (1) There are wp:disambigation Anna Leszczyńska and another szlachcianka Anna Jabłonowska . (2) Arguments and sources of Prokonsul Piotrus are completely convincing. — Yuri V. ( t • c ) 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep per Piotrus. She is historical figure who played involved in court politics of Poland, Scholars and modern historian called her as "real soul of the kings". 1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 06:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As indicated in the sources provided by User:Piotrus , the coverage of this individual (while not extensive) is certainly not trivial and therefore enough to pass WP:GNG . Marquisate ( talk ) 02:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources adduced above. Has sufficient coverage to support notability. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:31, 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

Grace Wong Kit-cheng: The article states that she is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Macau . If her status as a subnational legislator is verifiable , then she passes political notability . There is one reference, in Chinese, which is http://macaodaily.com/html/2017-05/07/content_1176995.htm . However, a machine translation shows that it makes no mention of the subject. It is a statement by someone else. There is also a draft, so that this article is not a candidate for draftification, but this article appears to have been copy-pasted from the draft, and a history merge will be needed if the article is kept. Both the article and the draft require heavy copy-editing for grammar and usage if they are kept. The draft should be kept for improvement. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Politics , and China . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; since the draft and the main article are near identical, we only need one of the two, and since the text needs extensive work before it will be fit for main-space, draft-space is the right place for it. Deleting the main-space version is the easiest solution. Elemimele ( talk ) 21:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets NPOL - Gov profile ( Eng ). Her Chinese name appears to be "黃潔貞", which is mentioned multiple times in the Macao Daily article. - KH-1 ( talk ) 00:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep status as a legislative council member is verifiable at [1] which is WP:primary but if this is just a question of verifiability and it's not disputed that should be OK. I added the cite to the page. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL . Here are some additional sources showing that she was elected to the Legislative Assembly: [2] [3] [4] . @ Robert McClenon : I imagine the machine translation may have confused you because of a different transliteration.  "Wong Kit-cheng" is evidently a Cantonese transliteration; the pinyin (standard Mandarin) transliteration would be "Huang Jiezhen". — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per WP:NPOL . Agreed with KH-1 and Mx. Granger. CastJared ( talk ) 13:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NPOL . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sourcing provided; nom's mistake identified as confusion regarding transliterations of different languages. I seult Δx parlez moi 18:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Golica TV: A number of unsubstantiated claims, failing WP:GNG . TLA (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovenia . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Golica TV has received considerable national attention. It was awarded the Viktor award as the best local/cable station in 2010, [19] [20] and it was also involved in a fraud widely reported by Slovenian media a few years ago. [21] [22] It is the only Slovenian TV station with a full-day folk music programme. [23] -- TadejM my talk 13:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TadejM A09 | (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per all above. TV with considerable reputation in Slovenia. Svartner ( talk ) 14:04, 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

Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye: Lulakayd ( talk ) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians , Women , Law , and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The person is a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the only female presidential aspirant of the ruling party in the 2023 election. On the view that the article is flattery and promotional, can you outline words or statements that I need to remove? Deborahudo ( talk ) 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : A minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is inherently notable. Princess of Ara 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep — a member of the Cabinet of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. May be promotional but AfD is not for cleanups . Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL as a cabinet minister and has likely has enough coverage for an outright GNG pass; deletion is not cleanup . Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes WP:NPOL ( WP:NSUBPOL ). Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 07:25, 22 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

Northeastern Pennsylvania: No cited sources define NEPA, and sources available online disagree, and are typically tourism advertisements. The sources present only discuss a population spike (retrieved 2014) and three local organizations. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Central Pennsylvania for similar case/context. Proposed Deletion or redirect to Pocono Mountains . Before proposing a redirect to Regions of Pennsylvania I request that you observe that that article is entirely synthesized. GabberFlasted ( talk ) 11:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pennsylvania . GabberFlasted ( talk ) 11:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I found many more sources about this region as a whole than for South Central, though I'm sort of rethinking that one now. I'd note that just because there's not an "official", standardized definition of the region doesn't mean it's "nonexistent" or not notable (see Midwestern United States , etc). This is also a larger area than the Poconos – the Discover NEPA tourism organization maps it as the Endless Mountains and Valley ( Wyoming Valley / Coal Region ) in addition to the Poconos. Some sources include "Northeastern Pa. struggled to recruit and retain skilled employees long before COVID-19" , Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance , Housing, Population and Land Use for Northeastern Pennsylvania , Anthracite's Demise and the Post-Coal Economy of Northeastern Pennsylvania and lots more books and news sources. The article could be reworked not to just summarize what's located there, but I see there's definitely recognition as a region with history beyond a compass direction. Reywas92 Talk 14:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Totally rewriting a reply so excuse any leaps in logic as I forget what I deleted.) Midwestern United States has the distinction of being a census region, which is a very important and well defined metric. Regardless you've swayed me a bit, and I see now that it could be possible to rewrite this from a list of counties and businesses/things within them into a historical-sociological description of a more vague region referencing geographical/cultural points. But I maintain that this can only work if we can identify a through-line or (hesitate to use the word) narrative that would make an article actually cohesive and educational/explanatory. If its a cultural pocket, or was heavily defined by geography and weather incidental to such, or if some event affected this specific region differently than its surroundings, anything to distinguish it. I'd like to see what others think but for now any theoretical closer can discount my ! vote as nom GabberFlasted ( talk ) 15:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Reywas92 rationale and sources. — Ost ( talk ) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft Agree with nom, OR/SYNTH. None of the sources support article subject so this is essentially an unsourced article and is not suitable to stay in mainspace. If this is a notable subject (Reywas92 refs show it may be, but none actually define the subject, [8] or define it significantly different from the article [9] , [10] , [11] ), drafting will provide time to find references with a properly sourced definition of Northeastern Pennsylvania that meets NGEO or GNG. // Timothy :: talk 09:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hutti Gold Mines Limited: No reliable source, no notability. LusikSnusik ( talk ) 11:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , India , and Karnataka . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The coverage (multiple articles in The Hindu ) seems to be enough to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] •Keep- This is Defiantly not an advert, it is well written & well sourced. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 23:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Doesn’t read like an advertisement at all, sources exist and support notability. - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 01:13, 15 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

John Todd Ferrier: No reliable independent sources. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Scotland . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete about all I can find is this [24] , could be the same person, they'd be about 30 yrs old. Sources in the article are primary. Nothing for GNG that I find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b the "Notes" are primary, but if you scroll down, there seem to be quite a few secondary references in the "References" section? Jahaza ( talk ) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahh ok. Since the rest are in off-line sources, I'm not going to ! vote as I can't comment on the quality. I'll change it up above. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I questioned both independence and relability For example "Professor Peter Atkins; Professor Derek J Oddy; Peter Lummel (28 November 2012). Food and the City in Europe since 1800: contains a short blurb sourced to Ferrier himself, i.e., hardly independent source. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In Atkins, Oddy, and Lummel I see 2 mentions in the index- one refers to Ferrier's book "On behalf of the Creatures" and the other mentions the Order of the Cross founded by JTF. Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thankyou for this source- as stated, there seems to be little biographical information about this man who had a role in the history of Christian vegetarianism, so this should be a significant help (words along the line of 'an early publication of his works summarised 8 lectures he delivered...') Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 08:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Some of the sources are kinda fluffy, but a number of the books are (at least partially) accessible on Google Books/Wayback, and at a quick glance, appear to discuss Ferrier's role in the history Christian vegetarianism. The lede could use some work; I think the weird capitalization is making it come across as boosterism. Kalethan ( talk ) 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this- I have started on some clarifications to the lead para... Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Here is a person who founded an 'informal spiritual communion' which has survived over 100 years and who had a role in the history of Christian vegetarianism. Extra refs found and added above the pre-existing ones from Melton, Atkins, Grumett and Calvert(x2), which has allowed expansion of the (renamed) 'Biography' section. Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 08:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the additional relable sources references added to the article that now passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Greg Siegele: The links provided do not meet WP:SIGCOV . One of the cited sources from ABC Australia might have been SIGCOV but it's a dead link. LibStar ( talk ) 06:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, the link is archived here . That said, Redirect to Ratbag Games . Not independently notable. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Video games , and Australia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sigcov in these sources: The Advertiser (not the most reliable name, I know): [13] [14] [15] and many more. Weekend Australian : [16] The Sydney Morning Herald : [17] The Sunday Mail : [18] (more about his company securing a contract) He also has dozens of passing mentions or minor quotes in news articles regarding his company RatBag. I think all these combined establish notability. Merko ( talk ) 22:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Merko Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources Merko found; passes WP:BASIC . Also found a book source that dedicates a chapter to him and how he formed Ratbag Games. PantheonRadiance ( talk ) 08:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hava (musician): Does not appear to have significant coverage from secondary sources. May be notable from chart placements as lead or featured artists. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany . Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] English results are drowned out by Hava Nagila (per above), but I've tracked down some more recent sources in German: EA Sports FC 24: Soundtrack veröffentlicht – Auch deutsche Künstlerinnen und Künstler vertreten KRIEG IN DER UKRAINE: DAS SAGT DEUTSCHRAP "Gucken, aber nicht anfassen": Hava über Dardans Fans I can't speak to their reliability or value to the article, though if anyone speaks German, these may be of use. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 17:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete : The sources provided are not enough for the article but the charting is a start. Fails WP:GNG and passes WP:NMUSICIAN . — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChineseGroundnut ( talk • contribs ) Keep Our notability guidelines WP:MUSICBIO state we may presume notability with a record in national charts. Hava has 13 entries in the German official chart, including a number 1, which is cited in the article and meets WP:GOODCHARTS : GfK . Another example of further secondary coverage: HAVA - "JA SAGEN" . I don't have the language skills for in-depth investigation - however with this sort of charting record I think we can safely presume further secondary sources exist. Note: I've added two more charting singles, including a top 10, to the article. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per ResonantDistortion, appears to pass WP:NMUSICIAN Tehonk ( talk ) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep chart-holders are of public interest and there is some coverage. - Altenmann >talk 21:26, 24 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! 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with nationally charting releases as confirmed in reliable sources such as this , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:36, 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

First International Bank: microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Not to be confused with First International Bank of Israel , I found citation of it being " Largest bank in North Dakota ", so it may be worth keeping it for that reason, although the sourcing could certainly use some improvement. Whosethose ( talk ) 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie 's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst ( talk ) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 18:57, 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

Icelandic equitation: Luiysia ( talk ) 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iceland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi ( talk ) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Currently passes WP:GNG and the article is 12 years old. V.B.Speranza ( talk ) 15:25, 15 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! 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG. Andre 🚐 00:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Pyewacket (novel): Fails WP:BK . SL93 ( talk ) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . SL93 ( talk ) 04:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete content is minimal and does not provide enough information to meet Wikipedia's standards for a comprehensive encyclopedia entry. -- Assirian cat ( talk ) 07:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Lockridge, Richard (1967-11-05). "Cat Tales ...". The New York Times . p.  BR24. ProQuest 118057210 . The review noters: "Rosemary Weir's Pyewacket (Abelard-Schuman, $3.25. illustrated by Charles Pickard) is about a group of varied cats who live in a run-down street called Pig Lane and who, under the leadership of Pyewacket (himself 2 semi-magic cat), decide to evict the humans who also inhabit the street and are inclined to get in the way of cats. The humans do go, although not precisely in accordance with Pyewacket's plan—which involves an alliance with rats. The story for 6 to 9's is ingenious, well-plotted and pretty funny. The cats talk only to one another." "Pyewacket review" . Kirkus Reviews . 1967. p. 1210 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive . The page verifies that Kirkus Reviews reviewed Pyewacket in 1967. Martin, Pat (1968-09-21). "Pat Martin Scans Books for the Young" . Redwood City Tribune . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "For those boys and girls who would like to hear about a coterie of conniving cats, here is one-eyed Pyewacket with his gang, in a most amusing story. Living in Pig Lane, the cats decide to drive out their unworthy owners and so take over the disreputable homes in which they live. When the owners are legally dispossessed, one can understand that the cats are entitled to think their plan is succeeding. What actually happens provides a satisfactory solution and the cats find exactly the spot for a gang of good ratters. The things that make this special are illustrations of Pyewacket by Charles Pickard and a very fine characterization of a very tough cat. (Ages 10-12.)" Van Fleet, Virginia (1968-04-28). "Young Readers: Cat Tale Excellent" . Fort Worth Star-Telegram . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "For all who enjoy cats and their unpredictable antics, "Pyewacket" by Rosemary Weir (Abelard-Schuman, New York, 13.25) will (although it was written for children from 6 to 9; be a delightful tidbit. The story concerns a colony of cats, led by a redoubtable fighter, Pyewacket, whose owners live in shacks in a slum district in a British city, called Pig Lane. ... At their leader's suggestion, they decide to get rid of their people by making a peace treaty with the rats. ... What happens then shouldn't happen to a cat, even a rebel feline, but the author contrives a most ingenious and satisfying solution." Less significant coverage: Blishen, Edward (1967-07-07). "Books for children: History and imagination" . The Guardian . Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "Finally, for younger readers, there's Pyewacket, by Rosemary Weir (Abelard-Schuman, 15s), also about the East End and demolition; the heroes here are cats, who set out to drive the humans from Pig Lane. I take off at once at the behest of almost any fantasy and especially one about cats: but this seemed heavy and calculated, and I just found myself being bumped gloomily along the ground." Article about a sequel: "The World of Books" . Manchester Evening News . 1981-03-06. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25 . Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com . The review is about a sequel. The review notes: "Pyewacket and Son by Rosemary Weir (Grasshopper, 95p). Feline fantasy about a pack of cats who work as rat-catchers in a cat-food factory. Their leader, the one-eyed, torn-eared Pyewacket, declares war on a gang of alley-cats when his son is accused of stealing fish by the workers, How he traps the villains makes a perfectly delightful tale. Magnificent moggy madness." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pyewacket to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Assirian cat What do you think of the new sources? I think that it is enough to show notability. SL93 ( talk ) 08:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Assirian cat can't reply since the cat was taken away by the animal catcher yesterday. Geschichte ( talk ) 04:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Good sources. It is still short enough that it could be merged into an article on the author, but such an article does not seem to exist. Geschichte ( talk ) 03:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : I will withdraw this, now that I see that the one delete voter was banned indefinitely. SL93 ( talk ) 15:05, 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

Torre degli Sciri: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I initially tagged the article as a WP:G11 ; it was declined. I then moved the article to draft for pretty much the same reasons the draft was declined, i.e., lack of sourcing. Although the author submitted the draft to AFC (without doing much beforehand, although they had said they were going to add sources to the admin who declined the G11 - they obviously didn't like the rejection and recreated the article (instead of moving the draft to article space on their own, so now we have two iterations of this page)). I haven't done any WP:BEFORE and so am not voting. -- Bbb23 ( talk ) 15:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - no comment on the author’s behaviour, but I think it’s a keep, [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] . I’ve not done a book search, but pretty sure it’ll have a mention somewhere. I agree it’s woefully sourced currently, but the tower’s age, its status as the only complete surviving such tower in Perugia, and the fact that it’s been the subject of scientific research suggest that it’s notable. KJP1 ( talk ) 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've re-ordered it, toned done the tourism guide POV a bit, and scattered some cites around. An internet search confirms that there are also a range of book sources available. KJP1 ( talk ) 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Are you joking? A medieval building that isn't notable? Clearly notable and meets WP:GNG in any case. Plenty of coverage. Described as a symbol of the city. The nominator has clearly done no searching for sources whatsoever nor bothered to check the Italian Wikipedia article: this is a failure of WP:BEFORE . It's unfortunate that Italy is so dreadful at heritage listing, but in any country with a decent heritage listing system this would be a clear pass of WP:GEOFEAT . However, it does have a basic listing: no. 1172. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m not voting, since I was the one who declined G11. I’m just here to say, Italian Wikipedia has a number of sources cited in the “Bibliografia“ section of the article. The proper task here is to help the newbie author source their new article, not multiple efforts at deletion. -- Y not? 03:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Expand, find sources, rewrite as needed. This is an obviously notable topic. Articles for deletion is not the place for cleanup. It should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 08:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Siheung Daeya station: This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. Significa liberdade ( talk ) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Wonjong station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Keep . The article already has 2 references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] One of which doesn't even mention the station and the other with only a couple paragraphs describing a naming dispute. Did you even read the sources? JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations per WP:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added a few sources regarding expansion of the station. In addition, the sources I supplied noted a fourth exit under construction; sources regarding its opening/delay should exist but we need someone fluent in Korean to make a better search query than what I did (only searched the korean station name). Jumpytoo Talk 08:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jumpytoo : Both of the sources are just routine coverage . Unless there's anything else that suggests notability, I still believe redirecting is the best option. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . In general, railway stations with lots of passenger traffic are likely to be notable. Further digging by other editors is likely to find enough references to demonstrate notability for each of the South Korean metro stations that are being discussed. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MUSTBESOURCES , And what is "lots of passenger traffic", sounds like a vague criterion. LibStar ( talk ) 10:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Seohae Line#Stations . The keep ! votes presented so far are quite weak. LibStar ( talk ) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per cites added by Eastmain. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the additional sources added, which is sufficient to pass WP:GNG . JaventheAldericky ( talk ) 04:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see a consensus to Keep this article based on "cites added" but looking at the article, I can't see that any sources have been added and none have been brought up in this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for consistency. The refs added seem to be http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php? key=20200101010000032 and http://www.shtimes.kr/news/article.html? no=8127 . They look alright (based on machine translation). If others such as Sinhyeon station and Wonjong station were closed as keep then I suppose this should be as well, otherwise the whole group should probably all be reopened again. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This subject meets WP:GNG based on references in the article at this moment. 3 of the 4 references provide SIGCOV. One discusses in depth the naming of the station in 2018, two discuss in depth varying aspects of the opening of a third entrance to the station in late 2019 — siro χ o 04:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (disambiguation): I left a PROD on this page because only two of the listed items have blue links, and one of those is up for AfD and is likely not to survive. But now I see that PROD has been removed because there are blue links for associated people, just not the listed works themselves. Is that right? Do we allow a dab page that only links to one item which actually shares its title? Personally, I think it's a bit silly and I wouldn't allow it, hence my PROD. But if there's disagreement there which I'm unaware of, I'd love to hear it. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Music , Theatre , and Disambiguations . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a valid dab page: it lists and distinguishes a group of things sharing a title, each of which is mentioned in a Wikipedia page, to which there is a blue link in the entry. There is nothing to be gained from deleting this useful navigational tool. It will help readers. It will also help any future editors who might want to mention, or link to, or make a page for, one of these entities. See MOS:DABRED . Pam D 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As noted above, this is a valid disambiguation page. It's not entirely uncommon for titles of works to be ambiguous like this as a result of either being intentionally reused or used independently by multiple creators. TompaDompa ( talk ) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The likelihood of any of these red links becoming articles is slim, and while a dabpage that includes only red links may be allowed per WP:DABRED , it's usefulness is nil. 162 etc. ( talk ) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Turns out the 2021 film has received a fair amount of coverage in sources, so I created Are You Lonesome Tonight? (2021 film) . I suspect there is more to be found in Chinese-language sources. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since no other article for a film named "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" exists, the correct title is Are You Lonesome Tonight? (film) . 162 etc. ( talk ) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also fairly sure that the play by Alan Bleasdale is notable. Simon Bowman 's official website quotes reviews of the play from Daily Express , Time Out , London Broadcasting , The Observer , London Standard , and Sunday Express . It might be the case that these sources are only available in print, but assuming that the reviews aren't completely made up, the play almost certainly meets WP:GNG . I also found coverage in Los Angeles Times and Trust News , for good measure. TompaDompa ( talk ) 03:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect back to Are You Lonesome Tonight? . Fails MOS:DABRED , "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article ... also includes that red link" and none of the redlinks have article redlinks. [12] The sole blue link can be handled with a hatnote. // Timothy :: talk 10:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It would be possible to unlink those red links and leave them as valid dab page entries with unlinked black text, items mentioned in the blue linked articles. Would the encyclopedia be improved? Not really. There's a possibility any of these items might some time get an article and someone has taken the time to suggest appropriate disambiguations for them all. Best left as is. Pam D 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've converted the Bleasdale play to a redirect to an anchor in his article as there are a couple of sourced sentences about the musical. Pam D 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now a clearly valid disambiguation page with multiple blue links. BD2412 T 03:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per changes to article. Works as a DAB now. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

KS Mewa Gniew: That's a shame, because I concur with the AfC comments - the club has heritage, but it plays in the seventh league with a ground capacity of 300. The coverage is mostly database entries, there is no national coverage from RS at all. With a mildly heavy heart, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , and Poland . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Following the advice about how to improve the page I added more information with references to news articles. Are you suggesting I specifically need to reference national rather than local or regional newspaper articles? Thanks. Wikociewie ( talk ) 06:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] National would be helpful, regional too. Or books, magazines. The databases aren't good enough to prove notability (while they can be used to source statements in the article, of course). Passing WP:GNG is the main issue IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So, I think I've managed to meet GNG. I've added references including two national newspapers, four local + regional newspapers, and a magazine. When I initially drafted the entry on Mewa Gniew I looked up equivalent sized teams on Wikipedia and judged the content based on them - now I believe it's been improved beyond many comparable entries. If you have any more comments/suggestions please let me know and I'll try to continue improving the article! Wikociewie ( talk ) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify It's close to demonstrating notability IMO - there's at least one newspaper article in there which arguably passes GNG (it's short though but discusses ground development) and it just needs a couple more to get over the line - anything which clearly shows the club receives a level of newspaper coverage. We have articles on similarly sized English clubs which clearly get GNG coverage, so its small size shouldn't be a disqualifier, and considering it was just in draft space moving it back there is an easy option. SportingFlyer T · C 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should also note that if no more coverage exists, then it's not quite eligible per WP:GNG . SportingFlyer T · C 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I think the additional sources get it over the line. SportingFlyer T · C 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep With the added newspaper references I think it demonstrates notability and should be kept. Keithec ( talk ) 16:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Klasa A. Club itself doesn't appear to meet GNG, could be a brief part of the Klasa A article, which seems to have a bit more coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep A Polish club that is over 60 years old will have some coverage, however this is a very small club. The essence for an article is there within some of the sources however they could be improved. It's also possible there are historic sources for the club which haven't been picked up on. Nevertheless a couple of the article sources have some merit, but it's not the best. The above comment to merge the article... Well, why would you merge an article to the league page? Certainly when a football club could change to a different league at any given season. Merging there is completely out of the question for this article. If anything, a part merge and redirect to Gniew would be the smart choice. The town article has no sports section on it and the football club could easily be added to that. Govvy ( talk ) 05:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , @ SportingFlyer : , Many new sources added to article. Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per what, exactly? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG with new references. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Addressing the original concerns the article now has references to national, local and regional publications rather than just relying on databases. As previous people have commented the humble size of the club's stadium should not be grounds to delete. If there was a consensus to merge the article then I'd be happy to do so into the entry for Gniew (the other suggested merge is into an article purely containing the same database references this article was originally flagged up for). Anyway I think the article now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikociewie ( talk • contribs ) 06:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The added sources have shown more notability. There's also reason to suspect more is out there due to this club existing pre-internet. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:34, 29 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

Rubinstein Bagels: Does not meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 01:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Yet again, this is another nomination I must assume was initiated without even attempting to assess available coverage. A simple Google search shows Food & Wine said Rubinstein has some the nation's best bagels. Many sources are easily found, some of which I've already added to the article. I've asked this editor many times to share concerns on Talk pages before tagging articles and jumping to AfD unnecessarily. If the hounding could stop, that'd be great. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not hounding. I have also nominated food places from Australia. Simply having "some of the nation's best bagels" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar ( talk ) 03:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to take articles you've created personally when they've been nominated for deletion. Remember you don't WP:OWN any articles on WP. LibStar ( talk ) 03:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are clearly targeting me. Please leave me alone. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said I'm not targeting you. Stop acting as if you WP:OWN articles you've created. We know you don't like articles being deleted, but if you're not willing to have articles placed under the scrutiny of deletion then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. So stop telling me to tell leave you alone and concentrate on actual deletion discussions. LibStar ( talk ) 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please leave me alone. Stop hounding me, stop tagging my entries, stop jumping to AfD, stop talking to me. I do not have ownership issues and very much welcome collaboration with editors who are actually here to build the encyclopedia. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM . Stop acting if you own these articles. You cannot ask another editor to stop nominating an article just because you own it. You even asked an administrator and she said she wouldn't follow your request. LibStar ( talk ) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm guessing I wasn't allowed to nominate this restaurant? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyHigh Mount Dandenong ? LibStar ( talk ) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] LibStar , Skyhigh has no sources, arbuable or otherwise, while, as you know, all of Another Believer 's pages that you are, ah, not targeting, have good and at-length sourcing. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this has good at length sourcing why have others ! voted delete? I'm sure someone will just complain "I'm being targeted." LibStar ( talk ) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are not being targeted LibStar . The delete comments do not take regional coverage into consideration (see WP:AUD ). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 07:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . LibStar ( talk ) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete looks like very local and very routine coverage of a food outlet which we would not normally considered sufficient notability for inclusion. JMWt ( talk ) 10:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I am striking this ! vote because I have no wish to be involved in a personal battle between other editors. Do not use me or my comments or ! votes as ammunition. JMWt ( talk ) 16:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP . Most of the coverage is indiscriminate coverage any local restaurant would receive, and the ones that aren't are local restaurant reviews. Nothing showing this was a long-term notable restaurant. SportingFlyer T · C 11:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , well-sourced and GNG compliant. Local restaurants are notable when sourced, and the only thing that should be considered as unusual here is that a Wikipedian took the time to write and source it. Nice work. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 14:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AUD clearly states that more than local coverage is required. It could have a 1000 sources but that's not enough to establish notability, otherwise every local shop and restaurant that got a local review would have an article. LibStar ( talk ) 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ? Regional coverage is sourced on the page. WP:AUD does not apply. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Any chance I could get you to point me at the three sources you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee ( talk ) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all sources found are in the Seattle Times or Seattle Eater, I'm not showing anything beyond confirmation they make good bagels. [48] is probably the best of them. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (despite my disappointment that this is a different Rubinstein Bagels from the otherwise-forgotten one featured in various administrative law casebooks). It's hard to imagine a more straightforward example of significant coverage in regional media than Oaktree b's Pacific NW Magazine link above. Helpfully, WP:AUD addresses precisely this situation: significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Just to eliminate any doubt as to whether a single regional source can suffice, the guideline goes on the specify that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary (emphasis in original). So we seem to be solidly in, even under an inflexibly literal reading of the guideline. There also seems to be no question that the CORPDEPTH requirement that it is possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization is met, based not only on subjective analysis of the sources but also the objectively well-cited state of the article. -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage by national sources such Salon.com, Vox media, & Food & Wine contradicts the statement Coverage seems entirely local . There are also regional sources from Portland, OR & Vancouver, BC. This definitely meets the WP:AUD test. Peaceray ( talk ) 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for more, calm consideration, realizing that AFD discussions can get heated but to not take things personally. Focus on content, sourcing and policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on regional sources , the Seattle and Tacoma newspapers and other sourced media outlets (notice that this article is very well sourced) are sold and cover a wide international regional area in the NW United States and into Canada, thus meeting WP:AUD . Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact a local paper has a large catchment area still makes the coverage local. SportingFlyer T · C 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:AUD seems to be the bone of contention here, and it is met, as Seattle Times meets the criteria for regional coverage: (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) satisfying AUD. There also seems to be Tacoma coverage, which despites sharing an airport, is a different city. — siro χ o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well sourced article, and obviously broad coverage from RS. No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -Looks ok to me. Nice job. Whitemancanjump23 ( talk ) 06:33, 27 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

Stewart Shining: Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below: Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include: Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008. Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field. Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content. Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation. Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie ( talk • contribs ) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and InternetArchiveBot

keep

Abdullahi Boos Ahmed: At this point, I have done extensive searching of the minister's name beyond what is expected in WP:BEFORE , and have not found a single source supporting their notability (or even their existence, for that matter). In addition, the one source on the article only contains a passing mention of the minister among a list of other names. This directly goes against the notion of presumed notability as the subject is not significantly covered in multiple published sources, yet it has been claimed that the article should still be kept per WP:POLITICIAN . However, that policy specifically states that the person being a minister is a "secondary criterion" to notability, and I have found no evidence thus far supporting that the subject of this article is notable to begin with. Leafy46 ( talk ) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Somalia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Cabinet ministers pass WP:NPOL , so notability is without question. The real question is whether he surpasses WP:NOPAGE . The trouble with Somali biographies is that names can be so varied, and the country has very little internet access so there aren't many online news websites. Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Was able to find some sources using the alternative spelling Abdalla Bos Ahmed. He seems to have also been minister of education beginning in 2008 ( [63] ). He also appears to have been seriously injured in a terrorist attack in 2016 ( [64] [65] ). Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For some reason, there appears to be confusion between this subject and Mohamed Abdi Mohamed , such as in the 2011 Statesman's Yearbook , which lists Abdullahi Boos Ahmed as Minister of Defence for the period when Mohamed Abdi Mohamed held the office. His names in Somali seem to be Cabdalla Bos Axmed and Cabdullaahi Boos Axmed, but I was not able to find much with either name. Sources likely to be offline, though I'm not entirely confident. Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for looking into this! I'm still not entirely convinced that the biography should be a standalone page, but it is definitely fair to argue that many of the sources are likely offline. If nothing else, I'd say that a page move and redirects are probably in order given that the current title of the page seems to be a non-standard Anglicization of a Somali name. Leafy46 ( talk ) 03:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN , which provides for a presumption of notability for cabinet ministers. To my knowledge, a person holding a cabinet-level position has never been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like this is a probably Keep but I thought I'd relist so that editors could consider a possible rename. Those discussions typically happen after an AFD closure but I think if this discussion is closed, editors will quickly move on to other discussions and this article will likely be forgotten. So, allow me delay this closure to solicit more opinions on this possible article page move. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 06:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : civil servant, passes WP:POLITICIAN . --- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 09:59, 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

Archaic: Replacing this with a redirect to Archaism shortchanges the other main meaning of the word. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It's not quite clear to me what exactly you want done now: redirecting to archaism ? But that article is actually about yet a different, more specialized concept (not archaic periods in the history of civilizations or languages, but archaic elements preserved in present-day languages). Or redirecting to the comic? But that is most certainly not the primary meaning. I'd keep the page as is, for lack of a better solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the comic needs a link, the "in title" and "look from" links will help readers find other stuff, and the rest of the page needs to be trimmed drastically. Note that in Archaic_humans#Terminology_and_definition they are referred to several times as "archaics", so that is certainly a valid entry (though should not be piped: I've unpiped). Pam D 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Archaic period already exists, which covers the archaeological eras. The other entries seem unlikely to be confused with one another, and WP:PTM applies here. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Presidentman So do you suggest that the comic be renamed Archaic and that we leave it at that? Pam D 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That would be fine with me. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is another dab page at Archaic Period : either that should redirect to this, or this should have a link to that instead of the various corresponding entries. We don't need both lists. Pam D 07:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have had a go at producing a stripped-back version of the Archaic disambiguation page which I suggest will work to help all readers. Pam D 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Clarityfiend Does this answer your concerns about the page? Pam D 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not really. Two of the three entries are partial matches. However, I don't want it to become a redirect to the comic. Maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Clarityfiend ( talk ) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But then the comic is lost. I really think my suggestion works best, even with a touch of WP:IAR , to help the reader. Pam D 09:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added archaism back into the main dab, explicitly including "archaic" in the description. In my own life that's by far the most common occurrence of "archaic". I imagine the same will be true of at least some other readers. — siro χ o 02:51, 3 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! 00:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are multiple things that readers may arrive at this page wanting to find, none seem primary. I see at least 4 full-fledged entries that should be disambiguated. (Comic, language, humans, periods). I think the dab is preferable to search results . — siro χ o 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus right now. And mixed opinions expressed on what some editors actually want to happen to this article which doesn't help determine a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems like a reasonable disambiguation page to me. There are multiple articles that a searcher could reasonably be looking for. 4meter4 ( talk ) 01:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - useful for readers as 4meter4 and Siroxo have noted already. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:38, 10 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

K-9 Mail: See related AFD Discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Email PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 19:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This may not be as competitive currently, but it holds great historical significance as one of the first apps to give users a choice beyond the default for email on Android. I've added a couple sources from books in the early 2010s showing that this was an important application for email. On a less grounded note, Mozilla has recently acquired this application with a goal of revitalizing it. If the page isn't significant enough for historical reasons, I'd like to request that the deletion gets delayed for a bit (maybe a year?) to see if it regains a greater following. I think this would be preferable to deleting it now only to re-create it in the future when it is even more notable. Teeks99 ( talk ) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the sources in the article already, Linux Voice did a decent little review of it [5] in 2014. Was included in The Rough Guide to the best Android apps [6] and many more small capsule reviews. Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Changes since the nomination have added three additional refrences, there is definitely room for improvement but its also definitely notable. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sub silentio: Unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 ( talk • contribs ) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Anonhelp2 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 ( talk ) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 7 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, specialized legal term it appears. No sourcing found beyond just saying what it means. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for now. As a legal concept, this phrase requires more explanation than would ordinarily be provided in a dictionary definition—it is more complex than the sum of its parts. And if it were to be deleted, it would first need to be reconciled with the similar, but evidently misspelled entry sub silencio at Wiktionary, which fails to provide the context and example provided here—dictionary definitions are usually shorter than this article. The nominator deleted the explanation of the phrase, which seems like a bad way to start the deletion process (removing content that might make the article more likely to survive AfD). Added to which, the rationale given for the nomination—"abuse by IP addresses", is not a valid reason for deletion—and the article history shows plenty of valid edits, most made without IP addresses, although anonymous edits are expressly allowed on Wikipedia. We do not need to delete the article's edit history; there is no policy or reason for doing so, but there are several valid reasons for preserving it, including the work of legitimate editors working to improve the encyclopedia. And it does not appear that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE or any other procedures related to nominating articles for deletion (including signing the nomination). Articles are not deleted because the references are bad or insufficient, and opinions of a court of law are perfectly "appropriate" sources. If additional sources are needed, the nominator needs to look for them before nominating the article for deletion; we don't delete articles because they need more (or any) sources, but because sources cannot be located with a reasonable attempt to do so—and this article already has a valid source; it looks as though it can't be hard to find more. This is not a valid nomination in any respect. P Aculeius ( talk ) 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , There are many legal dictionaries, sites and blogs that provide a definition for the term. I don't see a reason why there would be any confusion with it and 'Sub silencio'. If anything, the explanation here seems a bit confusing compared to the other explanation of the term that has been provided else where. Not only is there no further explanation to expand on what was said, there also nothing indicating where it was gotten from. It provides a very vague explanation with no sourcing and nothing to back up the statement. And a quote from a judgment where they merely stated the term does not provide an explanation of the term. Kalsp ( talk ) 13:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) — Kalsp ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 ( talk ) 16:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. There are entire periodical articles about this concept, such as: [15] [16] . The concept seems, in particular, to include stealth overruling: [17] . There is a large body of coverage that goes beyond a mere definition of a phrase. This article is not a presently dictionary definition, as it includes content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. This article is capable of being further expanded with content that goes beyond mere definition of a phrase. There is nothing that could be described as "abuse" of IP addresses in the page history, as far as I can see. James500 ( talk ) 16:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per James500 's analysis and the sources he has provided. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This specific article does not fully explain the point or provide references for what was provided. Neither does the judgment it refers. The previously provided point was taken from an already existing online article with no reference as to where the information was obtained from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonhelp2 ( talk • contribs ) 15:21, 13 November 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 ) 13:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I researched the concept before even reading the article. It seemed patently article-worthy. Loads of legal textbooks and whatnot. Then I read the article and wondered why it didn't give even a basic definition of the idea. So I looked at the edit history and found that it did for 17 years (thanks to Legis ( talk · contribs )) until the nominator here got at it. This isn't often the case but this is a speedy keep . Both Anonhelp2 ( talk · contribs ) and Kalsp ( talk · contribs ) appear to be mucking us about and abusing AFD for vandalism, and now we have their, or possibly just one person's, mess to clean up. Uncle G ( talk ) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per Uncle G and P Aculeius. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep As both @ James500 and @ Uncle G have explained, the article had no problem prior to vandalism. Since bad references is not a valid excuse for deletion, I also see no need to delete this article. Additionally, the argument that this is but a dictionary entry is untrue, as the topic is complicated enough to merit an article explaining it. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Canonchet, Rhode Island: – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island . – dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It may be notable for Canonchet Brook Preseve or Canonchet Farm . Here's a reference for the farm: https://canonchet.org/documents/2023_04_30_projo_john_kostrzewa_canonchet.pdf There's also a Lake Canonchet , U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 23 , There are some archaeological sites nearby: Gage, Mary; Gage, James (2017-03-31). Land of a Thousand Cairns: Revival of Old style Ceremonies . Powwow River Books. ISBN 978-0-9816141-2-0 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I"m a bit confused. None of these sources refer to Canonchet as a town. Do we have a source that actually refers to Canonchet as it's defined in the article? Skipple ☎ 19:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography . The mentions I've found of it are mostly tangential (see for example [21] [22] [23] ) and it does not seem to meet WP:NGEO . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Canonchet (sometimes known as Cononchet) is a real place, and we know this because it had a station on the Wood River Branch Railroad (though this station wasn't actually in Canonchet, just nearby along the railroad's route. The book Two Tickets on the Wood River Train states on page 12 that it was a distinct village with several mills, near Ashville Pond. Based on my reading that meets NGEO. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete This is an odd one from the GNIS/topo point of view: the entry has the usual source statement for initial round spots, but in fact it does not appear on any topo until it was back-entered from GNIS sometime after 2010; this implies that it was entered from a gazetteer source. The topos and aerials in fact show nothing that could be mistaken for a town or village. The rail station tends to argue that this is just a general locale, being at some distance from the supposed spot, and we have learned over the years of reviewing these that station does not imply a settlement. We need a much better source than what we have, especially in light of the mapping evidence against the place. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're misstating my comment. The book specifically states that Canonchet was a distinct village with several mills. The station was a bit away from Canonchet because the railroad didn't directly enter the village itself, but a siding and later a station building were constructed to serve the mills there and any passenger or mail traffic. this source mentions Canonchet had two mills involved in producing "fishlines and twines". An article in The Day [24] describes Canonchet as a "town" and states it was heavily damaged by lightning in 1916. Given this verifiably was a populated place, deletion is not appropriate. It should be kept or redirected to Hopkinton. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 14:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : clearly notable, i did the work to improve the article, you heathens :)-- Milowent • has spoken 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - THIS 1894 article deals with a legal battle to break up the Canonchet estate involving an ex-Governor of RI. It seems that Canonchet was the name of a tribal leader of one of the indigenous peoples and the name pops up in numerous contexts in Rhode Island newspapers. Carrite ( talk ) 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wikipedia:HEY . Djflem ( talk ) 20:03, 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

Camping and Caravanning Club: Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Organizations , Travel and tourism , and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . An extremely large and significant organisation in the UK. Plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, I have some edits to make to this page to improve the quality and tighten up the references. Can I make these? I really don't want the page to be deleted. Thank you. Adrobson ( talk ) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed you can. Please do. Particularly, please add information from WP:SIRS sources to demonstrate the topic's notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is.. please do not add unsourced informaiton. Please add references to assertions already in the article. Please add new information only with references to support those assertions. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait... your username used to be "The Camping and Caravanning Club"? No, you should very much not be editing this article. you should make edit requests on the talk page with {{ edit COI }} as you most certainly have an conflict of interest . - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with @ Necrothesp . This is a large and historic organisation in the UK. References in the article may be poor but AfD is not cleanup. A quick google on The Guardian alone ( [45] ) indicates a plethora of references. Resonant Dis tor tion 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable organisation with significant coverage GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Levinus Monson: -⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 23:11, 27 February 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 February 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Connecticut , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The source is clearly indicated at the bottom of the article. Gamaliel ( talk ) 03:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, I cannot find any sources that support meeting WP:GNG . LizardJr8 ( talk ) 05:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:JUDGE : "The following are presumed to be notable:....judges who have held...state/province–wide office" Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gamaliel , the reference SHOULD be added to the "References" section, like every other article has. Another reason is the link may be unreliable and it is probably outdated since I can't get in it. ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the article only has one source , meaning it cannot be notable, otherwise it could if someone could add a secondary source. This information is obtained from a library, which could hold incorrect information. ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain your second sentence? I don't understand your assertion. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reference you told us seems unreliable because the information is from the MSSA Library in Yale University . I don't know about you, but the reference seems to not be accessible. ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 22:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OBITUARIES ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would a Yale University library be unreliable? Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per JUDGE. The Yale Obituary Record is certainly a reliable source for such basic matters as his judgeship and our sourcing policy says explicitly that sources need not be available online to be considered. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you send a link to your sourcing policy? I'm interested in that. ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 01:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE . Innisfree987 ( talk ) 02:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article is pretty much short with no template added about this biography of this person. Also the reference seems reliable, although they need more references to support this article, along with secondary sources. 2601:249:1A81:536E:7C61:7E4:4659:DFD9 ( talk ) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Although the hard work that Innisfree987 added hours ago, there is still some citing error, such as repeated sources that are used many times in a paragraph that are the same. For example, in paragraph 1 in "Personal Life" , you could add just one of the source into the end because that will just clarify that whole paragraph is support that reference instead of adding the same reference separating. More information can be found in WP:CS or this . ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Despite the reliable primary and secondary sources, it seems that there are less sources on this person than anything else, as the sources kept repeating all over the article. I will add a template for that. ⚒️ MinecraftPlayer 321 ⚒️ | 💬 22:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not a citing error as the whole paragraph is not supported by that reference, only the statements cited are. Even if it were though, as I explained to you on my talk page , deletion decisions are not based on the current state of the entry, but on whether the subject itself is notable. Here the subject was a member of the New York Supreme Court, a fact that is reliably sourced, and which WP:JUDGE tells us gives a presumption of notability. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with MinecraftPlayer321. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 ( talk ) 22:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We should keep the template there because even though the references are reliable, the article needs more sources than that. If that cannot be found, that is one of the reason why this article is being deleted: lack of sources, reliable or not. 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 ( talk ) 22:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Innisfree987 I am sorry Inissfree87 but also the article only has 22 (or more if I was wrong) views, making this article even more worse. What’s the point of keeping an article when there are less information, the person is less famous, lack of reliable sources, and less page views? 2601:249:1A81:536E:6D44:E1C8:6A3F:C4C5 ( talk ) 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Embassy of the United States, Tegucigalpa: Biruitorul Talk 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Honduras , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar ( talk ) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , unsurprisingly meets the GNG . The new embassy, which reminds me of a Jawa Sandcrawler , has gotten a lot of SIGCOV. Newspapers: El Mundo , Proceso 1 , Proceso 2 , La Prensa , El Heraldo , EFE , Primicia Honduras , Tiempo , Criterio . Architecture magazines: ArchDaily , deZeen , Architectural Digest , designboom . Pilaz ( talk ) 20:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The sources listed by Pilaz should have put an end to this discussion in my opinion. WilsonP NYC ( talk ) 17:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] change to keep on the basis of sources found which meet GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 05:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

David Peter Kirby: Can find no significant coverage of this individual; at most he is mentioned in book reviews. The article relies on a basic directory entry and a vague link to the entire University of Leicester website because some of his books are there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk ) 23:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - fails general notability Mr Vili talk 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NAUTHOR , unusually, doesn't require biographical SIGCOV if there is enough coverage of the body of work. I went looking for reviews of his books, to see how many pass WP:NBOOK . For each book, I stopped when I found 2 reviews. Marvels, Magic and Witchcraft in the North Riding of Yorkshire : [2] NBOOK pass - The Earliest English Kings [3] [4] NBOOK pass - The Making of Early England [5] [6] History and Tradition in Britain in the Early Middle Ages 2 gscholar cites, second discusses Kirby at length, but weirdly I don't turn up reviews Days of Joy: Robert Hird at Home in Bedale [7] NBOOK pass - Saint Wilfrid at Hexham [8] [9] It's quite possible that there are more than 3 NBOOK passes here but I have seen enough to be very comfortable with NAUTHOR. Kirby appears to have been a prolific and respected historian. ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hah, when I went to de-orphan the article, I also found that Wikipedia name-checks D. P. Kirby 94 times in articles ... I know that's not an official notability criteria or anything but reinforces my sense that his writing has been influential and wiki readers will find it useful to have an article about him (hopefully, a more thorough one eventually). ~ L 🌸 ( talk ) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article is a stub which needs expansion, but it is about a respected historian of Early Medieval Britain and it is well referenced. I have two of his books and cite them in articles. Dudley Miles ( talk ) 07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above, subject meets NAUTHOR. Resonant Dis tor tion 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As a professor in a UK university, he should be notable without more. He is (or was) certainly a significant scholar in his field. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep an author who has written many books , he is surely notable. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 19:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above meets NAUTHOR. Tame Rhino ( talk ) 14:50, 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

Honoring the Fathers of Bluegrass: Tribute to 1946 and 1947: Just tried to find sources on Google, and couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Grammy Award-winning and Billboard-charted album. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The AllMusic review and the Grammy win are plenty for notability. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 02:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Read WP:NALBUM ; this album has met at least two of the criteria, being a Grammy Award album and not just charting but charting at #1 in the U.S. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 02:44, 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

D'Molls: UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , and Illinois . UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unless we can locate sources in paper files, this is all I see [6] for RS. Not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ORGCRIT . Per WP:HEY , the previous state of lackluster sourcing has been improved since I and others have added an array of independent reliable sources which back up much of what was in the article already, and added info that wasn't there. [7] The sources point to the fact that this band seems to have had a strong impact on people back in the later glam-rock era, even being noticed outside the US. [8] While it seems that their albums never charted, this is not the only yardstick for inclusion in WP:BAND (see #1). This is certainly not a case of a garage band seeking publicity—they were signed to a major record label in the 80s. Something has to be said for their song receiving heavy MTV play. A number of personnel were involved in various other successful bands of the era, some of which are linked, implying that their output here was also of a similar calibur. [9] Other activities of the bandmates were noted by these sources, such as a few books written by the drummer that were reviewed. [10] Best, Stony Brook babble 20:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the signing with Atlantic seems to be the critical factor here. WP:BAND #5 requires two albums. BUT the article is loose about the timing of the record contract vs the release of their first album. If the article clearly said (with sources) there are two releases on Atlantic, I'd vote keep . Allmusic says Warped was on Atlantic Allmusic says D'Molls was on Rock Candy Records which isn't a major label the article suggests the Rock Candy release is a re-release. evidence of release on Atlantic here but that's very WP:OR . Oblivy ( talk ) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found the following: The band, which moved to Los Angeles a few years ago, released "Warped", its second album for Atlantic Records, over the summer. " [11] "Second" implies there was a first, which could only mean their debut album D'Molls was also on the same label, so I added this fact to the article. Stony Brook babble 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That works for me. I think the article could actually be a bit more definitive on D'Molls being their first album (the "Careers and Luck" Tribune article is confusingly worded, but the second cite supports this). Note that there's a non-paywall version at [12] . Oblivy ( talk ) 12:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that reference Oblivy. Switched now. Stony Brook babble 15:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BAND #5 and comments above. Oblivy ( talk ) 12:45, 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

Hallypop (Philippine TV channel): Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Founded sources for the article: [18] [19] [20] . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above in meeting NTW and GNG. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get a clearer consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bruxton ( talk ) 04:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commment The three websites listed by ThisIsSeanJ seem to be routine coverage of the station's launch. Therefore I don't think that they are sufficient to establish that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We believe that the sources presented by SeanJ are still reliable enough. You can never change our minds. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An additional source dated 2020 has been added to the article which alleviates the concerns of routine coverage. Garuda3 ( talk ) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I saw the source and it's also reliable enough. SBKSPP ( talk ) 03:49, 9 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

Fallen (Transformers): Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:27, 29 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 ) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Comics and animation , and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [ citation needed ] Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment for the record I personally don't think two months is a particularly long time for something to have notability tags for, considering Wikipedia is a part-time hobby for editors (unless you guys are getting paid, in which case tell me how!). At the risk of invoking Other Stuff Exists, just the comics section alone has multiple articles that have been tagged for a decade-plus (many potentially violating BLP) which need more urgent attention, which once again suggests the nominator is following some sort of personal agenda rather than a genuine desire to improve the wider project. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 10:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I have a personal agenda, a personal agenda to rid Wikipedia of fancruft. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which you're focusing almost entirely on a single toy franchise in a non-constructive manner, which several experienced Wikipedians have asked you to modify and your answer has been to resort to petty " [ citation needed ] " responses. For someone aiming for "a Wikipedia with zero incidents of disruption" you're sure going out of your way to create as many as possible despite several recommendations that you work on constructive repair work before getting overly-involved in AfDs and the like. Remember, you're supposed to have only have returned to editing a month ago... BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 16:14, 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 ) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tommy Parsons: Joeykai ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG because of WP:SIGCOV such as [ [41] ] (1/2), [ [42] ] (2/2), [ [43] ] [ [44] ], [ [45] ] and [ [46] ]. Was a WP:BEFORE check conducted? Let'srun ( talk ) 15:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Subject seems to meet GNG through various examples of SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:18, 10 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

Hiro Morita: From a Wikipedia standpoint, however, I do not believe the subject meets the threshold for notability . The amount of secondary sources on the subject are not sufficient; two of the sources in the article are written by a commentator ( John Gunning ) that frequently collaborates with the subject on NHK programming, and most other links point to the NHK website. Searches for additional news articles or websites about the subject lead to poor results. JRHorse ( talk ) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the contrary, the notability is rather established. If John Gunning writes articles on Hiro Morita it is indeed because the two work together on the subject of sumo for NHK (and this statement is a bit far-fetched given that Gunning only participates in NHK previews) but also and this is important because Gunning is one of the few English-speaking journalists and columnists who works on the world of sumo, at all. The results you mention are also rare but the same can be mentioned for articles like Ajigawa stable (2022) . I especially think that with the channel rooting and the collaboration between Morita and JSA, the article will be able to find more source. - OtharLuin ( talk ) 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I do not think that there are enough secondary, independent sources out there to establish notability. Many in the article point to NHK, a primary source. JRHorse ( talk ) 11:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep in my own search I’m seeing fairly frequent media mentions in reliable sources, they’re just not particularly in-depth. The most in-depth seems to be https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2022/08/10/sumo/jsa-youtube-english-morita/ . It’s clear he’s one of the few names in English language Sumo presenting, and I do see quite a few media mentions, so I’m leaning towards keep, but remain persuadable. Jo7hs2 ( talk ) 03:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For those doing their own searching, the search will be mildly hindered by the subject sharing the same name as Beyblade Burst creator Hiro Morita. Jo7hs2 ( talk ) 03:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Basically he and Chris Gould are the English voices for sumo. I feel the sources posted are adequate. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I notice you recently added three sources to the article, two of which should be considered as primary sources : One link is to a press release from NHK, and the other link is to a talent agency profile. JRHorse ( talk ) 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:53, 26 March 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! 06:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . With the Japan Times article above and the rest given, I think he just passes notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I could find 5 sources about it in 2 minutes. Notable. Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I disagree as a search for the subject to me still yields insufficient results. I was going to ask this user about the sources they found, but the account has been blocked. JRHorse ( talk ) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on barely significant coverage such as two featured articles in the Japan Times and other reliable sources . Bearian ( talk ) 18:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tirukkural translations into Saurashtra: Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. 1 para is about the language Saurashtra in general. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , India , and Gujarat . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Additional citation added to establish notability. The first para simply paints the background and can be removed if deemed unfit. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 20:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of Christian heresies: The vision of what the orthodoxy is depends on the denomination you ask. Some Protestants today are Iconoclasts, others are Modalists, etc. While there is a concept of heresy within most of Christendom , making a list of all heresies for the whole Christendom is impossible and biased. Therefore, I think this page shoud be deleted . Veverve ( talk ) 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Veverve ( talk ) 19:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename: List of Christian doctrinal disputes/doctrinal differences/interminable arguments/rationales for schisms or something like that. Arguing about subtle points of theology has been part of Christianity since the beginning. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arguing about subtle points of theology has been part of Christianity since the beginning : I agree and this is not what I am arguing against. Veverve ( talk ) 19:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a reasonably well cited list, and NPOV doesn't require us to exercise editorial control over what is or is not a heresy--we rely on RS'es to do that. The list as it stands now is a pretty fair representation of things considered heretical throughout Christendom. Obviously, that's not going to be universal, but it needn't be: What do a preponderance of RS'es call heresies? Jclemens ( talk ) 21:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll also note that the list is limited to notable heresies with their own articles. Jclemens ( talk ) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There was a uniform orthodoxy until the Catholic/Orthodox split and with the exception of the last entry, the article deals only with those “classic” heresies. Later on the question becomes much more complex but the article wisely steers clear of these times. As noted above, all of the heresies listed are notable in their own right. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was a uniform orthodoxy until the Catholic/Orthodox split : this is a clear POV (that includes the Great Church canard), see Diversity in early Christian theology . Veverve ( talk ) 22:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the article wisely steers clear of these times : just now the 17th-century Jansenism was added by the article creator. Veverve ( talk ) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra : The article is now heading to be a compilation of every belief that any Christian denomination considers a heresy (e.g. Papism ). Veverve ( talk ) 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The POV of the list does not refer to any specific denomination. This list includes theological arguments that have been classified as heresies by major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant) at some point. For example, Iconoclasm, a doctrine held by some Protestant denominations, was condemned as heresy by the Second Council of Nicaea, which makes it eligible for inclusion on the list. Exanx777 ( talk ) 04:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just rename it List of Catholic heresies, if not all Christians believe these are heresies. Or have a column added showing which religions consider it heresy. D r e a m Focus 04:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dream Focus : it already exists as List of heresies in the Catholic Church . Veverve ( talk ) 05:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article already organizes heresies by what churches consider them to be so. WP:NPOV is conserved and this motion has little meaning. TangoFett ( talk ) 03:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly keep The article is useful, thorough, well cited and is a good Wikipedia gateway. The original justification for deleting this (which seems to be that to list something as a heresy is to positively state it is a heresy) does not hold water, because the list specifically has a column disclosing which churches hold the view as heresy. (That user has made a number of edits and deletions before retiring a few days ago.) Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 00:50, 3 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

Regulations.gov: Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't have a lot of experience with AFDs of official government websites articles. So I looked for places it was talked about in generally reliable sources that aren't just linking to a regulation on it. There are, of course, many links from government websites and newspapers about announcing new regulations to review. There has been some coverage of the site as a site, however: EPA adds Web 2.0 to Regulations.gov (a good source), Robotic rulemaking (a good source), Improving Regulations.gov (a good source), Aligning Public Feedback to Requests for Comments on Regulations.gov (seemingly a good source), and an example of using it for research Legal Research for UNT Students . Skynxnex ( talk ) 18:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Although not all sites with a . gov domain extension should receive their own article, the two credible sources you linked emphasize why it is useful to include this subject in the encyclopedia, Aligning Public Feedback to Requests for Comments on Regulations.gov Improving Regulations.gov . Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the article is a stub and there is minimal coverage of the topic - apart from the theregreview.org source I don't think any of the link above are useful. Converting this to a redirect to the government agency that runs the website would be my preference, but it is unclear what the subject of the eRulemaking article is, and General Services Administration is too high-level a topic to redirect. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the article is just a stub does not mean it should be deleted; as per WP:N “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article” and “Article content does not determine notability.” Google Scholar has 16,700 hits for “regulations.gov” in quotation marks; however, many (or most) of these “hits” are actually regulations.gov comments rather than scholartly articles about the regulations.gov website, and a search of Google Scholar for case law makes it evident that even the use of quotation marks does not limit the query results to those referencing the website. There are only 2 district-court opinions referencing the phrase, “website regulations.gov” and no published cases referencing “regulations.gov website” or “regulations.gov site.” I would still vote to keep my own article. Bwrs ( talk ) 23:01, 18 April 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! 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A government website which plays a role in lawmaking and public comment and an absolutely terrible rationale to delete. Nate • ( chatter ) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Skynxnex. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 28 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

Name, Age and Occupation: There is no indication this production or it's cancellation was particularly notable, either at the time or with the passage of time. Contested PROD; no clear merit offered in a redirect. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very strong keep. I deproDed the page (same nominator, see TP (indicating in my edit summary that given the state of the page and its content, even with no effort to look for further sources, a redirect should at least have been considered). I find both actions quite hasty to be honest (see page history). Most of all, this film has received considerable coverage. I had added some, some was on the page already, and plenty of other sources exist and are available in one click. As for the guideline referred to by the nominator and what it says about unfinished films, well, let's have a look: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines ." Number of independent reliable books extensively deal with the failure of this production (add Lorentz in the Google Books search and try....). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank : Thank you for your detailed rationale. Respectfully, at this moment I am not aligned with your position and refer back to WP:NFF which stipulates that the cancellation of the specific film would itself have to be notable to warrant an article. From my own searches of this, I could indeed see plenty of sources discussing that the film had undergone a period of shooting and that it did indeed, for at least a period of time, WP:EXIST . Whether that be backed up by 5 sources or 500 is inconsequential, as I have yet to determine a sufficient number to discuss this particular feature's cancellation specifically, by way of WP:SIGCOV . One of the citations offered, a book by Robert Ryan , notes: "after having gone way over budget with 90 days of shooting and nothing to show for the effort, RKO decided to shelve the unfinished film" . The cancellation seems to be like it was simply a matter of costing too much, at a time when finances were stretched due to the matter of a world war . If you, or others, can find sufficient sources that cover the specifics of this film's cancellation, to a significant enough extent, that may help formulate the opinions of others, and indeed myself. Bungle ( talk • contribs ) 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your reply. Please take the time to read the sources in the page at least, if you don't have time to read all the other that are available online (again add Lorentz to the Google books search), it is not only a matter of money and the page clearly says so. Haven't you read the latest version before taking it to Afd? (the 5 minute time span between my last edit adding those sources and your nomination, would make me think that is the case, but you can take your time and read it now) There were various issues: for example Lorentz was unable to cope with the schedule and requirements of a commercial feature film, Ryan had doubts about Lorentz who had so far only filmed documentaries.... It's in the page and it's sourced. Sources do not only mention 90 days of shooting and financial issues! I'm leaving it at that for the moment, Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to second this and thank Mushy Yank for his outstanding work in improving this page. It was the only dramatic feature of Pare Lorentz, a major filmmaker. The movie also started the career of actor Robert Ryan. Britfilm ( talk ) 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , WP:HEY applies. Article has been vastly improved and multiple reliable sources have been provided. Donald D23 talk to me 07:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the improved article now passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:41, 15 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

List of Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure episodes: Some editors think this should be a standalone article, others think it should be a redirect to Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure . I note that the content in this article is identical to the content in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure . Personally I think this should be a redirect , since the exact same content is already included in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure . That is a small article and this does not need a WP:SPINOUT yet. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Anime and manga , and Lists . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep I barely see any actual discussion on either this or the main show's talk pages. Deletion is not being asked for and not even close to consideration here (the most expected decision will be redirect in a normal AfD discussion), and this is the wrong forum for what seems to be a clear editor dispute. Take it back to the talk pages and actually discuss things . Nate • ( chatter ) 02:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] he never really reads Talk pages and he has a lot of edit wars on his talk page Ckng9000 ( talk ) 01:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLAR mentions AFD as a legitimate forum for disputes over blanking and redirecting. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 02:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, after any attempt to come to consensus on the talk page has been completely exhausted. As there's zilch on either and we don't consider edit comments an acceptable substitute, this nomination is horrendously premature. I stand by my rationale; discuss and use talk pages . Nate • ( chatter ) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for socking. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was the one who created many episode list for many Pretty Cure episodes in a new article that comes from main article in my page: User:Ckng9000#Articles Created Ckng9000 ( talk ) 05:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and he comes and redirect my episode list says not notable even though there is notability warning already I have included notability warning when I created each new episode list for different Pretty Cure shows because I know someone is going to fix it later BaldiBasicsFan Ckng9000 ( talk ) 05:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirected once again. Ckng9000 continues to split articles of shows without consensus and this behavior needs to stop. Heck, they created a sockpuppet even if their original account isn’t banned, and recently, I suspected this user having another sockpuppet under an IP account. At this point, a WP:SO should be applied on this user if the IP is confirmed to be a sock. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk ) 04:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for socking. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I and other users have created WP:SPINOUT even though Pretty Cure shows were running live and before they aired Ckng9000 ( talk ) 01:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] look at this one from https://en.m. wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=List_of_Hug! _Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=823882581 episode list created at air date February 4, 2018 never redirected was there when the anime was airing. Ckng9000 ( talk ) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] I also created one for healin' good procure episode list when it first aired. https://en.m. wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=List_of_Healin%27_Good_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=938818625 Ckng9000 ( talk ) 06:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Reply [ reply ] i also created this episode list of Delicious Party Pretty Cure in March 3, 2022 with only 5 episodes showing and never got redirected. Here is the link: https://en.m. wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=List_of_Delicious_Party_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=1075017726 Ckng9000 ( talk ) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect There is no policy-based reason to delete, but based on the format I believe these articles about Pretty Cure anime installations should be treated akin to television seasons in the Western world, where the episodes are listed in the main article. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for socking. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some Japanese anime shows have episode list even though its a small article like this one List of Lost Song episodes Ckng9000 ( talk ) 02:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] also this episode list List of The Misfit of Demon King Academy episodes an episode list that even splits up into two articles Ckng9000 ( talk ) 05:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that is still going and being delayed by Covid Ckng9000 ( talk ) 05:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Granted, this split was done a bit too early, and the contents needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but what's the point of shoving the episode list back into the main article again if it's going to being spun out either way in a matter of weeks? The main problem is more: deciding and reaching consensus when the right time is (in terms of season progression and episode list size) to split off an episode list. See also: WP:SIZERULE which might be a better rule of thumb, also the anime MoS . Any other of the 19 prior seasons also have separate 'List of xyz Pretty Cure' episodes' lists, splitting off its episode lists was more of a given, eventually. Rctgamer3 ( talk ) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for socking. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of Pretty Cure shows had episode split during their air time Ckng9000 ( talk ) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I checked word count for most Pretty Cure articles and they range from 2,700 - 5,100 word count so why did they split them in the first place. A lot of Japanese anime have less than 15000 words from Wikipedia:SIZERULE and they do create episode split Ckng9000 ( talk ) 15:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per nom. Article fails LISTN and serves no CLN/AOAL purpose. OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a reason to create or keep an article that does not meet notability guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 06:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Blocked for socking. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this one has notability warning List of Delicious Party Pretty Cure episodes and has never been redirected to main page. 73.72.212.187 ( talk ) 20:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's have a sock free week Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While technically the list is currently short enough to merge back in right now, this is an long airing series so it'll have to be split out pretty quickly anyways. Better to save valuable editor time to keep it split even if its early. Jumpytoo Talk 20:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A valid spinoff article. D r e a m Focus 16:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is no way another 46 episode installment is going to fit in the main article. To give an example... Survivor: Nicaragua has 15 episodes (although the long plot summaries there would probably make up for like 25 Pretty Cure! episodes). It still would be a mess... - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2024 New Jersey earthquake: Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle ( talk ) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Environment , and New Jersey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after. -- MarioProtIV ( talk / contribs ) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rarity is not notability. >Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news. WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk ) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle ( talk ) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake . Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. -- 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk ) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event. The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [5] and [6] Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn ( talk ) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain. Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline. WP:EVENTCRIT , fails that. WP:LASTING , gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable. WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article' WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE , which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn ( talk ) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady ( talk ) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV . It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian ( talk ) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I've already made my case before as I nominated it the first time, but now that no one talks about it anymore it's even more obvious it shouldn't be an article. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per all the above keeps, as well as a comment that this was largely settled in the last AfD, nothing has changed, the arguments have not changed, the policies have not changed, and that this is largely a waste of valuable editors' time. Tduk ( talk ) 04:02, 7 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

Rajnish S Kumar: We can also see the subject's active participation from edit history. iMahesh ( talk ) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . iMahesh ( talk ) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not my area but the GS profile [27] looks very healthy, top citations 590,535,507,428,373 and around 25 papers >100 citations. The edit from what appears to be the subject appears reasonable (clarifying the h -index is sourced from GS). Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd also ask what evidence is provided for the accusation of paid editing. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Conflict of Interest The creator of this article, had already received a Conflict of Interest warning from Curb Safe Charmer on 27 April 2020 while working on Praveen Linga Both Praveen Linga and Rajnish S Kumar are associated with the same university, which raises questions about the impartiality and neutrality of the content created by this user, especially when it comes to individuals connected to that university. Suspicious Timing The article Rajnish S Kumar was created at 09:35, 18 September 2023, and within just a few hours, Mr. Rajnish S Kumar himself created an account on Wikipedia and made edits to his own article at 12:14, 18 September 2023. Such rapid and coordinated editing activities give rise to concerns about Paid Editing and conflicts of interest. -- iMahesh ( talk ) 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article on Linga is pretty promotional, though the subject is clearly notable. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] change of vote Delete . Thankfully, the kamikaze account responsible for this text, like most of their ilk, works clumsily, thus making editors' life easier. In short, subject fails WP:GNG and both. To wit: We have a link to Business Insider that grandly purports to show our subject as someone "featured in the world’s ‘highly-cited’ researchers list," while in fact that's Mechanical Engineer Avinash Kumar Agarwal; the link to the University of British Columbia ostensibly supporting the same claim pops up a 404 ; an uninteresting Google list of Kumar's publications; one more effort to establish Kumar as a "highly cited researcher" gifts us with a totally irrelevant text , mentioning out subject precisely zero times; then, a single mention in an Elsevier catalog about Kumar being on some panel among many about Chemistry awards to young people; finally, a fitting finale as well, we get the news about Kumar being feted with the NASI-Scopus Young Scientist Award for 2016, but, unfortunately, this too turns out to be about bioengineer Sachin Kumar. There is nothing there except for time wasting. - The Gnome ( talk ) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing suggestion to Keep . The above forensics are correct but they're trumped by one single award bequeathed to out subject that allows him to pass WP:NPROF #2, the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology , as pointed out by Curb Safe Charmer . The article's still a rotten contraption what with all the self-penned adulatory verbiage and the lame-o sourcing but notability prevails. - The Gnome ( talk ) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per criteria #1 and #2 of WP:NPROF . Highly cited, and won the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology , a notable award. Article needs further cleanup (I made a start). Curb Safe Charmer ( talk ) 17:02, 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

Eddie Henderson: There are two Eddies on that page, but I have just discovered the existence of this one as well. However there is no evidence that the soccer player was an Edward - he may have been an Eddie from birth. Laterthanyouthink ( talk ) 13:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My feeling is to merge Ed/Eddie/Edward ... but then I wondered about Ned, and Ted: curiously, Ted Henderson of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice gets a listing at Ted but no redirect from Ted Henderson ! Pam D 08:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, he's got a redirect now, and the other 3 title characters have a dab page entry, a hatnote, and an extended hatnote. Pam D 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and close this appears to be a merge proposal, not deletion. It meets the requirements of a dab. One of these doesn't seem to be an Edward, just full name Eddi, but also could be Edmund or other names. Ted can then be short for several names - amalgamation can cause confusion. Boleyn ( talk ) 11:42, 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

Ricardo Dolmetsch: The subject of the article fails several of our notability policies: there is no evidence of WP:INDEPTH coverage – all references are to publications where he was co-author, or to unrelated press releases about drugs that don't even mention the subject's name, not speaking about confirming his role or achievements. There is no evidence of compliance with any criteria listed under WP:NACADEMIC either. The listed awards are minor awards, none has an article (note: NIH Director's Pioneer Award is not an award honouring its recipients but a research initiative). Worst: there are many unverified claims in the article: the subject, who left Novartis in 2020, is claimed to have been "involved in early successes in gene therapy, including (...) Zolgensma (...) and Hemgenix". However, Novartis was not involved in Zolgensma development – the drug was developed by a US startup Avexis which received marketing authorisation for it just before the subject left Novartis, while remaining a separate company from Novartis; whereas Hemgenix is not a success yet, as it's barely a year on the market with very little uptake from payers outside the US. Claims that Dolmetch contributed to their "successes" appear unfounded and entirely unsourced WP:PUFFERY . Nearly every sentence needs one or more of {{citation needed}}, {{fails verification}}, or {{secondary source needed}}. All in all, with lack of independent coverage, I don't think this coporate staff member fulfils our criteria of encyclopaedia-level notability. — kashmīrī TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . — kashmīrī TALK 11:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Colombia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , primarily through role in Novartis over many years rather than through academic posts. His research output is high; unusually, for a mid-career scientist, has had an interview published in a peer-reviewed journal ( Nature Medicine ). While there might be concerns about particular claims, these can be resolved by normal editing. Scopus H-factor of 49 suggest significant impact. Klbrain ( talk ) 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Role in Novartis over many years ? What policy would this be based on? Because there are tens of thousands of corporations in the world, perhaps hundreds of thousands of C-level executives, and he wasn't even C-level, so we'd need a policy if this was to be a notability criteria. — kashmīrī TALK 18:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable, also a few book listings found [50] , mentions he was profiled in the NY Times in 2014, and here [51] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NYT profile is an interview, but is here: [52] . Allan Nonymous , also this [53] hits us the trifecta for WP:GNG . ( talk ) 18:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , mostly per WP:PROF#C1 and the multiple first-author quadruple-digit-citation papers in his Google Scholar profile. The additional evidence linked above by Oaktree is also suggestive (although not yet definitive) of possible notability through WP:GNG as well. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two citations precisely, from 1997 and 1998 (so citations span 25+ years). Barely a dozen first-author articles, the last one from 2018. 65 publications indexed by PubMed [54] – a mediocre result for a late-career researcher. Sorry. — kashmīrī TALK 18:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also a paper from 2001. Just FYI, the threshold for citations is generally around 100, this is beyond that by an order of magnitude. A claim that he fails WP:NACADEMIC is thus pretty weak. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first-author citation counts I'm seeing on Google Scholar are: 2426 (1998), 2394 (1997), 1112 (2001), 358 (2011), 233 (1994), 209 (2003), etc. And many many more citations if you include all his papers, not only the first-author ones. That is a strong record, over a wide range of years. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:PROF#C1 which he clearly passes with 20+ papers that have 100+ citations. There isnt much more that needs to be said. -- hroest 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article, seemingly created by the subject or someone very close to him, contains a lot of made-up claims and attempts to look more important. For instance, the author claims to have been Global Head of Neuroscience at Novartis. Actually, he wasn't [55] – he did not work for the Swiss pharmaceutical giant but for Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research, a US-based biotechnology company (separate legally and structurally, even as wholly owned by Novartis). Different company, different post, different splendour, different country. I've updated the article, but a bad taste remained. Then, the article claims that the subject oversaw the development of gene therapies while in NIBR ("his team... helped bring several therapies to the clinic that included Zolgensma"). That again is misleading. Not only has NIBR never done any substantial work on the mentioned gene therapy (apart from internal consulting) but NIBR even does not carry out clinical development . The mentioned Zolgensma in particular was licensed by Novartis long after all its preclinical and much of clinical development was over. After the subject joined NIBR, its neuroscience division indeed attempted to engage in clinical development – initially, it was clinical trials of branaplam . Yet the two trials they conducted not only failed but the first one was a disaster (children dying due to poor decision making, and no sensible data generated in 7 years) – to the extent that, to the best of my knowledge, Novartis recommended internally that NIBR no longer does clinical development again. The subject left NIBR shortly after. That's not the end of problems with the article. The subject could not "curate the drug development pipeline that included... ofatumumab ", the reason being that ofatumumab received marketing authorisation four years before the subject joined NIBR, [56] not mentioning that ofatumumab was discovered and had preclinical development done by the Danish company Genmab . Unfortunately, I have no time to research other claims, however the sheer number of WP:PEACOCK / WP:PROMO statements constitutes a big red light for me. — kashmīrī TALK 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: please be aware that this is WP:NOTCLEANUP and while the COI and the WP:PROMO statements are a problem, they are not grounds for deletion but rather grounds for improving the article. Feel free to improve the article and remove unsourced / unsubstantiated statements. I see that even some of the sourced statements use articles written by the subject itself as source which is obviously not an independent source. -- hroest 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hannes Röst Well, I added quite a few {{secondary source needed}} tags, but @ Allan Nonymous removed all [57] of them [58] . However, I think we all know that being listed among co-authors on a paper is not same as "that's what he worked on", and isn't covered by WP:ABOUTSELF . I know it's not WP:CLEANUP, however the sheer number of problems with the article is a good indicator whether the article is ready for mainspace. Note that it was created in draftspace, however the author did not submit it for review before moving it to mainspace. Had the article followed the normal route, we wouldn't be having such a discussion at AfD. Draftifying is an option, too. — kashmīrī TALK 17:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I removed them under the assumption that being a co-author on a paper is an uncontroversial sign they worked on the subject. Any conclusions drawn from the research (i.e. the results/conclusions/implications of such research) would definitely require an independent source (likely a paper that cites and interprets the information or a review). If you disagree, feel free to add them back, I made the edits assuming this interpretation WP:ABOUTSELF was uncontroversial. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 18:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Allan Nonymous I can only echo Maproom 's comments posted at this link : Papers authored or co-authored by Dolmetsch don't help with [establishing that he is notable] . Because they are not about Dolmetch. — kashmīrī TALK 20:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're confusing two things here, WP:NOTABILITY (i.e. the policy used to establish whether a subject is notable) and WP:VERIFIABILITY (i.e. whether some content about a subject can belong in an article). These two policies have different standards based on the different aims they serve. My edits had nothing to do with WP:NOTABILITY , and everything to do with WP:VERIFIABILITY , so have little bearing on the argument at hand here and probably better discussed on the talk page of this article. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They are linked. We can't establish notability – and this discussion is about the subject's notability – without being able to verify claims. If it turns out that a large number of claims are unsourced, or false as shown earlier – then editors might prefer to send the article back to draftspace. — kashmīrī TALK 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as per David Eppstein's logic. Incidentally, I have tried to tidy the article up a bit but it still needs removal of promotional language. Qflib ( talk ) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Hello my name is Ricardo Dolmetsch. Someone brought to my attention that there was a wikipedia article about me and that there was a discussion about its content. I’m arriving a little late to the discussion but I thought I could shed some light on some of the issues that are being discussed. First I didn’t commission or approve this article. It was submitted by my mother who is a journalist in Colombia, without my consent or approval. My mom thinks I’m important but I don’t think that meets the criteria for notability in Wikipedia. There are many scientists who have records like mine so I leave it to you to decide whether to keep the page or take it down. The small group of people who need to know about me can usually find me online, so a Wikipedia entry is not absolutely essential. In case you decide to keep the page I would like to clarify a few things for the record. My original name is Richard Carl Elciario Dolmetsch and I was born in Colombia but my scientific name since my graduate days has been Ricardo Dolmetsch because there were too many Richard’s in the department where I got my Ph.D. and Rick, Rich, Dick and Richard were taken. I make no claim to having discovered or invented Zolgensma. Zolgensma is a gene therapy for SMA that was developed originally at Avexis which was purchased by Novartis who oversaw the registration of the drug. I was one of the Novartis scientists that proposed the purchase of Avexis. I was later the main contact between Avexis and Novartis research (which was called NIBR in those days) until it was discovered that the Avexis development team had committed fraud and Avexis was reorganized. At the time of the Avexis purchase Novartis had about ten gene therapy projects in development in the neuroscience group which is one of the reasons that Novartis was interested in Avexis. The neuroscience gene therapy programs were initiated by a very bright recruit to our group and were quite advanced. For about twenty years, the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (NIBR) was the research and early development arm of Novartis. It was in charge of the pipeline from discovery to Ph2 proof of concept clinical studies. Branaplam was a small molecule splicing modulator developed for SMA. It was in active development at the time of the Avexis purchase. It’s not true that any children died because of executive decisions related to Branaplam. The program was put on hold by the FDA because there was a tox signal during development but the children that were being dosed continued to be dosed albeit at a lower dose. The program failed in a later trial for Huntington’s Disease because of toxicity observed in adult patients. I was the global head of Neuroscience at NIBR which was the research and early development arm of Novartis. I was part of the Neuroscience leadership team which included a head of Neuroscience development and a head of Neuroscience Commercial. My leaving NIBR had nothing to do with Branaplam. I left Novartis in good standing to take a position at uniQure. Ofatumumab was an approved drug that had been previously on the market in oncology. It was purchased by Novartis and developed for MS. I was part of the leadership team that worked on this program as I was part of the leadership team that worked on Erenumab (developed at Amgen) and Siponimod (developed at Novartis). Ok that’s it. Thank you all so much for being such selfless editors of Wikipedia. It’s kind of amazing that we have this resource. I’m thinking I should join the effort and help you all. 24.2.241.30 ( talk ) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Ricardo [ reply ] @ 24.2.241.30 : Thanks for commenting here and clarifying, Ricardo. You'd be most welcome to register for an account and contribute your knowledge to the global encylopaedia. The way you described your work is definitely more modest than the original writeup by the article author, as the issue I flagged was, essentially, with exagerrated claims not backed up by the few available sources. For instance, while you now described your role in the purchase of Avexis by Novartis, the article said that "your team [at NIBR] brought Zolgensma to the clinic", which I hope you agree is rather imprecise (and folks at Novartis Gene Therapies may be offended). I'll see how to reword the article using based on other details that you provided. The scarcity of reliable independent sources is always a challenge. Re. branaplam, I'm inclined to disagree on details, but this is perhaps not the place to discuss it. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Libby Liu: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 14 references, 12 are not about her, and two are bios on the websites of her own organizations. (Radio Free Asia and OTF) Tagged for notability since July 2023. Previously deleted. North8000 ( talk ) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. It seems to be a COATRACK largely based on sources about Whitleblower Aid. Liu is evidently successful in her career but there's no evidence she meets WP:GNG. Sionk ( talk ) 18:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - my initial look for sources finds the Washingtonian ranking her among Washington DC’s 500 Most Influential People of 2023 , as well as sources that seem to add more context to her career, e.g. V.O.A. Directors Resign After Bannon Ally Takes Charge of U.S. Media Agency (NYT, Jun. 15, 2020) CEO of Open Technology Fund Resigns After Closed-Source Lobbying Effort (Vice, Jun. 17, 2020) Lawsuit Argues Dismissal of Government-Funded Media Employees Was Unlawful (NYT, Jun. 23, 2020) Judge Finds U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Broke Law In Seizing Control Of Fund (NPR, Oct. 17, 2020) 'I Was Speechless': Law Firm Investigated Its Own Ex-Client For Trump VOA Chief (NPR, Mar. 10, 2021) The Facebook whistleblower’s case was a big gamble for the nonprofit supporting her (WaPo, Oct. 22, 2021) earlier coverage includes China's stifling of Web detailed / U.S. firms often cooperate, experts reveal to Congress (SFGATE, 2006) Beccaynr ( talk ) 18:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just clarifying, per that link it is the Washingtonian's site/magazine's pick of the 500 most influential in the DC area. Regarding GNG, we're looking for something that has in-depth coverage of her . Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Her inclusion on the Washingtonian list, along with the brief bio, seems to be secondary recognition that contributes to her WP:BASIC notability. I don't have time to fully research or to try to rewrite the article now, but it seems likely she has received more than trivial coverage by secondary sources over time to support her notability and to develop a neutral and balanced biography. Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The key thing here is just finding (or not finding) 1-2 GNG type sources. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 21:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW my nomination (and subsequent discussion) is just trying to do my NPP job properly, to explain that I did and to help sort this out. North8000 ( talk ) 21:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course! and I am sorry I don't have time right now to do my test-notability-through-a-rewrite thing right now, which may be a way to help demonstrate WP:BASIC / WP:GNG , through a combination of multiple independent sources. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Radio , Internet , Asia , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've made some updates to the article to add sources listed in this discussion, remove sources without coverage of Liu, and add content, including from additional research. I still plan to check the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr ( talk ) 05:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you point out any references that look like GNG coverage? Thanx. North8000 ( talk ) 01:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am still reviewing research and working on the article, but I think the WP:BASIC SNG would be the most likely guideline to support her notability, with a combination of sources over time demonstrating that she/her work have received GNG-equivalent coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For example, for her work with Radio Free Asia related to what could be described as the Great Firewall , there is SFGate in 2006, which provides context for her description of RFA's work; NYT in 2011, similarly providing context for her description of RFA's work; her writing and RFA work focused on circumventing Chinese government censorship is also discussed in a 2009 Journal of Business Ethics article at pp. 497-498 . The sustained coverage of this aspect of her career, when combined, seems to provide some support for her notability. The Open Technology Fund coverage related to her has more focus on her as part of a group of people fired by Michael Pack and the lawsuits that followed, but there is some coverage from the WSJ in 2016 ProQuest 1766924876 , which includes a description of her role in the development of the OTF. I have not yet done a specific search at the Wikipedia Library for her work at Whistleblower Aid , but the sources in the article now include a 2021 WaPo interview with context, and The Guardian quoting her in 2022. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also the Washingtonian in 2023, placing her in a group of 20 people it describes as "Whether fighting for democracy or federal-employee benefits, these people care deeply about having our public system work effectively", and the 2020/2021 Luxembourg Peace Prize award (this appears to be a reprinted press release); from my view, the Washingtonian recognition in particular seems to be independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of her and her work, and even though it is not in-depth, it contributes support for her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being considered as one of 500 most influential people by the Washingtonian is a very tenuous claim to notability indeed. Being a laureate of the Luxembourg Peace Prize sounds slightly more impressive, though this doesn't appear to be a major award. Coverage of the work of Radio Free Asia would count towards the notability of RFA, but not Liu. Sionk ( talk ) 12:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also been thinking about her notability as a creative professional, based on the sources, e.g. WP:DIRECTOR - in this 2011 NYT piece, she discusses how the organization she directs collects information for journalism; the 2006 SFGate is her discussing how they teach people to access the journalism; in this 2011 NYT piece, "Liu said she spends most of her time trying to figure out how to get around Chinese government firewalls that make it difficult for young people to get Radio Free Asia’s broadcasts on the Internet or their cellphones." The 2009 Journal of Business Ethics source discusses her work and her writing. Her role creating the Open Technology Fund within RFA is discussed by The Wall Street Journal in more than trivial coverage, and the OTF and Liu receive more coverage in the wake of the Pack firings and subsequent lawsuits. The most limited coverage I have found so far is related to her current role at Whistleblower Aid , and the revisions to the article since your ! vote reflect this; from my view, the RFA/OTF coverage seems to help show that she has held leadership positions at two journalism-related organizations, and her work within these organizations has received coverage in independent, reliable, and secondary sources. From my view, it seems established by souces that she had an active leadership role within RFA and OTF, so the coverage related to her and her work supports her notability. Beccaynr ( talk ) 13:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I nominated based on the "rules" and just trying to do my job properly. At the time the info in the article was just resume type stuff. You seem to building more both in content and sources including the type of stuff described in your last post. IMHO some more of that type of development (even without GNG sources) might make me personally want to "keep" even if that needs a little wp:iar. North8000 ( talk ) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely respect the nomination, not only based on the article at the time it was nominated several months after its creation, but also in light of the deep-diving into research needed for development. I appreciate your bringing this article forward for review and discussion. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on all of that including substantial additions my opinion has changed to Weak keep . "Weak" because I think that there are still not GNG sources and so I'm relying on a bit of WP:IAR or else consideration of all of the other material and considerations under Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works . Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on WP:BASIC and a combination of sources over time; I recently added a source from NPR ( April 2021 ) with a more substantial focus on Liu than some other sources related to the Pack firings, including her filing of a whistleblower complaint, although some sources have more than trivial coverage; with the 2009 Journal of Business Ethics coverage of her writing and work at RFA, as well as the 2016 Wall Street Journal coverage of her role developing the OTF, we seem to have independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of major aspects of her career over time. To the extent WP:IAR is needed to support a standalone article, I have been thinking on how fragmenting this content across several articles, at minimum to Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund , does not seem to be the most efficient outcome, because Liu held a leadership role at RFA for 14 years, led both the creation of the OTF and the OTF after it became an independent grantee, and had an active role in what happened after Pack was appointed, and has had more than trivial coverage of these aspects of her career. As a side note, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here, and consideration while I worked on the article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Beccaynr. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by Beccaynr. Passes WP:GNG . 76.64.163.41 ( talk ) 16:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Residence (TV series): - 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE ( talk ) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting that this was created on my behalf. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE ( talk ) 23:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (barely): Three sources from article show N, not all just these three: [6] , [7] , [8] . Most of the other refs are promo, mentions in articles about other subjects, but these three put it past the GNG finish line. // Timothy :: talk 21:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources are good and reliable. I feel it passes GNG, although it could be a bit better. KeineMelon ( talk ) 15:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft - I'm not seeing confirmation that filming started in those sources. Did I miss it? - WikiPete18 ( talk ) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Went through again, but i still dont see it. I think there's good reports, but the spirit of the nomination seems to be that it should be a draft until the production actually starts and gets reported on. - WikiPete18 ( talk ) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are reliable sources for this article. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 01:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But how many reliable sources say that production has actually started. The point was that this could be cancelled at any point still with recent changes to the industry where things are cancelled even after production in some cases. Grendel for example 2600:1012:B121:9BB2:19EB:42FD:EEFC:216A ( talk ) 19:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Uri Gordon (anarchist): The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | Who, me? 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Politics , Israel , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [13] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive! , but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics , Six Zionist Essays , Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive! ?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle . Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon . — LittleDwangs ( talk ) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Confusing. Thanks for the correction. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall , one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs ( talk ) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1 , WP:AUTHOR , and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing. Whizkin ( talk ) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. -- hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb ( talk ) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:PROF#C1 , WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs ( talk ) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Anarchy Alive! There is no extended reliable, secondary source coverage of note about the author himself, discounting passing mentions and interviews (which are primary sources). The most that has been written about him are the academic reviews of his book Anarchy Alive which are already in that dedicated article, as they're more about the book than the author. That Anarchists Against the Wall has one academic review (not counting Fifth Estate , which is a partisan periodical) does not bring us any more closer to being able to write a dedicated biography that does justice to Gordon. The standard here is to cover the author within his book article, if he's better known for that book than for any other thing . czar 01:27, 25 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

Stephen Hicks: As one of its talk page thread says, this article looks like a PR piece. All sources are blogs, university documents and things written by Hicks himself. The page was created by a SPA that has been editing it for over 15 years, which explains the puffy writing. SparklyNights 23:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Authors , Philosophy , and United States of America . SparklyNights 23:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada , Illinois , and Indiana . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a shame that the writer of this rather puffy BLP could not take the trouble to provide a GS profile, but I think that there is a pass of WP:Prof and WP:Author in a low-profile field. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . One search on GS gives a book with 490 citations, which alone is well sufficient for SNG. Judging from the edit history there might be a COI problem but that is grounds for careful review, not for deletion. The career section contains (by my count) 4 references to him authored by academic peers, so the nominator has not checked things carefully. The most problematic part I noticed is actually the "criticism" section which appears to contain titles for unrelated books by another author. That smells of promotion. Ceconhistorian ( talk ) 04:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see his google scholar publications now, he is noted as "SRC Hicks" and that was why I couldn't find him before. His book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault has over 400 citations now, which is a very big number, but I'm still concerned about the fact that his other publications still didn't get anywhere near that level of attention (his Nietzsche and the Nazis only has over 20 citations, for example, and I can't confirm if any of them mention Hicks beyond a passing mention). If only the postmodernism book is getting coverage, maybe we should have an article about the book and not him. I could confirm 2 sources about his works in the Career section of the article, one of which is about Explaining Postmodernism and the other seems to have been deleted from the Atlas Society website. SparklyNights SparklyNights 05:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] His overall count looks good enough; 490 is massive and 20-60 are not bad citation numbers for a niche area like history of philosophy. From WP:PROF : "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences." History of philosophy is twice disadvantaged because it's in the humanities and quite theoretical. I've tried to come up with a fair comparison and the first that comes to mind is Peter Steinberger , a well-respected historian of philosophy who wrote on similar subjects -- here are his citation numbers. Ceconhistorian ( talk ) 06:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the titles for unrelated books by another author were added to explain who the reviewer being quoted is; the line is a bit awkward as a result, but it doesn't strike me as advertising those books. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nadine Rohr: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC . Shinadamina ( talk ) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , and Switzerland . Shinadamina ( talk ) 02:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Olympics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both sources currently in article appear to be reliable. One is international database which confirms her as 7x national champion, one a newspaper article about her which confirms her as national record-setter. Pam D 07:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If you really weren't able to find sources, Shinadamina, you should ask someone for help. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This can safely be kept due to even more sources having been added. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:46, 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

Ameera Shah: User4edits ( talk ) 12:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : weak delete, source 9 and 35 are RS, but both the same publication, somewhat rehashing the same story. Rest are all promotional or corporate overviews. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also both 9 & 35 do not discuss much about her professional excellence or notability, just random celebrity questions boosting ego (possibly promotional/paid). The publication per itself "focuses on intelligent lifestyle". @ Oaktree b . Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 15:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : The article may need a rewrite /cleanup, but the subject looks notable as she is featured by some of the prominent publications in India. I googled a bit and saw these good references in the media. Business Today: Why Ameera Shah-Led Metropolis Healthcare is Attractive to Investors Economic Times (India's largest Business newspaper) : Metropolis is gearing up to serve a larger segment of consumers: Ameera Shah, MD Business Today: How Ameera Shah built Metropolis Healthcare into a top-notch company DNA : Meet Ameera Shah, doctor's daughter who built Rs 6478 crore firm from dad's single clinic ACC appoints Ajay Kapur as CEO, Ameera Shah as Woman Independent Director She is listed also as India's Most Powerful Women in Business by Fortune , Business Today and Forbes India. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tinucherian Most articles cited in bullet does not speak much about her or her contributions, some articles are years apart but written by the same individual journalist. Further, all articles have her name in the headline but there is no substance in the article about her. See also: Paid news in India (I am unable to find the WP internal article on this, but there is one). About "listed also as India's Most Powerful Women in Business by Fortune, Business Today and Forbes India." She is not listed as "the: most powerful, but a list of 100, or so, released each year. Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 07:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How do you assume every news story in India is paid for? I find such accusations of Indian media outrageous. Business Today , The Economic Times are very respected and top publications in India. This business today article is written by Neetu Chandra Sharma , who has over 18 years of extensive newspaper and digital reporting experience and Senior Editor at BT. The ET article is written by Viswanath Pillai , Asst Editor and has nearly 20 years of experience as a journalist. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tinucherian , I did not mean to say that, I am myself from India. My main point was not the Curriculum vitae of journalists, but that there is little about her in those articles apart from her name in Headline, and that she is not listed as "the: most powerful, but a list of 100, or so, released each year . Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - she absolutely has not done anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This basically fails WP:SIGCOV , but even more broadly, WP:GNG , and WP:NOTWEBHOST . She appears to be a very nice young lady who was put into her job by her father. That isn't notable. Bearian ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is an entry that should not be deleted. There are many sources, besides the fact that we need more Wikipedia pages about women who are doing important work. A very nice young lady? Come on What century are you living in...-- Hazooyi ( talk ) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ User4edits I have found more references about her in Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal , two of the biggest and most reputed newspapers in the world. It may be behind paywall and due to copyright issues, I am sharing only a few extracts Financial Times : ' Transforming a small pathology lab into a $1bn business ' Ameera Shah, managing director of India’s Metropolis Healthcare, returned to her Mumbai home in mid-March, after giving birth to her first child. Her plan was to spend a month “without worrying about Metropolis,” the nationwide chain of diagnostics laboratories she had built over the previous two decades. :But coronavirus cases had begun emerging in India, where authorities had done little to prepare for the pandemic. Ms Shah was soon ensnared in calls with government officials about testing policies. On March 23, New Delhi permitted six private pathology labs — including Metropolis — to start testing for the pathogen. A day later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi abruptly imposed a nationwide coronavirus lockdown.  The 40-year-old entrepreneur — who by then had retreated with her husband, parents and baby to a house in the countryside — found herself at the centre of a maelstrom, trying to help her company ramp up its coronavirus testing capacity amid the severe disruption of the lockdown. For years, she fought the stereotype [in India] that young women lacked seriousness, as she transformed her father’s small pathology lab into a listed company valued at nearly $1bn on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Wall Street Journal : ' Entrepreneur Builds a Leading Chain of Diagnostics Labs ' Ameera Shah launched Metropolis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in 2001, expanding her father’s Mumbai-based pathology center into a company of 3,800 employees and a network of laboratories throughout India. Taking advantage of low regulatory costs that allow blood tests to be conducted at a tenth the price of a U.S. lab, the company has strived to build up scale, offering 4,500 types of tests on everything from cholesterol to complex genetics. But loose regulation also means stiff competition – there are about 100, 000 pathology labs in India’s fragmented market. Ms. Shah, 36, spoke with The Wall Street Journal about her decision to return to India after going to college in the U.S., the challenges of organizing independent-minded Indian doctors and her decision to expand into emerging markets in Africa. Hope these references are more than enough to prove the notability of the subject -- Tinu Cherian - 18:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Numerous media outlets have extensively covered the subject, easily meeting the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's notability guideline (WP:GNG). I found several recent articles by just searching her name on Google News. Here are a few coverages that are currently missing and should be added to improve the article instead of deleting it. MPW 2023: How Metropolis Healthcare MD Ameera Shah steered her firm past the post-Covid dip MPW 2023: Women have made great strides in the healthcare sector, but it’s still a work in progress The She List | Women who are the powers that be in the world of Indian business Competition intensity in diagnostics moderating Metropolis on the prowl for acquisitions as sector's competitive intensity eases NATHEALTH elects Dr Ashutosh Raghuvanshi, MD and CEO, Fortis Healthcare, as the . . Metropolis Healthcare Is In A Sweet Spot, Says MD Ameera Shah Meet Ameera Shah: Innovating Diagnostics Industry; From One Lab To 1,500 Centres Today How Ameera Shah powered the rise of Metropolis Healthcare Ameera Shah On A Tear To Expand Multinational Diagnostics Lab Chain Himalayan7914 ( talk ) 15:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Wayward Realms: I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released. Primefac ( talk ) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games . Primefac ( talk ) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NEXIST . There are a lot more PCGamesN articles, GamesRadar+ and GameStar , just to name a few. It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing. Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:11, 17 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! 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's clearly enough coverage to make it significant, not to mention the team is made up of industry veterans instead of newcomers. But yes, the sources really should be cleaned up. ThanatosApprentice ( talk ) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Lots of established gaming sites discuss it, and the team behind it has a proven track record. Sure, the sources could be stronger, but let's focus on making the article better, not getting rid of it altogether. Waqar 💬 17:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bonnie Bo: Thoroughly unconfirmable in all regards. Only one valid link which is remotely intelligible and it is a fluff interview. Claims she participated in Chinese filmmaking are debunked by a complete absence of any presence on IMDb. Nirva20 ( talk ) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and China . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Zhang, Yi 张漪 (2014-11-17). "《坏姐姐》编剧柏邦妮：女汉子心里都有一个萌妹子" ["Bad Sister" screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Every woman has a cute girl in her heart]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17 . Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via People's Daily . The article notes from Google Translate: "The name Bo Bonnie may be familiar to many Nanjing netizens, because when Xici Hutong was popular for a while, Bo Bonnie "has been haunted" in many movie music and literary editions, and she has also built her own discussion section. At that time, she was still in college. She was born in 1982 and is from Lianyungang. After graduating from high school, she was admitted to the film and television department of Nanjing University of the Arts, but after more than a year, she went to the Beijing Film Academy as an auditor. After that, she has experience in media work, column writing, and book publishing, and gradually clarified her writing direction. A few years ago, she was admitted to the Beijing Film Academy for a master's degree and systematically studied screenwriting." "《拆婚联盟》编剧柏邦妮:黑遍十二星座" ["Marriage Breaking Alliance" Screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Black Twelve Constellation] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation . 2014-10-27. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17 . Retrieved 2022-10-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bo is a legend. She once attracted much attention for being the top student in the college entrance examination who dropped out of school. She also became popular on the Internet because of "A Letter to My Sister"; she was affectionately called "the first in the West Temple" by netizens. Talented Girl", also participated in the screenwriting work of the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions" as the main force of "Youth Dream Team". After graduating from Beijing Film Academy with Zhao Wei [microblogging], she switched back and forth between the two professions of writer and screenwriter, non-stop. She is a post-80s female screenwriter and a leading figure in the new generation of writers. " Zhang, Jingjing 张晶晶 (2013-08-02). "见好柏邦妮" [Meet Bonnie Bo]. China Science Daily [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17 . Retrieved 2022-10-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Shanshan, who left Nanjing University of the Arts and went north, gave herself a new name called Bo Bonnie. ... In the summer of 2002, Zhang Shanshan, a former top student in the college entrance examination for arts in Jiangsu Province, chose to drop out; in 2007, Bo Bonnie, an auditor of the Beijing Film Academy, was admitted to the graduate school of the Beijing Film Academy and became Zhao Wei's classmate. ... This spring, Bonnie Bo was invited to Japan to interview female photographer Ninagawa Mika. " "编剧柏邦妮：兴高采烈奔跑的八十后(图)" [Screenwriter Bai Bonnie: Happy 80th Generation (Photo)]. Xiaoxiang Morning Herald [ zh ] (in Chinese). 2010-07-23. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17 . Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via NetEase . The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bai, whose name comes from the 1960s Hollywood love movie "Bonnie and Clyde", is the Bonnie who "looked at each other and smiled with Clyde, shot 167 times in the sun, fell to the ground and died". She fled from a university that "couldn't see her ideal", went to Beiying as an auditor, and was admitted to a graduate school. " Liu, Chengxian 刘成献 (2009-07-30). Zhu, Kaili 朱凯莉 (ed.). "柏邦妮：像38D一样骄傲地生活" [Bonnie: Live proudly like 38D]. Tianshannet (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-03-04 . Retrieved 2022-10-17 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province in 1982, Bonnie Bo was born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province. Both parents work in scientific research institutions. ... In the year of the college entrance examination, Bo Bonnie lived up to the expectations of her parents and was admitted to the Nanjing University of the Arts with a high score in the province's art category. ... In 2006, after four years of audition and study, Bonnie Bo was successfully admitted to the Literature Department of Beijing Film Academy to study for postgraduate studies. ... In March 2008, Bonnie Bo suddenly received a call from the "Dream of Red Mansions" preparatory team, inviting her and 8 other young screenwriters to write the script for the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions". " Zheng, Yi 郑屹 (2015-04-24). "柏邦妮：我和我的抑郁症" [Bonnie Bo: Me and my depression] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television . Archived from the original on 2015-04-27 . Retrieved 2024-03-19 . The article notes from Google Translate: "Bai Bonnie, born in 1982, is a Capricorn. Her ancestral home is Wuxi, Sichuan, and she grew up in Jiangsu. In the year of the college entrance examination, she was admitted to the Nanjing Art Institute with the top score in the province's art category. After being a weird student for a year, she decided to drop out and become an auditor at the Beijing Film Academy. The year she came to Beijing, she started writing online and never stopped. The collection of essays "Love You Like Bonnie" and the interview records "Untrue" and "Not Beautiful" are her masterpieces. Her latest work "Meeting Good" was released last year. Her screenwriting works include "Dream of Red Mansions", "Mulan", "Liao Zhai Qingfeng", etc., and her recent screenwriting work is the Korean movie "Bad Sister: Breaking Up the Marriage Alliance". This movie was rated 4.5 on Douban and made Bonnie "collapse" for a month. "" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bonnie Bo ( Chinese : 柏邦妮 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How are these CCP outlets "independent " of anything? Nirva20 ( talk ) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Xinhua News Agency : Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence . There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people . When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#China Daily : China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party . The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily , owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily ' s interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily ' s view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily . I consider the state-owned media publications listed here to be sufficiently reliable and independent for factual areas since the author and screenwriter Bonnie Bo is not an "are[a] where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". Cunard ( talk ) 19:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's research. Also, the nominator removed three citations from the wiki article simply because they were no longer active links, and removed some relevant content from the article as well. Persingo ( talk ) 05:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Text removal explained in edit summary ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_Bo&diff=1214592174&oldid=1214590663 ). Removal of dead Chinese language external links requires no explanation. Nirva20 ( talk ) 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this edit [1] , you removed four statements which are all verified in the articles Cunard posted above (at least two of which were already in the article when you started editing it), namely: her parents worked in research institutes; she was champion of the province's art examination; she was admitted to the Nanjing Arts Institute; and she dropped out of that school. In terms of deleting links, it is never appropriate to remove a source (which those external links were -- they were not labeled sources but as the article had no inline citations they obviously were) simply because it is dead. Internet archives like the Wayback Machine can be used to find archived copies, as Cunard has done above. If you had checked the sources that were in the article before you started editing it, and replaced dead links where necessary, you would very likely have found all four of those relevant statements that you deleted were verified therein. If not, the appropriate action would have been adding a "citation needed" tag to that which you could not find a citation for, rather than deleting relevant information. The article already has a notice at the top that it lacks inline citations. Persingo ( talk ) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Cunard's sources seem to be sufficient, and I don't really see why the CCP outlets should be discounted. We don't discount the CBC on most Canadian topics, nor do we discount the VOA on most American topics. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : I am not convinced that a TV screenwriter is automatically notable , even for a major network show, but that seems to be the consensus here . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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

Alex Fridman: He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions. Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance. Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos. Your opinions? זור987 ( talk ) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, זור987 , This AFD is not in the correct format for an article deletion discussion. Please review WP:AFD and follow the directions precisely. Look at other AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 29 for guidance on how it should appear and be formatted. This AFD is not listed on the daily AFD log page either and no deletion sorting has been done so it is unlikely that other editors will even know this discussion exists. I'd tag this page for deletion and start over from scratch following the guidelines on the AFD instruction page. L iz Read! Talk! 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Liz : I tried this and non-stop failing to put the article in the daily AFD log page . Can you do this instead? זור987 ( talk ) 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted. "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly? The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent. I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all? Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Disability , Israel , and Belarus . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established. Why delete? -- Geewhiz ( talk ) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes the GNG and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb ( talk ) 23:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability has been well established with reliable sources. Easily passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 06:30, 31 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

Irena Justine: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , and Indonesia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree, the article subject doesn’t meet notability requirements. Nate Higgers ( talk ) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . And improve with the help of the (WP) pages in Indonesian about her and the films/series she played in, and that seem to show she meets WP:NACTOR although she died young. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . According to WP:NACTOR , the individual must have had substantial roles in various notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. However, the person in question does not meet this requirement, as they have never portrayed lead roles or appeared in notable films. Ckfasdf ( talk ) 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems important, and references seem legit. In general, multiple references talking about the subject like this is probably enough to indicate notability. User:Sawerchessread ( talk ) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] :* Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [34] . He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [35] [36] . 202.43.93.9 ( talk ) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — 202.43.93.9 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:14, 4 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! 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references from the Indonesian article. I think she had many important roles. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Subjects who are notable in Indonesia are just as important as subjects who are notable in the US, and article editors are improving the references. rspεεr ( talk ) 17:50, 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

Spice cake: WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . BaduFerreira ( talk ) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Question . Is this similar enough to Spiced breads for a move ? Bearian ( talk ) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think a spiced bread or spice bread article exists (the latter is a redirect to the spice cake article). Are you thinking of sliced bread ? BaduFerreira ( talk ) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Spice cake is a cake whose most prominent characteristic is the inclusion of strongly flavored spices. It is a category of related cakes, like fruitcake or chocolate cake. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is my absolutely favorite type of cake but I don't think this makes me involved here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Relying primarily on "Cake" by Sally Parham in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America , I there are two possible scopes for this article. The one that interests me most is the butter cake version after the baking powder revolution. However, there's also the much older yeast-based spice cakes from the 17th and 18th centuries ( Martha Washington's great cake is at the tail end of that), which may be what Bearian is thinking of. If you imagine one of these spice-and-currants cakes, originally rather more like Raisin bread than like a layer cake, a modern spice cake translates that flavor profile out of the original yeast bread or the heavy fruit cake and into a modern butter cake. Parham writes 'The old fruited, spiced cakes baked for tea, too, were dragooned into the new butter cake family... Already darkened, if only slightly, by fruit and spice, these cakes gathered into a new clutch of butter cakes that were intentionally darkened to a fare-thee-well—by spices and brown sugar or molasses, to make “spice cakes”.' She also says spice cake was the second most popular category of butter cake during the 20th century (after chocolate, before vanilla), and that they adapted to the mid-century vegetable oil trend nicely. Examples of modern spice cakes include Applesauce cake , Carrot cake , and Gingerbread , as well as some less common ones, such as Gâteau de Sirop or Parkin (cake) . WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've found coverage in Food & Wine, Southern Living, and The Daily Meal with just a very brief search. I don't see any signs this dish isn't notable. Valereee ( talk ) 18:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The People's Republic of Amnesia: There appears to be only 1 decent review from NY times. But doesn't meet WP:NBOOK . LibStar ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and China . LibStar ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BEFORE fail. WaPo mentions it, this year, demonstrating it has enduring coverage. Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban... we'd better have a really airtight case for deleting, and this ain't it. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Anything the Chinese Communist Party wants to ban." is not a criteria for WP:NBOOK . LibStar ( talk ) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it's a criteria for a project built on NOTCENSORED, which I happen to believe applies to this case based on the WaPo article I cited. Consider beefing up your BEFORE, withdrawing the nomination, or accept the residual risk of appearing to have nomination priorities congruent with a totalitarian regime. That may be totally OK with you, but I would consider having myself apparently so aligned a pretty negative thing. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk ) 00:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Suggest you tone down your aggressive tone. LibStar ( talk ) 00:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NBOOK . Numerous reviews, including in Krikus Reviews , Publishers Weekly , The Guardian , Wall Street Journal . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've also added a link to the Times review already in the article, which is accessible through TWL. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks LibStar ( talk ) 00:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : several reviews in serious RS. Have done some tidying up - removed the umpteen repeated links to the author, removed a duplicated ref, and fixed the curly quotes. Pam D 09:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the Reception section shows notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 12:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable, while the article might not have shown notability, remember to check WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 20:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per coverage in reviews. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 22:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ana Book Store: Article seems pretty trivial to me. Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions . Procyon117 ( talk ) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't delete :Regardless of how trivial this article may be. I’m of the opinion, that any topic which has a descent amount of sources covering it is deserving of a Wikipedia page, as for this article which I have written, the citations are well distributed and there are a good number of references, so I don’t really see the issue, here. Stewmuhn ( talk ) 06:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GNG. I note also that all the sources we have on the present article are recent, while the store itself is quite old, so there probably is more coverage out there. -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was dubious myself, but IMHO this subject has sufficient direct detailing in multiple independent sources to meet general notability. Well done page creator! I mean no disrespect to the nominator; their assumptions may prove to be perfectly valid. BusterD ( talk ) 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Chester Aaron: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The problem here is this author's works were mainly published before the internet so there's less info available online. Add in that the article needs a lot of work and I understand why questions on this author's notability were raised. However, a search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a ton of reviews and coverage of his work in places like North American Review, School Library Journal, Horn Book Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Publishing Research Quarterly, and other places. The WP even has a Newsweek article about his work as a garlic farmer and I also found this NYT review of one of his books from 1972 . Aaron doesn't seems like he was a great writer of children's books -- many of the reviews are negative -- but he was widely published and reviewed and meets our WP:Author notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:10, 12 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! 23:34, 18 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! 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He meets the WP:Author Notability. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 15:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Didn’t find much about him, yet he seems a notable WP:Author by seeing his work . I found some the third party sources, 1 , 2 , 3 that at least credits his career as a writer. Atighot ( talk ) 00:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rosemary Gillespie: As well as Australian database trove. Fails WP:BIO . LibStar ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I found coverage of her on news sites as an author and human rights activist for PNG, Fiji and Indigenous Australians and citations of her books and articles. I can show her notability by expanding her article and adding more references over the next week so please do not delete. LPascal ( talk ) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Substantial coverage in a range of sources, not least the parliamentary debate where the speaker says she " is well known to this country through her activism in the South Pacific and her current role in Bougainville, which has been going on for some time." Pam D 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I note that the article has been substantially upgraded and many more sources added since the nomination, and invite the nominator to consider withdrawing the AfD now that Gillespie's notability is better demonstrated. Pam D 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree. This article should be kept. Bduke ( talk ) 08:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Laputa: Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuicoleJR , TompaDompa , and Викидим : (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Natg 19 ( talk ) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan . I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. ( diff ) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag ) on locations in Gulliver's Travels , and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search ( scholar:laputa ) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) — @ Jontesta , PatGallacher , Vexations , Jclemens , BennyOnTheLoose , and Bearian : Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TompaDompa : The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS , don't we? Викидим ( talk ) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one . Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим ( talk ) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. -- Викидим ( talk ) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.: Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120 Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229 The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21 The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277 Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120 The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334 Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30 Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944 These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays . Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays . Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire , a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим ( talk ) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Marine Tanguy: Reads like COI Assirian cat ( talk ) 13:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , Arts , and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Rather easy to find RS, these are the first two from Gnews [10] , [11] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as Oaktree b says above there are long profile pieces which seem to suggest notability. They seem to me to be largely interviews but with sufficient critical editorial to be useable as a RS. JMWt ( talk ) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Phosphorus pentaiodide: Keres🌕 Luna edits! 05:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 10:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's a debated topic in the chemical research community, [10] , there are about 4 pages in Gscholar mentioning the compound. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's present in the discourse [11] , if apparently a bit of a fringe topic. Sourcing in current article doesn't look too bad either. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 09:23, 16 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

Phaedra Al-Majid: No objection to a redirect to Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid#Bribery . // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:19, 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) 09:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below. Giant Snowman 21:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , I found (which go into her background): [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , and [64] , among many more sources. Ironically, the nominator of this article voted to keep another WP:BLP1E AfD, saying that the nominator of deleting that article was "simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context". Article needs improvement not deletion m. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 22:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG per above sources. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 05:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Although the stub article does need to be significantly improved. It's barely a one sentence stub, and it needs to be expanded considerably. CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Zlatko Radić: Most of the references in the article are to primary sources, and seem to largely be cursory mentions. Joy ( talk ) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Serbia . Joy ( talk ) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Radić was a member of the Serbian parliament. Politicians elected to national assemblies are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN . CJCurrie ( talk ) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He's still failing WP:GNG . I mean, seriously now, the Serbian Parliament described him like this : there is no biography, and there's just a single word for his profession. Sure, technically this passes the guideline on politicians, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy . I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English? -- Joy ( talk ) 21:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This strikes me as a misreading of the policy. WP:POLITICIAN indicates that all members of national assemblies are automatically assumed to be notable. WP:Notability indicates that an article topic is presumed to be notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN ; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial. Also, I'm inclined to think that an individual being notable on the Serbian Wiki (or the Croatian Wiki, or the Hungarian, or any other Wiki one could name) would generally make them notable on the English Wiki as well. CJCurrie ( talk ) 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, what can I say... I continue to be saddened by arguments apparently based on pure technicalities. -- Joy ( talk ) 22:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Being a member of parliament of a sovereign state automatically passes WP:NPOL . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL . Mccapra ( talk ) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra @ BlakeIsHereStudios can we reflect on the spirit and letter of WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG , please? -- Joy ( talk ) 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is there to reflect on? He was a member of a national parliament. Slam dunk. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me remind of some of these fine linked guidelines: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person, when e.g. a redirect to List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2003–2007 would suffice. Oh, wait, we don't even have a list of all of them in there. The stated goal of the guideline on politicians is to ensure that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete . Having this standalone article adds excessive detail while we are clearly lacking the basic general coverage, which is incongruent. -- Joy ( talk ) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll reiterate something I wrote above: WP:Notability indicates that a topic is presumed notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN ; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial. CJCurrie ( talk ) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Blatantly obvious that it passes WP:NPOL and should be closed by WP:SNOW . CJCurrie has made some excellent points regarding WP:Notability . If the nominator has an issue with WP:NPOL , this should be discussed outside an AFD. ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some really odd comments by the nom showing complete misunderstanding for how Wikipedia works. I assumed the nom was a new editor, then I see they've been here 22 years and is an admin! Nom says the subject fails WP:NPOL which explicitly says national legislators are notable. Nom says "Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person" - not making a great case for a lack of notability and then says "I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English?" which is a pretty extraordinary statement. So American or British backbenchers are worthy of coverage but not Serbian ones? Heard of WP:GEOBIAS ? AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AusLondonder what is extraordinary about wanting a politician's coverage to be commensurate to the person's significance? On the Serbian Wikipedia, there's probably a lot more content about Lapovo , so if they go into an appropriate amount of detail about whatever other local features, characteristics, people, ... they can go into the same amount of detail about the local politicians. Likewise, the English Wikipedia will contain an amount of information relevant to English readers that wouldn't necessarily be seen exactly the same on the other language Wikipedias. This is perfectly normal because it caters to the readers. I'm still not sure in what universe an average English reader would be interested in how some guy spent four years in the Serbian Parliament after getting in as a substitute, apparently did not do anything worth mentioning other than get into a bar fight back home (!), and then was later candidate number 189 or 229 and didn't get elected there ever again. The fact he later finished third in a mayoral election with 600-odd votes, but did serve on the municipal council, is likewise largely meaningless. This is like a compendium of useless factoids about a person. Does nobody have any qualms that this violates WP:NOTWHOSWHO ? At this point I am genuinely perplexed why y'all care so much for keeping this largely trivial information in a standalone article and don't even want to bother coming up with a rationale on who are these readers who we would be serving by keeping this as is. -- Joy ( talk ) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree this will likely never be a Featured Article on the English Wiki, it still passes the threshold for notability. And while this is a separate issue, the information included in the article pertains to the subject's time in public life and is not just a random collection of facts. CJCurrie ( talk ) 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not random, but it is just that - information. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, not just information. We can summarize the relevant knowledge about this person's public life in a single list caption as it is now, perhaps referencing it to a couple of those primary sources and to the paragraph in that Politika summary article on parliamentary immunity in Serbia. If they ever do something else of note ( WP:POTENTIAL ), then they can still get a standalone article. -- Joy ( talk ) 13:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'd like to see this article buffed out a bit more with stuff he did in office, but the subject clearly passes WP:NPOL , which is not a merely arbitrary guideline but exists to help mitigate nominations such as this. These types of political figures tend to always (like in 99.5% of testcases) have coverage of their activities in office, even if you cannot see it using Google (i.e. in things like newspapers that have not yet been digitized; this is basically an estimator of when WP:OFFLINE coverage is likely to exist). If the current state of an NPOL-passing article does not yet surpass WP:NOPAGE , then it can be redirected to a list of legislators; this article clearly does pass that threshold. Curbon7 ( talk ) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Curbon7 would love to see 99.5% of these testcases, esp. in relation to Serbia where the political scene is generally well documented. -- Joy ( talk ) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, no post-1900 WP:NPOL -passing politician has ever been deleted at AfD in the past 15 years on notability grounds. To repeat myself, that is not merely for no reason; a member of parliament will literally always have coverage of their activities, even if that coverage is not easily accessible on Google , whether that be in newspapers that have not yet been digitized or those that are in inaccessible or paywalled archives. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article should certainly be flagged for improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. The argument here isn't actually that politicians are exempted from GNG — national legislators virtually always pass GNG, and the real issue is that we haven't always invested sufficient effort into finding all of the best GNG-worthy sourcing to write the most substantial article with, and that's especially going to be a problem for politicians who served in countries where the strongest sourcing would be written in foreign languages that many contributors to the English Wikipedia can't read. But again, it's not that better sourcing doesn't exist , it's that Wikipedians haven't put enough work into finding it, which isn't the same thing — and that's precisely why we have SNGs alongside GNG, because the current state of an article is not always the end of the story in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk ) 18:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bearcat that's the thing. I couldn't find anything substantial about this person online, let alone proper secondary sources. For a 21st century Serbian politician, that's just not great. -- Joy ( talk ) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you clarify what specific resources you actually checked? Do you have access to a proper database of archived Serbian media coverage from 15 to 20 years ago, or did you just do a simple Google search? A politician who was in office from 2004 to 2007 obviously isn't going to have a lot of recent coverage that would still Google well in 2024, but that doesn't constitute proof that at-the-time coverage didn't exist in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 — so you need to be more specific about where you searched, because stuff can fall through the cracks if we don't completely exhaust every possible resource. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly, a general Google Search failed to produce much of anything about this Zlatko Radić. It found some others, but apparently not this one. I also tried with site:rs specifically, and in Cyrillic as well. If our readers have to have the skills of a private investigator to verify our article about something, then that's not really in the realm of general notability. -- Joy ( talk ) 20:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The realm of general notability does not require all or even most of our sources to be recent news coverage that googles, and does permit older news coverage that has to be found in archives . So since Google is not a place where media coverage from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up, did you actually check any databases of archived Serbian media coverage where articles from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up? That doesn't require the skills of a private investigator to do, it just requires the skills of a marginally competent researcher. Bearcat ( talk ) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ahmed Muhammad Ketso: It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. JoeNMLC ( talk ) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: He appears to meet WP:NPOL as the deputy governor of Niger State . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 02:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria . Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Have only one sentence. Doesn't pass general notability . either. Very poor article. Even that one source seems fishy tbh. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — unless the notability guidelines for politicians has changed, this subject is notable as the deputy governor of Niger State . I wanted to close this discussion myself but I’m hasitating in doing so. I have improved the article to something readable but I guess I should advise this user that deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans ( talk ) 18:40, 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

Southern Pacific 6051: Individual locomotives are seldom notable, and those that are almost always are preserved steam locomotives. EMD E9 claims 42 examples are preserved, this locomotive isn't unique and fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to California State Railroad Museum#Diesel locomotives . No evidence of independent notability. {{ CSRM rolling stock }} probably should go as well - it's almost entirely unviable redlinks. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 01:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . From the article: "SP 6051 is the only surviving Southern Pacific passenger-dedicated diesel locomotive". That's uniqueness of a sort. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 04:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Uniqueness does not guarantee notability. That claim is not supported by the cited source, and cannot find a reliable source for it (if it's even true - there's a lot of preserved SP diesel locomotives ). The article sources are a one-sentence mention in a book, one line in an equipment roster, a self-published non-RS, and a source that does not even mention the locomotive. None of that meets the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:N . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you get particular enough, anything is "unique". I'd appreciate if you at least attempted to provide some sort of policy or guideline-based rationale. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect per Pi.1415926535 Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SOCKSTRIKE . Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my comment at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 5623 , which involves the relatively new and fairly comprehensive List of preserved locomotives in the United States . Also, I don't think the assertion about preserved locomotives mostly being steam ones in the nomination is true. It certainly once was true, that the only recognized-as-historic ones were steam. But, if one counts locos in heritage railways, i think it's not true, and it may not be true even if you only considered locomotives preserved in static display at museums. (I also am not sure...i need to go browse the relevant lists.) --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 07:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good job misrepresenting my words, I said most notable (for Wikipedia) locomotives are steam locomotives, not that most preserved locomotives are steam. Anyways, this comment is extremely WP:POINTy and I trust it will be disregarded entirely by the closer, especially since you've failed to refute the lack of notability arguments at all. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Trainsandotherthings , I'm sorry that you think I misrepresented anything. In my mind "preserved locomotive" pretty much equals "notable locomotive", and from my editing in lists of preserved locomotives in the U.S. and Canada, I have the impression that there the (preserved) contents of museums and heritage railways includes a whole lot of post-steam ones, perhaps more than there are steam ones (and perhaps more than the set of preserved steam locomotives plus historic notable steam ones that were not preserved). You said "notable locomotives" are almost all steam ones; it is my belief that was certainly true in the past but I think (and I said I am not sure) that may not be true now. This is all sort of an aside, with respect to this specific locomotive, but it does go to the credibility of the nomination. I "!voted" Keep. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 19:59, 15 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! 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to the museum, could be a merge target there as well. Nothing particularly special about this locomotive, technical-wise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep It's interestingly marginal, but after my BEFORE search, between coverage in two books, the Sacramento Bee blurb, and references in several railroad specific books, including model railroad books, lend me to believe the engine's been commented on enough times in secondary sources to be eligible for an article. I'm a weak because I could probably make an argument that nothing is truly significant coverage in a true "here's a feature article specifically on the locomotive" sense, but significant doesn't necessarily mean long, and there's enough sources here to write an encyclopaedia article on. SportingFlyer T · C 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I previously closed this as "keep", but reopened the discussion per request at my talk for another admin to take a look, as I'm short on time this evening. L Faraone 00:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Close enough for a second relist despite a sizable amount of discussion already. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not opposed to a "weak keep", but that's the railfan in me speaking. Policy-wise, I'd redirect to the museum. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified. gidonb ( talk ) 02:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : the options should only be to Keep or to Merge. There is substantial info in the article which should not be lost by merely redirecting. Looking at the suggested redirect target, it doesn't look easy to merge substantial information to there, although perhaps a good amount could be put into a large footnote there. I prefer "Keep". --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The nomination asserts that the article EMD E9 claims 42 "are preserved". In fact the article was claiming that "42 survive today" which is different. And, "today" was apparently in the year 1997. This edit in 2019 removed mention of the source ("Andrew Toppan's list") and the fact that the list was prepared in 1997. So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration). I wonder, did the deletion nominator know the claim was bad? In retrospect, their wording in the nom implies doubt. I am restoring that mention of the 1997 Andrew Toppanm (whatever that is), but I also wonder how many other sources were removed in bad editing before and since. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So TODAY, in 2023, 26 years later, we may presume many fewer survive and perhaps even fewer can be said to be preserved (by significant restoration). That's both speculation and original research. And even if this were the one and only preserved E9 (which it verifiably isn't), that doesn't make it automatically notable. All I said was that EMD E9 claimed 42 survive, or were you expecting me to go and verify the exact number of E9s which are preserved? This locomotive still does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 15:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of bus companies of the Philippines: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of links to Wikipedia articles, making this a valid navigational list. Navigational lists are far more useful than categories since more information can be listed, helping people find what they are looking for. Remove anything that doesn't have its own article or a section in another article. D r e a m Focus 18:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are plenty of blue linked entries. Article can be improved by clearing out the unsourced, non-notable entries. Ajf773 ( talk ) 08:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep valid list but needs TLC though. I'll give it a go. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Enough blue links to justify the existence of this list. Agletarang ( talk ) 11:43, 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

Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning: This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keep ing the article. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television , and Pakistan . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 21:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , Sorry, but I want to remind you of two points: 1) The article wasn't created via AFC and wasn't even submitted for review. 2) I didn't sincerely wanted to investigate more . As I mentioned on your tp , this AFD was unnecessary and I have little hope it will result in deletion. As I've mentioned on your tp, the AFD process can now feel like a lottery. Anyway, you could have sent it back to the draft namespace, but you decided to take it to AFD, which was your choice. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see no issue. It meets WP:NFO criteria #1 and WP:NFILM /GNG in general (see: [10] [11] [12] [13] etc.). This is perfectly fine in mainspace from what I can see. The purpose of AfC is "[...] to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't." I imagine this article will survive deletion because of the amount of coverage it has received. (Semi-)unrelated, I would not recommend moving an article accepted by AfC back to draftspace: Although it doesn't technically violate WP:DRAFTOBJECT (because in this case the reviewer would have been the one to move it back), it could very easily confuse the newer editor who created it. C F A 💬 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't plan to vote for deletion because I don't want others to think I'm on a deletion spree, but I do want to point out that the article was created in violation of the WMF Terms of Use's prohibition of UPE. The fact that it was created by a WP:SLEEPER account as well SPA Wahab98 ( talk · contribs ) who has been trying to create an article on this topic since joining WP back in 2022, ( see this , this , this ) leads me to believe involvement of WP:UPE. The fact that different WP:UPE IPs ( Special:Contributions/217.165.8.38 and Special:Contributions/223.123.5.5 ) started editing and defending the article as soon as it was moved to the main namespace and the fact that articles on the same topic have been repeatedly created under different titles by different accounts associated with different UPE sock farms such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress (Nauman335), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taiyabi/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scudo Lives Once/Archive at Draft:UmroAyyar A New Beginning , Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning , Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning , Draft:Umro Ayyar- A New Begining etc. I really have no issue with an article on this topic being created, but it should be done by an established editor with a credible editing history, not by a WP:SLEEPER/SPA Wahab98 . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And not only on this wiki, but the same WP:UPE sock farm recently resorted to creating an article on this topic on the Simple EN WP, out of desperation. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's basically a start-class article at this point, but enough reviews noted that appear to be from good sources to meet notability. I've removed a bit of the gratuitous name-dropping and fluff, at this point, I doubt there's much junk from the UPE editor. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Saqib's reservations are genuine but I think the topic is notable. We can neutralize this to avoid UPE concerns. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep