Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

WCB Wasafi: Original reasoning was: Blatant WP:PROMO ; fails WP:NCORP . While on second look the promo is not obvious, the second part of the reasoning still holds. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Tanzania . Jalen Folf (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Since the prod reasoning was repeated, I will repeat my contestation: "Certainly not blatant promo, since the founder appears notable, and with six potentially notably signees could qualify as an important indie in WP:MUSIC's sense. It's possible there is walled-garden activity here, but it's not clear to me (a nonexpert on African pop) that's happening". Certainly, there is no reason for this to be at AfD (to create a redlink here), since at worst the applicable action would be to merge into the founder's article. Chubbles ( talk ) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The record label qualifies for inclusion based on the founder's notability and its potential impact within the independent music scene, aligning with WP:MUSIC guidelines. While the presence of walled-garden activity is uncertain, it does not justify deletion without concrete evidence. PushaWasha ( talk ) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - according to [46] it is the largest label in Tanzania. Additional coverage at [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] . It is fairly clear that the label is of significant cultural importance in Tanzania, that it meets GNG, and would qualify as "one of the more important indie labels." 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Record label certainly appears notable enough, especially after seeing 78.26's findings immediately above. CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 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

Majestic International: There has been significant disruption around this article (explicitly not by the creator) and I'm bringing this here for a full discussion following the aborted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic International Company . Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates . Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think it's unusual that Majestic International focuses on providing logistics technologies is the only part of the article that actually says what this company does. Usually aside from acquisitions or mergers, saying what the services or products of a company are is the bulk of a business article, not a short sentence tacked on to the end of a paragraph. That's not a vote of deletion, just an observation that this is not your typical article on a company. L iz Read! Talk! 18:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per my view the page meets WP:NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article), as I see that there is coverage outside the page too, and with such history the company possibly has the required depth of coverage. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to its multinational presence, historical significance since 1981, and notable achievements including recognition as a Great Place To Work. -- Nord-We ( talk ) 11:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as WP:Before helped much. I've extensively researched the Majestic International subsidiaries and added to the page several big companies belonging to it, among which sport division, Majestic Steel USA company and Majestic Marine Engineering. I've included a lot of books and magazines in-depht coverage and see that there are even more when dig into history. The added coverage is from 1990s and 2000s, and also includes many recent features from various occasions. -- Mind-blowing blow ( talk ) 07:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If the entire basis of your view is "sources must exist", please link to some of those sources. Otherwise, your opinion will likely be discarded by the closing admin. This is not a ballot. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment semi'ed to stop the immediate disruption. If any admin wants to take it over since I did open the discussion, feel free. Constructive new users are welcome to use the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with new sources added and the scope and scale of the company was revealed. The page lacks style and may look promo, but it's notable now with new refs and sections added - that is why I changed and enlarged a little bit the first entry sentence to correspond the main text. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 16:10, 5 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

Jack Ashton: The current sources in the article are focused on his relationship and family and I don't think they go into enough detail about him to pass WP:GNG . Suonii180 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and United Kingdom . Suonii180 ( talk ) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and 5x expansion of this former stub, which had 1,595,752 page views since it was first created six years ago. The article now has a sizeable Career section covering Ashton's major television roles (beyond Call the Midwife ), as well as his theatre performances ( A Streetcar Named Desire at the Donmar and lead in Strangers on a Train ) and his starring role in a US film. We also find out what his real name was and how he chose his stage name. The most in-depth articles about him do incorporate quotes of Ashton himself, but also include facts that were presumably researched and/or fact-checked by journalists and editorial staff, including Radio Times , The Bristol Post , and MyLondon , and there are numerous reviews of his stage roles (e.g., The Times and What's On Stage ), and one by the The Independent Critic about Instrument of War . (NB: Not sure if you were using Google for WP:BEFORE , but increasingly we're finding that it's not fit for purpose, particularly for single-parameter searches; Bing seems to perform much better in that regard.) Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suonii180 Respectfully request that this nomination is withdrawn. There are many viable candidates for deletion that actually do require attention, but this is not one of them. I have now invested the time to improve the article, and it seems fair not to waste anyone else's. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 08:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Now clearly passes GNG thanks to the hard work of Cielquiparle . 21,673 pageviews in the past 30 days shows that our readers want to read about the subject, and we now have an article that does it justice. Edwardx ( talk ) 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep great work Cielquiparle Earnsthearthrob ( talk ) 20:04, 29 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

Gestione Governativa Navigazione Laghi: I did not find more sources in Italian language edition either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 10:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Transportation , and Italy . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NTS . Regional transportation company, serving the three biggest lakes in Lombardy . -- Broc ( talk ) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Broc are there secondary sources required to satisfy NTS? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Shushugah ( talk · contribs ) just a very quick Google News search from the last few months brings: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] . The company has been around since 1957 (see [34] ), I'm sure plenty more sources can be found. -- Broc ( talk ) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Extremely significant transportation company. Plenty of sources available. Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep This book chapter [35] provides excellent coverage of the company (in English). Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eluchil404 thank you for this! I will withdraw my nomination. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 04:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Fredrick Nwabufo: Broc ( talk ) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria . Broc ( talk ) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism. He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public. I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia. Thanks. AromeArome ( talk ) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL ? Broc ( talk ) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG . He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist. Article needs NPOV cleanup, though. AusLondonder ( talk ) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agree with what AusLondoner said above. Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Artur Orzech: Fails WP:GNG . 178.164.179.49 ( talk ) 06:43, 8 May 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 May 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 ( talk ) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter) , José Luis Uribarri , José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber ( talk ) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 ( talk ) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then? Thanks! Qcumber ( talk ) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber ( talk ) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He appears to be a well-known Polish journalist, and his references to music broadcasters and cited content appear to be verified. Sanwalniazik ( talk ) — Sanwalniazik ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi . Atlassian ( talk ) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick googling showed many sources: [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] . As well as article collections with and about him [38] , [39] , etc. Atlassian ( talk ) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal ( talk ) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE . -- C avarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here ( and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 ( talk ) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies. BabbaQ ( talk ) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY . WP:BLP , and specifically WP:BLPRS , means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV . In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO . Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza , [40] , and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie ( talk ) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hilco (musician): I sat down for a while trying to find good sources for the individual but to no avail. There is also a close paraphrasing of copied content from a blog here . To crown it all, the article is a run-of-mill . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , Bands and musicians , and Africa . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject passes GNG. In 2019 here or here subject was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in the UMP Awards . In 2017 here again, subject was nominated in " Best Afro Pop Category of the Year" in the Nyasa Music Awards . Again, in 2018 here she was nominated for being "Best Female Artist of the Year" in Nyasa Awards. I also found this published in 2018, in Nyasa Times , here too, and more here , here , here , another here , by Nthanda Times, again here by The Nation , which can be used to sustain an article ( WP:NEXIST )-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I may bear or consider the awards though they seem not to be a major musical award. The sources you cited doesn't meet WP:SIRS ; they appear to be quotations of the singer or about a releasee of song, which normally gets handled by a PR. I will wait for more participation though. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SafariScribe I don't think you really did a Google search properly because you said subject has no GNG. Now you say the awards mentioned are not the major awards, can you mention any of major award found in this country? Because those are the only major awards, among others. Again, you might wanna consider checking this for sources about the country. If you find sources that are not reliable there, please post them here for the community's input. Claiming that the awards (or something) is not major without researching is a big turn off as a new page reviewer. Again, some sources provided above such as The Nation here are considered reliable as the source (site) is one of the physical newspapers that started in early 1990s, and this is its online version. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 18:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Commenting on what's already out there, I don't see any awards listed in the article whatsoever. The use of tone, formatting, MOS, and writing is very poor and kind of promotional, meaning the article does not state how and why the subject is notable. " She was born on 14 February 1995 in a family of six children in Blantyre. " that is really not necessary and the statement is cited to a non-reliable source. " Hilco has been featured by different artists in the country such as Saint on a track "wanga (mine)" and "Usanapite (Don't go) that features the voice of Dan Lufani. " She may be featured by Jesus but still not be notable as notability is not inherent. The " See also " section is also unnecessary. Now looking at the notability of the subject, I don't see anything claiming that she meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NSINGER and for what it's worth, the article is not convincing that they meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO . And looking at WP:WikiProject Malawi/Malawian sources , there is no claim that the listed sources are reliable as there is a goal to review the sources. The website may be notable but not its content, for example Sportskeeda , Sputnik and so on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources . Frankly, I do not blame the reviewer for seeking consensus here as there's not much in this article. dxneo ( talk ) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Come to think of it, Tumbuka Arch , you are that guy I pleaded with to make sure their articles are cited to reliable sources before moving them to mainspace on this AfD . We can't keep discussing the same problem over and over and then you later decide to improve the article when it's on AfD. Please refrain from doing this and if there are more of your articles like this one and the aforementioned , please work on them before they get here too. dxneo ( talk ) 11:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per recent improvements. dxneo ( talk ) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dxneo , what improvement? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , the article was not like that when I first saw it. Honestly, it was a mess, but it is well formatted now. And the subject pass WP:MUSICBIO . Doesn't she? dxneo ( talk ) 01:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 10:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . withdrawn as keep per WP:HEY . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:51, 29 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

Choe Yeong-kyeong: Does not satisfy GNG. 777burger user talk contribs 22:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Korea . 777burger user talk contribs 22:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the ko.wiki article has more sources and a Google search suggests there are additional sources that demonstrate notability. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Here's one RS, the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture : [9] . Under "참고문헌" you can see the refs it has there too to Joseon historical records. toobigtokale ( talk ) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Apprentice User:777burger should better read 777burger's letter soup manual. BEFORE could be a good starting point. Pldx1 ( talk ) 16:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

International Association for the Study of Dreams: I am unable to find significant independent coverage in RS; a total lack of results on Google Scholar is particularly concerning for an academic organization. On Google Books there's some results, but they all appear to be from people affiliated with the organization, e.g. [13] . Interestingly, one of the most prominent authors in the search results is one Clare Johnson ( [14] ), who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article but whose Google Books author bio mentions leadership of this organization. Absent clearly reliable sources, and noting the classification of these books as "self-help" texts, I'm a bit concerned that we may be laundering a fringe organization, and/or that there may be more than one organization by this name, one more reputable than the other (but neither of them notable). Dreaming (journal) could be a potential WP:ATD target, but the prior concerns of reputation laundering give me pause. Both this article and Dreaming (journal) cite this website to claim that the peer-reviewed Heidelberg University publication IJoDR is published by IASD, but the actual website makes no claim to affiliation with IASD, and its Editorial Team masthead makes no mention of any figures listed at this article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Psychiatry , Psychology , and California . signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration . Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia. Have listed it at the article rescue squadron. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The association is certainly not fringe , nor is their journal, Dreaming . Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ]

keep

Mayfair Capital Investment Management: As they no longer have a wikipedia page either, we need to have this one removed so that it does not confuse clients as Mayfair Capital will cease to exist from the 15th May 2023. I am the marketing associate at Mayfair Capital hence why I am asking for this to be removed on behalf of the company. MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment that’s not a reason to delete. The article can simply be updated to include the renaming with a red link to SLAM. If an organisation was ever notable it remains notable for Wikipedia purposes even after it ceases to exist. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I understand that but as Swiss Life Asset Managers do not have a Wikipedia page, we would prefer to delete as it will confuse clients. A lot of the information on the current page is also now very dated so if it were to stay up, the majority of would need to be deleted as it's irrelevant. It would make it easier if the page was taken down for that sake. MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 05:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sorry but that’s still not a reason for deletion. We’re not here to keep clients updated but to provide an independent and authoritative record of a company even if it no longer exists. I’m happy to edit the article to make clear that the information is not current, and if you can give me links to a couple of sources for the name change I’ll add them in. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’ve updated the article as I suggested above, and am therefore ! voting to keep it. Mccapra ( talk ) 11:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok great, thank you very much for making those updates! MunsatMCIM55 ( talk ) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep per WP:CSK#1 and/or WP:CSK#3 —no valid deletion rationale is given. I do not have the time to dig in to the history to see if the company is actually notable, so I make explicit note that this ! vote is solely based on the lack of valid rationale advanced by the nominator; I have no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on substantial grounds. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:40, 20 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

List of Arabian Houses: Fails WP:LISTCRIT with vague/ambiguous scope major royal families and their allies in the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century . Why "major" (not in title)? When does a "royal family" qualify for "major" and when not? Are "houses" the same as "royal families"? Why are we limiting ourselves to "the 20th century", but sneakily adding dates from before 1900 and after 2000 in all the time? Why do we include "allies"? What kind of "allies"? Do they need to be "royal families" too or can the U.S. government also count as an "ally" of the House of Saud , for example? What do we mean by "the Arabian Peninsula"? Apparently that includes Bahrain, all of Iraq and all of Jordan... I'm separating this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries , because it doesn't really fit that bundle, and should be assessed on its own terms. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Geography , and Lists . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The list itself probably doesn't fail WP:LISTCRIT but the way it's been defined in the article might. Houses are the same as royal families - that's pretty obvious from context. The big question here is whether the list can be fixed without deleting it by redefining it, and I think it probably could. SportingFlyer T · C 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you got a suggestion? Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I currently think it's best to WP:TNT this; start over with RS and an unambiguous scope. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As I said, it's not my favourite thing - and I agree it needs work (which I'm not in a position to do right now) - probably as 'List of Arabian royal families', where 'Arabia' is generally defined as GCC + Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Yemen. The sourcing isn't really an issue, as the list is linked out to sourced material but I do note some articles around this ( Tribes of Arabia ) are an appalling mess of ridiculous assertion with dubious sourcing ('Al Sirhan' or 'Al Andalusi' are not sources worth citing without specific page numbers, editions etc). I would agree the 'allies' can go, too. But the list does fulfil a function not otherwise fulfilled and I'd seek an alternative to deletion which, in this case, would be retention and cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So the list could be brought in line with WP:CSC #1? Fair enough, but we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. No article can rely entirely on the sources of another article ( WP:CIRC ). I still think WP:TNT per WP:NOW is a better idea than keeping this stuff like this for another 19 years. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CIRC doesn't really apply to lists where the article the list points to is properly sourced - it's to make sure that articles aren't self-referential. And WP:TNT is only a reason for deletion in limited instances that don't really apply here. Deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer T · C 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I partially agree, but even if I were to fully agree, we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Alexandermcnabb's decision. CastJared ( talk ) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East , Bahrain , Iraq , Jordan , Kuwait , Oman , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , United Arab Emirates , and Yemen . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but remove "their allies" and "20th century" from the criteria (also no capital H if the title is kept). There are no allies listed (plus it's a fuzzy criterion), and 20th century is purely arbitrary. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like your suggestions; they are good first steps. How would you define ' Arabian Peninsula '? Does it include Bahrain, Socotra , other islands, all of Iraq, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait etc.? As long as we've got no definition, this is a fuzzy criterion as well. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arabia generally refers to GCC + Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Socotra part of Yemen. However, Arabian peninsula is GCC and Yemen. GCC = Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Saudi in clockwise order... Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting, because the main article Arabian Peninsula shows the following two maps: Arabian Peninsula The constituent countries of Arabia No Syria in either "Arabian Peninsula" or "Arabia". No Jordan in "Arabia", or only part of Jordan in "Arabian Peninsula". No Iraq in "Arabia", or only part of Iraq in "Arabian Peninsula". Therefore, "Arabian" in the title "List of Arabian Houses", and "Arabian Peninsula" in the opening sentence, may refer to two different areas. Moreover, you include "Jordan, Syria, Iraq" in "Arabia", but the second map does not. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahhh, WP:OTHERSTUFF... As someone living in Arabia and responsible for many, many publications here over the decades such as 'The Arabian Computer Guide', I can only give you my understanding of 'Arabia'. The peninsula is easier, as I said, GCC+Yemen and nicely defined by the landmass. In any case, you could neatly handle that with 'List of Arab royal families', 'cos that's GCC + Jordan right now, but Syria AND Iraq used to have royal families. Arabian sits easier with me because it's a geo and not an ethnicity, which I find more comfortable - purely personally. But whatever is decided, that's talk page stuff and not AfD stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS: The people of the Arabian peninsula are also unanimous that the wee sea up there is the Arabian Gulf, but WP defines it as the Persian Gulf, which shows just how much we in the West care about how they define themselves... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can cite WP:RS which support your geographical definition of either 'Arabia' or 'Arabian Peninsula', we've got somewhere to go, and we could save this article from deletion. They don't have to be 'Western' sources, they don't even have to be written in English per se; as long as they are reliable, verifiable, and relevant for our purposes here. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The geographical scope of the article isn't a reason for deletion!!! As @ SportingFlyer mentions above, deletion is not cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes it is. If a geographical scope is self-invented, arbitrary, subjective, not supported by reliable sources, or otherwise not commonly accepted, this can be grounds for deletion of a category, article, template, or otherwise. Examples: There is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Northwestern" etc. So the following categories were recently deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Northwestern European countries Category:Countries in Europe by region ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Northwestern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Central European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Eastern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Northern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Northwestern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Southeastern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Southern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Southwestern European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Category:Western European countries ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Flora of Northwestern Europe Category:Flora of Northwestern Europe ( edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs ) And so on. I nominated all of these pages for deletion myself. As you can see, I've got no problem deleting pages about "Western" regions if there is no consensus in "Western" sources about what, say, "Northwestern Europe" even means. (According to some definitions, it includes my own country of residence; according to other definitions, it doesn't). If there is no consensus on what either "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula" means, neither can be used as a geographical scope. It would just be ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT : Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria ) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. As long as a list cannot meet the WP:LISTCRIT , it is liable to deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 11:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but I'm relisting as the article itself, its content, sources and scope, is still being considered. It seems like the condition of the article is in flux so more consideration is warranted instead of a closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tentatively agree. If we can reach agreement on the geographical scope, then pretty much all issues that I see are or can be solved. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 09:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of Arab royal families. I reckon that's us, right there. Would include historical royalty (Syria, Mecca, Iraq, Egypt) could potentially include Hormuz. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arab is way too vague and ambiguous. It can mean anything from geography to language to ethnicity. I know for a fact that people will start including royal families in North Africa from Mauretania down to Sudan and perhaps even Somalia and further south to East Africa if we rename it Arab . And I think it's very likely they will eventually include parts of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Cyprus etc. if we included the Middle Ages, which I strongly recommend against. If the opening sentence should be maintained as the scope, it should be List of royal families in/from the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century , and we need at least 3 WP:RS to agree on the geographical scope of Arabian Peninsula . Otherwise, it will still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE , WP:OR , WP:SYNTH , ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 10:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Arab" is not really too vaugue. The article needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. Agree with Alexandermcnabb . Vyvagaba ( talk ) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think renaming the article as List of Arab royal houses would help, we can devide them to current and former royal houses. Vyvagaba ( talk ) 22:06, 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

Sumaya Alnasser: In the first request, there was interference from sockpuppets, and there was no consensus. I am submitting a deletion request for several reasons, as follows: The article does not meet the standards of notability, and there are no real achievements. It is evident that the article was created solely for promotional purposes. The article has been deleted more than 4 times after attempts to publish it on Arabic Wikipedia. Additionally, most of the sources in the article appear to be promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, secondary context, or the necessary commentary to support notability and assist in developing a neutral and balanced article. The individual who published the article on English Wikipedia also attempted to pass and publish the article on Egyptian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Spanish Wikipedia, which is suspicious. I believe there is a conflict of interest here. The information presented is highly questionable, especially regarding "lifestyle coaches" regardless of their nationality. Coaching is a personal activity, and it is difficult to gain fame in it. I also wonder how, at the age of 41, she could have trained 200,000 people... That's a small country! Furthermore, including her website in the article appears to be a form of promotion, as she sells videos through access to her site! The article is suspicious and highly dubious. Osps7 ( talk ) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Osps7 ( talk ) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Saudi Arabia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable; I can only find this puffy article [62] , with no other sources. I see PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A search found reliable sources to back the subject's notability, most of which are already in the article, including The National, an English-speaking publication which has bureaus in London and the Middle East. The subject has been featured in CNN. Noteworthy as well is that the subject was named by Forbes as one of the most influential women in the Middle East in 2018. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The justification for deletion is appropriate, as the article contains a large number of inaccuracies. Also in a television interview with Sumaya Alnasser, she said that people who have doubts about my work should visit Wikipedia, because Wikipedia recognizes me!!! She says that her presence on Wikipedia makes her products reliable!!!!! This is clear promotion and exploitation of Wikipedia's purpose. Most of the sources are promotional and paid, and during the previous discussion a number of sock puppets appeared and were later banned. What is the point of trying to keep the article going despite the disastrous fallacies! I support deleting the article. It's worth noting that the article has been deleted 5 times on Arabic Wikipedia, and the creator of the article has been banned on Arabic Wikipedia. Recently, the article was also deleted on Egyptian Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia. Osps7 ( talk ) 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sir Osps7, Lying is harmful to the online Wikipedia, please see WP:DNTL . Sumaya has not appeared on any TV interview recently and her last TV interview was on April 25, 2022. She has never spoken about Wikipedia in any TV show. I ask you to bring evidence. Sumaya does not have an article on the Arabic Wikipedia and the English article is only one month old, so how can an article that is a month old be a reason for the success of her work? Stop lying please as per WP:DNTL . Mazin suliman ( talk ) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep The article already has many trusted and reliable sources. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC . Last month, the XfD discussion on this article was closed as “no consensus, you did not wait at least two months as per WP:2MONTHS . The subject has been featured in CNN three times [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ 3 ]. There are many reliable sources that have not been added to the article, I will add them. The Arabic article you mentioned was deleted because it was poorly written, and the editor who wrote it did not follow Wikipedia guidelines (no references, wrong format, etc.). I will write it according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and submit it again. Moreover, training a large number of people can be done online within a short time. There is nothing suspicious about that. She speaks Arabic, and the population of Arab world is about 456,520,777 people. Mazin suliman ( talk ) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Osps7 , part of your deletion rationale is actually a comment I wrote in the first AFD in a relisting comment. It's still accurate but it's strange that you appropriated my words as if they were your own ideas. If you "borrow" content other editors have written, please give them credit. It's very easy to do. L iz Read! Talk! 05:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Liz , part of the justification for deletion is from your analysis of the article, and I apologize if my request for your analysis caused any inconvenience to you. You certainly deserve credit for this strong analysis. Osps7 ( talk ) 15:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Tough one, but I'll err on the side of keep. Some of the sources look promotional, and it's entirely possible it was created for promotional purposes, but we're looking at the subject rather than the current condition of the article (unless it's beyond repair, which I don't think it is). Other sources, like Vogue, CNN, The National, etc. seem ok enough, with a mix of primary/secondary material (words by the journalists vs. words from the subject). The big question is the Arabic and English Middle East-related sources, which I (and I suspect most here on enwp) just don't have enough familiarity with to make a judgment call beyond the basics of information literacy. E.g. I don't know Arab News, but this sure looks like a press release/ churnalism to me. The same language appears in some of the other sources, which further convinces me it's not a good source to use. I find myself on the fence, and because part of the reason for that is my own ignorance, I'm content to err on the side of a weak keep. I'd encourage the closer to weigh the SPA ! votes accordingly, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As said earlier, we have basic here for sure along with GNG . Arab News appears to be RS . Okoslavia ( talk ) 17:05, 21 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

Sun Arcs: If there were a couple more reviews or even coverage of singles then I could probably give this a pass, but at the moment I'm not even finding that and I think what little is here is cutting it too close. Perhaps more will come later in the year, but for now I don't think this is enough. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also worth noting that the article is only just barely not an orphan because of its listing at List of 2023 albums . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums does not list a minimum number of sources, but two valid reviews is sufficient for me. ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While there isn't a set minimum of sources, in my experience most editors seem to go by WP:THREE as the rule of thumb. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep It has more reviews that other albums/songs/books I've seen in AfD. Willing to give it a pass with the two listed. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So the artist doesn't need to have an article first before any of his albums or songs get one? Americanfreedom ( talk ) 16:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not required and I don't like doing biographies that much, so I didn't bother. ― Justin ( ko a vf ) ❤ T ☮ C ☺ M ☯ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums says, "Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline ." Generally, editors take that to mean that even if the artist is notable and just doesn't have a page of their own, you can still make the album page. I think it'd be pretty silly if that weren't the case. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh, well that's good to know! Thanks! Americanfreedom ( talk ) 23:02, 7 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! 05:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Graham Diamond: It has been to AfD before, in 2006 (keep) and 2010 (no consensus). It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2010. Tacyarg ( talk ) 02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and United States of America . Tacyarg ( talk ) 02:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep mainly per the comment by DGG in the previous AFD in 2010. Someone with access to a good library should follow up with reviews of this published author and improve the article if possible, but would appear to satisfy the requirement of multiple independent reviews. Andre 🚐 02:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Graham Diamond's publishing career began in the late 1970s, meaning many of the reviews and coverage that prove his notability are not easily available online. However, I discovered that he was a best-selling author in the early 1980s, with more than a million copies of his books in print. As for citations to prove this, the Wikipedia Library has reviews of novels Samarkand and The Beasts of Hades from, respectively, 1980 and 1981 issues of Library Journal . He's in Contemporary Authors along with having a detailed entry in St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers by David Pringle, released by St. James Press (a division of Gale ) in 1996 and an entry in A Reader's Guide to Fantasy by Baird Searles and Beth Meacham, released in 1982 by Avon . In addition, I also found a good bit of coverage of him over the years in various issues of Science Fiction Chronicle and other magazines, including a two-page profile from a 1984 issue of Editor and Publisher . I've now cleaned up the article some and also added many of these sources. Based on all this, I believe he meets Wikipedia's notability standards for creative professionals . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 16:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My books have been constantly in print. In more recent years, Venture and Endeavour Press UK. Now Lume Books, UK and CANELO, UK, have new editions of MAYBE YOU WILL SURVIVE out. The Holocaust true seller has over 1,700 4 and 5 star reviews on Amazon, available at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and Israel. It was contracted by a publisher in the Czech Republic and is now in print in Czech. BLACK MIDNIGHT, a terrorist thriller published by Kensington/Zebra in the US, and is now available from Lume, UK. A softcover is available from Lion in New York. Jerelle Kraus, author of the Truth of the NY TIMES, hailed my work on LinkedIn. Editor/writer Susan Shwartz also hailed my work and invited me into an anthology. I have more proven work than most authors today. A brand new novel DINER OF LOST SOULS book 2 is coming out in a few weeks. With well over a million softcover books in print I think I deserve to remain listed. thank you, Graham Diamond, New York 69.126.139.196 ( talk ) 15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Netiv HaAsara massacre: Very few sources. Not a single one refers to a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" or even a "massacre in Netiv HaAsara". Virtually no coverage as a standalone event. All coverage discusses the broader October 7 attack and how it partly took place in Netiv HaAsara. Claiming a Netiv HaAsara massacre goes against WP:OR , WP:POV , and WP:VER . Dylanvt ( talk ) 15:51, 22 December 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 December 22 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 16:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Terrorism , Israel , and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's an obvious WP:GNG. Here are just the first 25 of the many sources: מצמרר: הקצין שנפל ניבא את אפשרות הטבח בנתיב העשרה בעלה והבן נרצחו, שני הבנים פצועים קשה: "לא נשאר לי כלום, אבל אחזור לנתיב העשרה" צה"ל חיסל את בכיר החמאס שפיקד על הטבח בנתיב העשרה וארז ניצל מהטבח וחשף: "אבא שלי קפץ על הרימון – והציל את שנינו" "רוצים לדעת שלא נצטרך ממ"ד כשנחזור": משפחת דרור מנתיב העשרה מתגעגעת הביתה לפחות 250 ישראלים נהרגו מהבוקר, בהם שישה ילדים מלחמה בדרום | לפחות 250 הרוגים: אזרחים וחיילים מוחזקים בעזה, מחבלים מחזיקים בני ערובה בעוטף צה"ל ושב"כ: חיסלנו את מפקד גדוד בית לאהיה של חמאס | צפו ‘There was no air force, no soldiers, we were alone,’ says Hamas massacre survivor אנשי חמאס צנחו וטבחו; בנה של נאוה חיסל מחבל בבית - כשהבנות בממ"ד: "היינו שעות עם גופה במסדרון" מלחמת פתע: כאלף מחבלים חדרו מעזה לשטח ישראל, למעלה מ-350 נרצחים ליל הבדולח של נתיב העשרה: הגבורה העילאית של אנשי המושב צמוד הגדר - שנתקלו ראשונים Нетив а-Асара, граница с Газой: местные жители о 7 октября и будущем 12-й канал: в Натив-ха Асара террористы сожгли дом с семьей внутри Inside an Israeli village attacked by Hamas: ‘Today, nobody lives here’ Igal and Amit Wachs, 52 & 48: US-Israeli brothers killed defending town Danny Vovk, 45: ZAKA diver ‘fended off 20 terrorists’ before death Arieh, Ruti & Or Akuni: 68, 67, 32: Parents, daughter slain at home Evacuated musician Micha Bitton sings about life near Gaza 2 Israeli-American brothers were among several Netiv HaAsara residents who were killed ‘It’s a Miracle We’re Alive’: Netiv HaAsara Resident Recalls Her Family’s Harrowing Survival of Hamas Attack Claroty CEO copes with loss: Wife's mother murdered by Hamas, soldier son injured As They Mourn Their Loved Ones, These Families Are Pleading for Peace Survivor of Hamas terror attack refuses to leave Gaza border home after husband and son murdered Opinion: Hamas’ barbarity broke my heart. Some of my friends are breaking it a second time With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you actually read a single one of these 25 "sources" before posting them? You've just posted a list of news articles that do not, in fact, provide support for a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" in the hopes that nobody will check them to verify. There are virtually no references to this as a specific event, separate from the broader October 7 attack. Especially in English-language sources, the word "massacre" is pretty much never used, especially in reference to this specific event. One IDF officer simply predicted there would be a massacre if he weren’t there. Per WP:COMMONNAME , English sources should be used for determining how to name something on English Wikipedia. This source says (in translation, which can be fickle): "One of the survivors of the severe massacre in the Netiv Hathara Moshav..." So it kind of supports your stance, but again, this is English Wikipedia, not Hebrew Wikipedia. Again, in Hebrew. Says both massacre and attack in translation. Sort of implies a separate event from the broader attacks, but again in Hebrew so can't be used for WP:COMMONNAME . No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Again doesn’t specify a distinct “Netiv HaAsara massacre”, just that some victims of a broader October 7th massacre were in Netiv HaAsara. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Refers to "murderous attacks in Kibbutz Erez and the Moshav Netiv HaThara". No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". The only use of the word that is translated as "massacre" is from primary sources (i.e. the opinion of a resident, not a third-party source). No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Barely even mentions Netiv HaAsara at all. No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Unclear if they're referring to a distinct “Netiv HaAsara massacre” or just a broader “October 7 massacre”. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Vaguely implies a massacre with the line "He said he has been told they stopped 80 attackers just east of Netiv HaAsara and prevented an even bigger massacre", but again this is a primary source. Can't be used to establish notability. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", only a broader "October 7 massacre". No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Only a vague reference to "Hamas's massacres" (not in the context of Netiv HaAsara), and a mention of the "massacre at the music festival at Re'im. " Not even about the attack broadly. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source. No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Also an opinion piece and thus useless for demonstrating notability. Nobody is arguing that people didn't die in Netiv HaAsara. But the sources simply do not support a standalone article on a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", no matter how atrocious you think the attack was. Even if the article were stay, against the policy of Wikipedia, there is absolutely no way to justify calling it a "massacre" when English language sources do not refer to it that way. Dylanvt ( talk ) 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then do a rename or retitle discussion. Not an AFD. Andre 🚐 21:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not that the name is wrong, it's that these sources don't even refer to this as a distinct event. Having this article is WP:OR . If the sources don't talk about a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", then we can’t have an article on the "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They do mention exactly this event in the amount that is well required for GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s simply not true. Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you understand the difference between GNG, delete and rename? With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of third party reliable sources. WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Are we going to have an article for every skirmish in the war? I can't see this as being any different than the other hundreds of battles all over Ukraine and Israel that have happened. Sure it happened, but having an article for every time an attack happens seems pointless. The article is less than a few paragraph, but we've been given over 25 sources at this point, telling me they are largely just repeating the same limited facts over and over. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we will. As far as it complies with GNG. No one limits many many articles Jews or Ukrainians are allowed to have. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a battle, not Jews or Ukrainians or anything like that. Oaktree b ( talk ) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep meets GNG, there should be a moratorium on further AFDs of similar articles and user warned for tendentious pointy nominations Andre 🚐 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel , as this just doesnt get the level of coverage that the independently notable attacks like Be'eri and Reim get. You might think having all these little trafficked articles is useful, but it is substantially less useful than having a comprehensive main article with split out articles for the topics that have the depth of information that merits it. There just isnt enough here, but this is pointless, as people who are going to take a merge as a position on the importance of the topic, as opposed to a view of where it is best covered, are going to choose number of articles over the usefulness of articles. This article is going to get next to no views, and you would be much better off having the main article on the attack be more polished and comprehensive than spending time on these ancillary articles that dont do anything but repeat what the main article should have in it. nableezy - 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't have necessarily opposed a merge or at least I consider merge to be a good faith, reasonable argument that I would strongly consider. But this user instead decided to propose deletion and tag all the articles with POINTy notability and POV tags. Andre 🚐 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 100%. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not opposed to a merge either. From what I understood, AfDs often lead to merges, and I think that's a reasonable outcome. Dylanvt ( talk ) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, in this case it will most likely lead to "Keep" if the trend keeps up. You can propose another merge in the future. Andre 🚐 21:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A massacre of twenty civilians by terrorists deserves an article. דוד שי ( talk ) 10:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let alone 21 dead, and many dozens of wounded, in this very small community. Such large number of casualties is detrimental to this community, and its way of life. 93.173.65.132 ( talk ) 14:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No valid reason for deletion was given; Oleg Yunakov provided clear evidence of notability above. At most, grounds for a rename discussion were given. Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . "Like with many other similar pages, this page does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Very few sources. Not a single one refers to a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" or even a "massacre in Netiv HaAsara". " - did whoever said do looked into the sources? They all related directly to the Netiv HaAsara massacre. Agmonsnir ( talk ) 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A significant event and covered in many sources in many places. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 13:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . AfD debates often focus on the trivial, here notability. Notability, however, is insufficient for a keep. An article also needs to be long enough, unique enough, and with meaningful texts in order not to be redirected or merged. This is often the more challenging test to pass, especially when a topic is part of a larger event or other thing. Netiv HaAsara massacre also passes that test. Hence the keep. gidonb ( talk ) 22:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [I can’t keep creating a new format for each of these similar AfDs so you’ll forgive me if I use the template used at another AfD, customizing for this one’s details] I’m not going to address the naming issue as that belongs to a rename Move not an AfD. I agree with the nominator that this article is not is not sufficiently wikified, nor does it have sufficient resourcing. I assume it was written by someone unaware of wikipedias policy. But I don’t agree that the subject isn’t worthy of if it’s own article: The OP’s reference to OR relates I believe to the naming issue, which isn’t relevant here. The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article don’t show this. But the superficial analysis I did of google search results for "Netiv HaAsara", and the overwhelming number of Oleg Y.’s sources, do show such resources (see below). in terms of POV if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate. My superficial google search found the following references which include Netiv HaAsara as 50+ % of the coverage (some less like the names of those killed, but that is a necessary source for an enlarged article). I stopped once I determined that there was enough diverse coverage to make this article notable and NPOV. I’m not guaranteeing that all are reliable, but given how small a sample this is, they indicate the existence of sufficient sources for notability and npov: Tour of Netiv HaAsara after bombing, article and video Global News Canada 3 eye-witness accounts from Netiv HaAsara NYTimes Names of 15 killed at Netiv HaAsara Times of Israel 2 Israeli-American brothers killed at Netiv HaAsara CNN Hamas commander who led attack on Erez and Netiv HaAsara killed USA Today Aftermath in Netiv HaAsara Irish Times Video report on Hamas Paraglider attack on Netiv HaASara 11Alive Article on Netiv HaAsara based on two elderly residents who had been interviewed 6 months before being killed in attack Haaretz in terms of Oleg Y. ‘s references there are many which establish notability for a Netiv HaAsara article (again ignoring the red herring for AfD of what such an article should be called). Before I review these I want to point out a translation (actually transliteration) issue. The full name of the place in Hebrew is מושב נתיב העשרה (Translit: Mosahav Netiv HaAsara, en: (loosely) Village of the Path of the Ten). Google Translate sometimes seems to transliterate the Hebrew word for HaAsara as Ha’Thara/HaTara etc, but this is wrong and the Hebrew word refers to the place under discussion. I indicate below which of the 25 resources support notability for the article: The IDF soldier is talking about a previous (before 7/10) battle in the area where if he had not been there a massacre could have occurred. Not related to this article. Whole article and video about mother from Netiv HaAsara who lost husband and son, with other two sons heavily injured during attack. Reporting on killing of Hammas commander who lead attack on Netiv HaAsara (similar to USA Today above but different source) Mother and son who survived the Netiv HaAsarah attack when father jumped on grenade to save them. Details of how the battle unfolded. Survivor of Netiv HaAsara attack discussing her experience and whether she will return. Names 15 people killed at Netiv HaAsara (similar to Times of Israel above, but different source) Same as previous (15 names). Not required because of previous 2 resources. But does show widespread reporting. Report on killing of Hamas commander who led attack on Erez and Netiv HaAsara. Surplus to requirement because of other two sources, but does give give slightly more info on use of paragliders. Whole article about interviews with Netiv HaAsara survivors at hotel they were evacuated to. Details of how attack unfolded Only one short comment from resident of Netiv HaAsara Mention of 15 killed. Not as detailed as others Very long and detailed article on attack on Netiv HaAsara. Discusses entire battle how it unfolded etc. (Russian so dependent on Google Translate) Whole article on visit to and interview with survivor of attack on Netiv HaAsara. (Russian) Short article on Netiv HaAsara. Already covered in other sources Same as article I found above (Global News Canada). Similar to article above re Israeli-American brothers killed, different source. Details of ambulance driver living in Netiv HaAsara who was killed defending the Moshav Details of parents and daughter killed at Netiv HaAsara Musician who survived Netiv HaAsara attack Same (2 brothers) as article I found above. Netiv HaAsara survivor describes her experience. CEO of the cybersecurity company Claroty’s mother-in-law killed at Netiv HaAsara. Most of article not relevant but would support line in deaths section. Son of parents killed at Netiv HaAsara calls for peace. Also one line in article. Same family mentioned in (2) in Hebrew. This English article has some additional detail Article mentions Netiv HaAsara but not directly,related to current attack As I have with a couple of articles, if the decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. Happy editing. Ayenaee ( talk ) 03:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Ayenaee . There are plenty of independent sources. Dovidroth ( talk ) 07:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sorry, don't know how to add as stand-alone, so I'm using "reply". This repeats itself, see Holit massacre AfD further up the page. My opinion stays the same: it wasn't a "Hamas attack", it was a pre-planned, intentional threefold terror action of killing, taking hostages, and "humiliating" (a big issue in the perpetrators' mentality), the latter including rape, mutilation of the living and the dead, and definitely filming and posting it "for the world to see". This was a separate task, even if simultaneous and intertwined with the attack on military (IDF, police) targets. So 2 distinct tasks, not one. As long as there's no "October 7th Hamas massacres " article, there is nothing to merge these mini-articles with. Allow for that, and we can gladly talk! Discard the "massacres" concept, and any rational, self-respecting editor should fight you tooth and nail, no matter where he stays on "the conflict", or I/P. Conversely, the same rationale can be applied to any events where the Israeli side inflicted suffering of one type or another on the Palestinian side: let rational thinking & analysis prevail. Arminden ( talk ) 21:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources above show this more than meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Ayenaee and the above. By the way @ Ayenaee , excellent research (I saw also on another AFD that you did thorough research so well done!). I agree there is room to improve article. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 17:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep!!! The horrendous massacres that day ( Re'im music festival massacre , Be'eri massacre , Kfar Aza massacre , Nahal Oz attack ...) and the monstrous atrocities committed out by Hamas terrorists - rapes, beheadings, torturing, burning people alive - overshadowed this "small massacre" in terms of media coverage. Not plenty of sources but enough to solidly support the claims. Finally - an intentional killing of more than twenty civilians by Hamas is clearly a massacre - and deserves an article. GidiD ( talk ) 15:37, 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

Courtney Mattison: Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites. The article was created by an IP and WP:SPA . GuardianH ( talk ) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per articles in Smithsonian Magazine , Good Morning America , and other sources, and her exhibitions and permanent installations at art-topic related institutions as well as at a US embassy. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:BEFORE shows robust coverage; Craft in America, WWF, Virginia MOCA, Center for Humans and Nature, etc. I found a lot beyond Mattison's personal websites. Reading through the information I see that Mattison is mainly an installation artist, and is not really suitable for permanent collections. Additionally, the art is valued by conservation and biology groups rather than the usual museum or craft audience. Her patrons are the USG and NGOs. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on the sources found by WomanArtistUpdates and the permanent public artworks mentioned by RandyKryn , especially those in the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center in Dania Beach, Florida. Meets WP:GNG based on sources that exist and WP:NARTIST (altho these two permanent works are not in museums or national galleries, they important venues.) Netherzone ( talk ) 17:35, 3 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

Michał Gryziński: , it was found to fail WP:NPROF and WP:GNG , along with all similar topics. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Science , and Poland . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . A few very highly cited papers, all single-authored. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 04:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Strong Keep . The characterization of the discussion in WikiProject Physics in the justification here mixes up the free fall atom in the context of the Atomic Structure template (where it should not be included) with the work of the man himself. This man's work on scattering theory was influential and even is free-fall atom model is notable. The fact that one paper disputes his free-fall model and that the model is not used in no way alters its thought provoking character. This work is scientific and notable. The only issue in the WikiProject discussion was the template which should have a higher bar for inclusion. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (academics) , he has 4 papers with over 500 to 1500 citations apiece , certain "evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." His atomic model, while seeming rubbing some people the wrong way, is clearly "interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice". There are large numbers of individual scientists in Wikipedia below this bar. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I remain neutral. In its favor, Ramsauer–Townsend effect links to Gryzinski in a non-gratituous way. A a discussion in Talk:Bohr model suggest that it could be linked there too. However a bit of work is needed. Another possibility is to merge the free fall model into another article. -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Bohr model is still very popular especially for Rydberg atoms /molecules, and free-fall atomic model suggests to consider not only circular electron trajectories, but also radial - through dozens of peer-reviewed articles in top physics journals, focused on good agreement with various types of experimental data. In contrast, it seems the only peer-reviewed criticism is 2 page 1973 Bates, Snyder article, not even comparing with experimental data (states: "Laboratory data are not available for comparison"). Jarek Duda ( talk ) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment2: At this stage it seems like a keep. But can somebody provide more sources to help the article? -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the delete effort is removed I will add some refs. Johnjbarton ( talk ) 16:23, 12 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

Manx Aviation and Military Museum: Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest Wikilover3509 ( talk ) 09:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Castletown,_Isle_of_Man#Places_of_interest as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , requests for article mergers should not be started at AfDs. A proposed merger nomination should've been the correct way to nominate this article since you are asking for a merge. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there are some press references [6] [7] [8] and books [9] etc. There's too much content here, with the prospect of adding more, to merit the proposed merge elsewhere where this museum would then overly dominate the other article, in my opinion. Plus it's inclusion in Template:British Aviation Museums seems reasonable and would be less well achieved following a merge. └ UkPaolo / talk ┐ 18:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an article about a museum run by volunteers, with scope over a self-governing territory, therefore we can assume WP:NONPROFIT applies. With the secondary sourcing both in the article and identified by @ UkPaolo , I agree meets notability guidelines. Keep . Resonant Dis tor tion 10:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No new comments since last relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is notable. What's missing here is a lead paragraph to inform us how this got established, and what the museum's focus is. There's several categories of military museums around the world. Improve, don't delete. — Maile ( talk ) 15:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . ‹hamster717🐉› ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 02:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Castletown, Isle of Man#Places of interest as an alternative to deletion. Most sources referring to the article do not talk about the museum in depth, there is a lack of secondary sources as most sources are primary sources , and the linked book does not talk enough about the subject. So all in all, the sources do not justify the subject's notability. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 15:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Arguments divided between Merge and Keep, no support for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More than enough sources listed above to establish notability. JoshuaZ ( talk ) 01:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A museum is an institution dedicated to preserving culturally significant objects, and I think almost all should be considered notable, even with few and little sources. Mr Vili talk 06:34, 22 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

Frederick Vining: We have fondagrave.com and a vintage photo from a book of vintage photos, which doesn't substantially cover the subject of the article Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Artists , and Theatre . Big Money Threepwood ( talk ) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a long paragraph about him in the DNB article about his brother George Vining . The article is probably worth retaining since it can be expanded (which I intend to do, since I created the WP article George Vining ). AtticTapestry ( talk ) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Material added regarding his reputation and material from his obituary. Leutha ( talk ) 18:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The page has been improved with references that seem to show he satisfies the requirement for notability (Note: Find a Grave , although it's generally accurate, I find, is a bit like IMDb, and not accepted as a source on this Wikipedia ). Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval: Comments Source Dababase entry 1. Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining". Library of Nineteenth-Century Photography. Paul Frecker. Retrieved 7 October 2021. Source appears to be society Who's Who style promo bio from 1824. Fails WP:RS. Subject is mentioned, not named, brief information, no SIGCOV about subject, doesn't use the subject's first first name. 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c The Biography of the British Stage: Being Correct Narratives of the Lives of All the Principal Actors & Actresses . . Interspersed with Original Anecdotes and Choice and Illustrative Poetry. To which is Added, a Comic Poem, Entitled "The Actress.". London: Sherwood, Jones & Co. 1824. Blog post/database entry 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining (1790-1871)". paulfrecker.com. Paul Frecker. Find a grave 4. ^ "Frederick Augustus Vining (1790-1871) - Find A..." www.findagrave.com. Find a Grave. Retrieved 7 October 2021. Nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. #2 above comes the closest, but a single source from 1824 does meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Satisfies GNG and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. He has an article in the ODNB and in Boase's Modern English Biography: [54] [55] . These are the standard biographical dictionaries. There is a biography in Roach, listed here: [56] . Profile in The Theatrical Times : [57] . Obituary in The Era , 11 June 1871, p 11: [58] . Both cited by Boase. There is other coverage: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] . He was "well known": [66] . There is a lot of other coverage, including, amongst other things, coverage of his performances, and even a garotte attack on him in 1867, in the British Newspaper Archive. Our article already even cites his obituary in the Birmingham Daily Gazette : [67] . A newspaper article from 1871 does not become a "blog post/database entry" just because it is quoted on a website. There is no indication that there is anything wrong with the Biography of the British Stage , which is cited by other sources (including 40 articles in the ODNB) that are certainly reliable. Praise, even when very enthusiastic, is not the same thing as promotion. It certainly is significant coverage, and it would be perfectly obvious which Mr Vining the book is talking about, even if that fact was not confirmed by this: [68] . James500 ( talk ) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep given sources James500 has provided. Seems to fulfill GNG. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 03:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This actor is notable enough to have several reviews written about him and, although not all favourable, it is not clear where the full breadth of information about him is published if not on Wikipedia . Tithon ( talk ) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A scholar or author will find this article a godsend when writing a footnote. Just because he's deeply historically obscure, doesn't lessen his notability. MisterWizzy ( talk ) 05:07, 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

WAsP: No appropriate sources provided. Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Technology , and Computing . UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Industry standard software. Very clearly meets GNG [8] [9] [10] [11] etc etc etc — siro χ o 12:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added these refs to article and remove notability template — siro χ o 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo. Meets WP:GNG . 2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 ( talk ) 13:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A Google Scholar search shows it is widely used and discussed. (for example, each of these articles focuses on using WAsP for specific projects: doi : 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.076 , doi : 10.3390/su132413718 , doi : 10.1155/2018/2716868 , doi : 10.1088/1757-899X/1163/1/012008 ) — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 15:37, 13 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

Lbenj: Subject doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO , sources are either primary, unreliable. There isn't a WP:SIGCOV also. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Morocco . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Sources are pretty unreliable, and also none are in English. Large parts of the article are also unsourced. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 20:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] English-language sources are preferred, but foreign language sources are allowed, per WP:NONENG . Mooonswimmer 15:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources are PR/SEO sites like welovebuzz and/or interviews/his statements so not independent or trivial coverage. S0091 ( talk ) 21:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks @ Mooonswimmer for the additional information which prompted me to do some more digging and found he was nominated for an All Africa Music Award ( source ) and this Haaretz article which states he is "at the top of many Arab countries charts". Granted "charts" is vague but between what you provided and this, it gets me over the hump to Keep . S0091 ( talk ) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also found ProQuest 1961800094 ( Al Bayane ) about the Morocco Music Awards for which Lbenj was nominated and explains sales and downloads figures do not exist for Morocco and states "the nominated artists come from the top broadcasts of Moroccan music on the three associated radios (Chada FM, Hit Radio and Radio 2M) during the year 2017, for the following categories: Rap/Hip Hop/Rnb, modern song, Pop, Fusion-Rock, popular music/RAI, Pop-Dance and the new feature of this edition." (translated from French via ProQuest), thus meeting at least WP:NMUSIC #11. S0091 ( talk ) 19:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Vanderwaalforces and @ HarukaAmaranth for their consideration of these additional findings. S0091 ( talk ) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ S0091 Thank you for doing these findings. I am now satisfied a bit as some criteria has been met. I will lean to weak keep . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Lbenj is a very well-known rapper in Morocco and is one of the the country's most prominent representatives of rap. In 2019, he performed at Mawazine Festival ( source ), which has been described as the largest and most important music festival in Africa by Billboard . In 2023, he performed at Rab'Africa . Le360 and H24 Info ( 1 , 2 ) are well-known online publications in Morocco, with editorial teams and no apparent sponsored content. Admittedly, despite being one of the most well-known and widely streamed rappers in the country, there isn't much decent significant coverage in mainstream publications and I can't find a national music chart for Morocco, so it looks like building a case for notability by our standards may be prove to be difficult. Edit: Nominated for significant All Africa Music Award, performed at Africa's largest festival, placed in rotation nationally by top broadcasts of Moroccan music, and has received some non-trivial, independent coverage. Certainly passes WP:MUSICBIO . Great work on the research, @ S0091 : . Mooonswimmer 12:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of movie theaters: I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list . -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat ( https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/ ). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb ( talk ) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92 Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb ( talk ) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 ( talk ) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb ( talk ) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters . So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country , but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 ( talk ) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas : LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas . // Timothy :: talk 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Reasonable index/navigational aid which doesn't duplicate a category per WP:NOTDUP . That said, I'm sympathetic to the idea that such a broad list presents a challenge to maintain, but I don't know just how often we get notable individual movie theaters and there's always the possibility of spinning out country-based lists. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sans (Undertale): Most of the article is unsourced plot summary or reception that can be included on the Undertale game article, and this article itself is a disorganized mess. Full source analysis: In appearances; Most of the plot summary is completely unsourced. As for the sources that were there, 1 is citing something related to Papyrus, 2 is just fan theories that don't give very much, and 3-8 may be the definition of a WP:REFBOMB . All it does is demonstrate that Sans got a Mii costume in Smash and his boss fight was remade in Fortnite (odd thing to document in a section meant for official appearances). This REFBOMB takes up a fourth of the articles citations (6/24). In Development, literally nothing is cited to the character himself. 9-12 are for Megalovania. In Reception: 13 praised all of the boss fights in the game, this is not notability for his boss fight. 14, yeah he's a fan favorite, but this is just a Q&A with the developer Toby Fox with little substance. Doesn't talk about the questions received. Might be WP:USERG . 15 says nothing except about how he is introduced in the game. This is the most character reception any of the reception sources contain, and it is solely because he is included in a "top video game characters of the decade" list. Nothing about his character is said. 16 is decent reception for his boss fight, but nothing about the character himself. 17-18 are repeats and are just fan art showcases. Same with 19, except 19 is extremely confusing. 21-22 is a poll among a single internet community. These are USERG. 20 is funny but this isn't character reception. 23 may as well be primary. 24 is about Megalovania. Summary: Out of 24 sources, 6 are part of a ref bomb, 6 more are USERG, and 5 are about Megalovania, which I believe may as well be its own topic due to its history preceding Undertale. So there is no critical analysis on this character, and WP:BEFORE turns up nothing on WP:VG/SE as well as Google Scholar at first glance. Until I removed them, there were also originally sections from The Gamer and Screen Rant in reception, which may have given the illusion of notability despite them being unusable in those situations. There are also numerous grammar mistakes and weird organization problems, such as "the subject of much fan art" and Megalovanias appearance in Taiko no Tatsujin being in the Development section. This article is likely WP:FANCRUFT and no evidence of standalone notability exists, possibly violating the "Article criteria" under WP:VGCHAR . NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per other commenters. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Looking at Scholars, I found [33] and [34] . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 04:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure how I wasn't able to find these when I looked, these seem like they could be useful and one even says a lot about Flowey . A broader consensus is probably still needed though, and I still question how much could truly be done. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 04:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The scholarly sources are very strong evidence Sans is notable due to his 4th wall-breaking nature in a similar manner as Flowey, even putting aside the Megalovania popularity. I don't have any prejudice towards a merge to a character list if one were created, as the sourcing is still fairly weak (IMO, even the merged Toriel was stronger source-wise) but deletion? Certainly not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Recent finding of scholarly sources should be enough to hold its notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the scholarly sources. I think because Sans is a large internet meme, the article has plenty of WP:SIGCOV , but there are a lot of unnecessary sources. Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The "Reception" section of the article should be rewritten to remove the nonsense fanart gallery and "this guy dressed up as him" sources and replace them with the actual sources providing scholarly analysis, but the sources are out there, so deletion should be off the table. No prejudice against any subsequent discussion of creating a "Characters of Undertale" article to merge this to in the future, but as that article does not exist yet, Keeping is the best option now. Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note List of Undertale and Deltarune characters has now been created by myself, so make of that what you will as a possible target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Scholary sources for video games, including one which looks written by a non-academic/student, with low journal impact keeping WP:FANCRUFT on the site? Not buying it. We can redirect to the character list page as a compromise. SportingFlyer T · C 12:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still agree with the nom's source analysis, and only one of the scholarly sources found might count towards WP:GNG as one wasn't written by someone who had completed a degree. We still have no sources to keep this article on, and no one else has identified any which might. SportingFlyer T · C 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep The existence of poor quality and unreliable secondary sources amidst other mainstream sources sufficient to establish significant coverage should not endanger an article. That said, as a comment , caution should be exercised when relying on in-depth academic papers to establish notability particularly where the scholarship has the tenor of primary research. I don't think those papers alone would strongly contribute to a justification to keep an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes GNG based on sources. ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, but rewrite There are some sources here underutilized, and a more thorough rewrite focusing on Sans himself would yield better results. Right now as the article is written it's propping itself up on Megalovania's notability which isn't doing it favors. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, but rewrite The article is in need of some TLC, but the character itself is notable. The argument that a lot of the sources "are about the boss fight, not the character" does not hold water with me, because you can't separate one from the other - each of the encounters in Undertale is tailored to the characters in them. ReneeWrites ( talk ) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point I was trying to convey when I made that argument was that the sources didn't talk much about the character itself outside of the boss fight, which the article needed more of. Negative MP1 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sans appears to be covered enough to meet SIGCOV. I've also found some interesting info from these books . SWinxy ( talk ) 20:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep For the reasons ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ pointed out, and the fact he is frequently cited on prominent gaming magazines. Seekallknowledge ( talk ) 01:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sher Afzal Marwat: Primarily identified as a legal practitioner associated with political figures, he finds himself amidst a vast sea of legal professionals in Pakistan. The creation of dedicated articles for every lawyer navigating the political landscape would be an imprudent endeavor. Furthermore, his limited achievements in the political arena, lacking victory in any national or provincial elections, and the absence of a judicial role at the national or provincial level contribute to the deficiency of substantial notability as outlined by Wikipedia's specific guidelines, particularly WP:POLITICIAN and WP:JUDGE . Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politicians , Law , and Pakistan . Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep NPOL/JUDGE are *inclusionary* criteria, not satisfying those criteria are not grounds for deletion. There's no suggestion anywhere that lawyers by themselves enjoy notability, but it's common sense that the personal lawyers to national leaders who face investigations will be notable: Thierry Herzog , Pablo Rodríguez Grez , Michael Cohen , Herbert W. Kalmbach , David E. Kendall . Marwat has received sustained coverage in reliable sources (eg BBC Urdu , Dawn , News International ), with his arrest and detention having knock on effects in the coming general election . Satisfies the GNG/BIO. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With this in depth profile in BBC Urdu there's no doubt that WP:GNG / WP:BIO are satisfied. I've also linked the English article to the Urdu version (where further sourcing is available). Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete : Although he is a senior vice-president of a political party and is also contesting elections, he is of no significance except as a lawyer for the national leader. Fails to satisfy WP:BASIC . — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 ( talk • contribs ) 11:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn. WP:TROUT the nominator for using WP:LLM to generate a robotic rationale to this article. This shows that they didn't do a WP:BEFORE . The closing admin should take this into account. As Goldsztajn already, this article from BBC Urdu is just about him and is very in-depth meeting WP:SIGCOV . We can use WP:BASIC to stitch multiple sources to satisfy multiple sources requirement. 59.103.106.158 ( talk ) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP The article meets WP:GNG , especially after additional sources shown above... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP He has now good news coverage. Not only in Pakistan but also abroad. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 21:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject is a quite notable person. Nominator believes there's no need of a dedicated page for every lawyer coming to politics but the lawyer under discussion came into politics at a crucial time in the country's politics and rose to the rank of Senior Vice President of Pakistan's most popular party. Also nominator should have waited for some time before renominating the article at once as Renominations in such a manner may be considered disruption. WP:DELAFD Muneebll ( talk ) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lacks significant achievements in politics or judiciary WP:NBIO , WP:BLP . War Wounded ( talk ) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Solar eclipse of February 25, 1914: I think they should therefore be judged according to WP:NEVENT , and unfortunately most Wikipedia articles for eclipses, including this one, fails the test: WP:LASTING : It was a routine event. No wars happened because of it, no emperor was deposed for it. It happened as predicted (prediction of solar eclipses being a nearly perfected science even by then), people noted it, and then promptly forgot about it. All coverage of it would be from around the time it occurred on, other than entries in eclipse databases. It finds its place in various databases of all solar eclipses that ever occurred. WP:GEOSCOPE : It was probably covered internationally, in all the countries the eclipse happened in/passed through. But this is routine stuff: the local press of various countries makes note of the solar eclipses that pass through their territory. WP:DEPTH : There is nothing much indepth to say about most eclipses unless they precipitate some other important event in history; this is specially true for eclipses in modern times, as events where people claim them to be a supernatural sign or prophecy affecting worldly matters anymore. WP:DURATION : All coverage of it, aside from what are essentially database entries, happened around the time it occurred. WP:DIVERSITY : It was probably covered by a variety of sources, but nearly all coverage would be of the same type. WP:ROUTINE : Perhaps no other class of events are as certain and accurately predictable as solar eclipses; it certainly seems like "routine coverage of planned events". I'm bringing only a single article to the AfD to not be too disruptive, but the consensus on this would be relevant for many other eclipse articles in Category:Annular solar eclipses , and possibly other categories. TryKid [ dubious – discuss ] 00:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Astronomy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the wealth of astronomical information available about solar eclipses it is valuable to keep them. Regarding WP:GEOSCOPE , eclipses almost always receive coverage by local news when they occur. Eclipses are not WP:ROUTINE , each one has a unique path, duration, etc. DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Based on the map, this annular eclipse passed over Antarctica and ocean, so it wouldn't have been widely observed, if at all. I could find no evidence of a solar eclipse expedition, which might otherwise have made at least slightly notable. It could probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century . Praemonitus ( talk ) 05:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . This particular eclipse had no significance, and received no news coverage. Owen× ☎ 10:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete routine and unlikely search term. AryKun ( talk ) 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 11:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century . This event was observable only in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean , with some partiality in a sparsely populated part of South America. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 11:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For the last couple weeks I have been on a project to expand some of these stubs with additional sourcing; in fact, the reason I had this article open was because I had just finished with 1913 and was moving onto 1914. I guess we will have to see, but I am quite opposed to the sight-unseen assumption that it "received no news coverage". There are very few eclipses for which this is the case, including ones that are "stupid" or "pointless" et cetera. I will have to go check my resources; I've found sources for about thirty or forty of these eclipse articles so far, and for some it is harder than others. jp × g 🗯️ 22:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ping @ TryKid , DirtyHarry991 , Praemonitus , OwenX , AryKun , and LaundryPizza03 : per below jp × g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer: this was the article being commented on prior to here, hence the ping. jp × g 🗯️ 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the seven reports on two continents I was able to find for this expansion . The nominator mentions WP:NEVENT , but the very first bulletpoint of NEVENT is the general notability guideline . Looking at this article, I can assess it thus: is there significant coverage ? Yes, since all of these seven articles are about the eclipse. Are they reliable sources ? Yes, they are all reputable newspapers, and they're writing based on the observations of others. The NASA source is from 2004. Are they independent of the subject ? Yes, I would be quite shocked to find out that they were writing these results as a result of payola from Big Moon. Is the coverage "routine"? Well, in a sense, yes, but so is all coverage of anything -- it's "routine" for newspapers to write about the person who is elected president, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about when a tornado destroys a city, it's "routine" for newspapers to write about every single time two countries go to war, et cetera. Something does not have to single-handedly turn the wheel of history to be notable; there is no part of notability guidelines that says "emperors must be deposed". I don't know what the coverage being "of the same type" means. I don't think it makes sense to look at something that was covered extensively by reliable sources, is still mentioned in the context of historical eclipses, and say "well passing GNG doesn't count because the thing was stupid". jp × g 🗯️ 23:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JPxG , GNG requires that the sources be secondary . News reports published near the time of the eclipse do not constitute "secondary sources", they are primary sources reporting on how to best view the eclipse or what others saw during the eclipse and so on. The NASA source is essentially a database entry, the database includes a chart of every eclipse that ever occurred within some time period. It is not significant coverage. Nearly every eclipse article on Wikipedia relies on this type of sourcing, recounting what various news papers said about an eclipse around the it occurred. None pass the GNG bar of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". regards, TryKid [ dubious – discuss ] 10:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's circular logic to say that sources can't be significant coverage, because the event wasn't significant, because there was no significant coverage, et cetera. The "significant" in WP:SIGCOV does not mean "important and grandiose", it means "devoted primarily to the subject". That is to say, it's meant to exclude an article about the Tsar's ulcer that says "the surgery, which happened on the same day as an annular eclipse, went off just as elegantly as the moon across the sun." It's not meant to exclude an article about the eclipse that says "People went out to see the eclipse and here is what they said about it". jp × g 🗯️ 17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JPxG , I think you misunderstood me: my contention was that the NASA entries are not significant coverage; the newspaper reports, on the other hand do constitute significant coverage, but they're not secondary sources. cf. WP:PRIMARYNEWS . I don't see any kind of "retrospective" coverage, it's the same type of report one would see any other routine event. regards, TryKid [ dubious – discuss ] 13:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just don't really see the utility in reinterpreting the guidelines this way. There have been thousands of AfDs voted, judged and closed on the basis that verifiability, news coverage and inclusion in secondary sources suggests something is notable. But with this nomination you're explicitly setting out to go through about a hundred eclipse articles, so first of all there is a mountain to be moved: and second, why? You think they are "of little significance", okay, but there is tons of stuff on Wikipedia that is dumb and lame. The standard you seem to want to apply here, that things should be deleted unless they have some kind of perpetual worldwide relevance, is at odds with a lot of consensus and a lot of content. jp × g 🗯️ 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:5P1 suggests Wikipedia has features of almanacs. Eclipses have long been a feature of almanacs. (In fact here's an almanac listing this very eclipse [18] ). Additionally, (relatedly), in response to the above, news reports about upcoming eclipses are indeed relying on scientific predictions and thus are secondary. And of course, the NASA source is indeed a strong one. Personally, I can't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting such articles, though I could see a compelling argument for WP:NOPAGE merges-in-full of these articles in some way that improves the way these are presented to the reader. A delete or even redirect to a table row leaves the encyclopedia weaker. — siro χ o 10:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Convinced by JPxG 's arguments and additional sources to change my opinion. Thank you for your work on this! Owen× ☎ 19:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not convinced by the nominator's arguments, especially after JPxG's expansion (and also don't see the sources used as primary, like Siroxo said). Definitely not convinced by the "unlikely search term" argument, otherwise we'd have to delete a better half of the Wikipedia. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century . Just the routine coverage during the short news cycle, lacking WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE . It didn't produce any secondary coverage (in contrast with the solar eclipse in August 1914) and being mentioned in a NASA's database doesn't mean it is notable. -- C messier ( talk ) 17:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see no consensus. But I'd like to the thank the nominator for floating this AFD to be about one article rather than posting a huge bundled nomination. Let's test the waters. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the excellent nomination statement (really a redirect is fine too, but meh). Except for the recent additions by jpxg (I'll get to those in a second), this is a pure cookie-cutter article of statistics that could essentially be auto-generated from a database, every single eclipse article would be virtually identical with only the particular details of that eclipse differing. Not only that, but the vast majority of this article isn't even about this eclipse, but is just tables of other eclipses and an explanation of the basics of eclipses that has no business being in an article as specific as this. The basics of the stats can and should be in summary list-type articles; that much is perfectly fine. But none of the keep ! votes address the lack of any sustained coverage or lasting impact of this event. Adding in a couple blurbs from routine (yes, it's routine) coverage in the press of the day does nothing but confirm that yes, people knew when and where this eclipse would occur, even over 100 years ago. There's nothing even remotely in-depth about any of the coverage. The first one I checked, for example, was all of three sentences long . 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 04:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources are sufficient to support an article. In particular WP:V is clearly met. WP:GNG is debatable, but not really key, IMO. Since most contemporary eclipses are highly notable it makes more sense to organize our coverage so that each 20th century eclipse has its own article rather than spending time debating exactly how much news coverage is necessary to support notability. This is really just about the organization of content since the basic facts will be included in list articles about this series of eclipses either way. Removing the article leaves a gap in our eclipse coverage that is annoying to some editors bust doesn't really help readers in any way that I can see. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on contemporaneous news reports, some of which note where it would have been visible, even if only a few people would be there to see it (e.g., " Two Eclipses of Moon in 1914 ", The Kansas Evening Star (February 28, 1914), p. 3): Four eclipses, two solar and two lunar, will occur in 1914. The first one of these has already performed and left the stage. Maybe you didn't notice it, but it occurred February 24. This was what is known as an annular eclipse; the moon finally seems to cover up the center of the sun, leaving a ring-like fiery border all around the former. Our moon at her distance from us cannot apparently conceal the sun's disk from sight and what is seen of his disk appears like a complete blazing circle. The eclipse of February 24 was not particularly interesting from a popular standpoint and was not to be seen in North America. The moon not only crosses the fiery disk of the sun, but also intercepts some of the solar light from the earth. Wherever this lunar shadow falls is called the "path of eclipse," and the inhabitants of that region see the moon partially or totally cover for a while the face of the sun. Our earth and moon are both in motion, particularly our earth. The widest shadow cast by the moon is only 167 miles, and accordingly, a solar eclipse can be seen only from a limited part of the world. On February 24 this lunar shadow did not fall upon North America, for the path of the annulus remained entirely within the Antarctic and South Pacific oceans. Therefore it was witnessed by the inhabitants in the southern part of Patagonia and the eastern coast of New Zealand. But though the citizens of Independence were not able to see the solar eclipse of February 24th, they will be able to see some of the solar eclipse of August 24. On that day the moon will wholly hide the face of the sun; but unfortunately this eclipse will appear to the citizens of this city only as a partial eclipse. BD2412 T 01:51, 25 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

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women: Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this , this , this , this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg ( talk ) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hkkingg Take a look at what @ Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this , this , this and this . Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Delete There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy ( talk ) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here [30] . The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy ( talk ) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy ( talk ) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). " 'Attack of 5'2' ' Women' ". The Hollywood Reporter . Vol.  333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371 . The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama. " Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People . Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCO host 9408227615 . The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+" Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly . No. 236. p. 46. EBSCO host 9408227610 . The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. " Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire" . Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on 2024-04-28 . Retrieved 2024-04-28 . The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged." Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" . Variety . Archived from the original on 2024-04-28 . Retrieved 2024-04-28 . The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny." Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown" . The Dallas Morning News . Archived from the original on 2024-04-28 . Retrieved 2024-04-28 . The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat. " Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't." Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle" . Daily News of Los Angeles . Archived from the original on 2024-04-28 . Retrieved 2024-04-28 . The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath." Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies" . The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on 2024-04-28 . Retrieved 2024-04-28 . The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story. " ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:14, 28 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

List of children of presidents of the United States: Interstellarity ( talk ) 23:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] weak Delete – A topic like List of notable children of presidents of the United States is not empty, but would necessarily feel incomplete. The current article has a lot of unsourced material and, in its current form, that would be my argument for deletion. If the presidents' pages include information about children, the sources used to verify that information could most likely be referenced in the list article. For better or worse, the concept of notability by osmosis comes to life here because United States presidents always have book-length biographies and those biographies most always discuss presidential children in enough depth for them to be considered notable in their own right. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Seems to be a considerable number of them with articles already: Category:Children of presidents of the United States . Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people , Politics , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Looks to me that a good number of them have pages or the ability to have pages (e.g., Malia Obama could realistically have one). Also, WP:NLIST is easily met (e.g., the books All the Presidents' Children: Triumph and Tragedy in the Lives of America's First Families and Children Of The Presidents: George Washington to Donald Trump: Includes Legitimate, Illegitimate, Alleged, and Secret Children of Our 45 Presidents ). That seems pretty slam dunk keep to me. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Why? I Ask , plus, this article has existed since 2007 and gets almost 300 views per day. Of course the children of the POTUS are notable, precisely for being children of the POTUS. Most may not be sufficiently notable to warrant dedicated articles to them individually, but that’s beside the point. There is always information in RS about the children of the POTUS. Deleting this article would be detrimental to WP. — В²C ☎ 12:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Members of the First Family regularly receive coverage as a group, making this a notable topic. Reywas92 Talk 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Why? I Ask, В²C, and Reywas92. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Why? I Ask Wiki O'Ryan ( talk ) 06:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article does seem to pass WP:NLIST with reliable sources (as mentioned by Why? I Ask). ULPS ( talk ) 00:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2023 Zim Afro T10: Most other T10 events don't have individual season articles (apart from Abu Dhabi T10 , which is questionable anyway), as there simply isn't coverage of local T10 tournaments like this one. Regardless of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zim Afro T10 , this season article should be deleted. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket , South Africa , and Zimbabwe . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A redirect with a very partial merge of the dates and venue, result, leading run scorer and wicket taker perhaps - i.e. a two to three sentence paragraph - to Zim Afro T10 would seem to be a possibility as well. I can see a delete, but perhaps redirect will help stop recreation? Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That depends on whether Zim Afro T10 is kept or not. If that article is redirected, then redirecting this would be inappropriate. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, quite. It took two sentences to summarise the first edition there by the way. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The references seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which specific references show significant coverage of this particular season that warrants a separate season article? Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm with Joseph here, I really don't see great quality references throwing a tonne of coverage at the tournament. I see Indian fan sites, a couple of articles at Wisden that are marginal in terms of GNG coverage (floodlights is the best one), tweets and YouTube, but not a lot of substance. I wouldn't usually be tempted to do that "source analysis table" bs that people do, but this is really marginal for me Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 11:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep easily passes WP:GNG . It's a professional tournament which was significantly covered throughout the week and a half it ran in places like the Chronicle [35] . SportingFlyer T · C 15:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "It's a professional tournament" isn't a reason to keep this. Coverage of a match like [36] is just WP:ROUTINE . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage from Zimbabwean newspapers. Cursory google shows international coverage from The Indian Express , Sportskeeda and india.com , none of which are exactly small sites and shows significant coverage both inside and outwith Zimbabwe. MsJoat ( talk ) 11:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should have this article merged into the Zim Afro T10 article , and as more seasons get played, have them integrated into the article. -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:GNG . Would be good to have less encyclopedic nonsense like these articles. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It received considerable coverage in newspapers in Zimbabwe, India and even Bangladesh. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:46, 15 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

Zakaria Silini: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . No deletion rationale provided. — siro χ o 03:00, 15 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

Luca Brasi: If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Godfather characters#Luca Brasi . Spinixster (chat!) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Film . Spinixster (chat!) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , film study [63] , CT Magazine [64] , Time Magazine [65] Donald D23 talk to me 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll see if the sources are good: First source seems to have been written by students (see bottom of page), but either way, this talks about the character's death scene rather than the character himself. Second source also talks about the character's death scene. Third source isn't very good because it's a trivial fact in a list of trivial facts. You will need sources that prove the character 's individual notability, not something about a scene they're in or some trivia about the portrayal of the character. Spinixster (chat!) 08:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment List of The Godfather characters seems to have a major NN character spinout problem. There are quite a few redlinked hatnotes from expired PRODs from 2021 which no-one has bothered to remove. My recommendation would be to blanket merge/redirect back all subquality TGF character articles there and let it grow organically, instead of worrying individual character notability. – sgeureka t • c 09:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . (see below for GNG) If we think about this from the readers perspective, they're going to want to read about the iconic line, "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes" and learn what it means, how the relevent scenes played out, how they were made, what impact it's had beyond The Godfather , etc. We Wikipedians have a hard miss here, not having any solid coverage beyond a bit of plot summary of "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes". I'm willing to seek out a better way to cover this subject, but flat merge into a character list probably buries the notability here. Perhaps a Death of Luca Brasi or even Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes article for the notable sequences from The Godfather , with some background, and linking to a shorter character bio in the list would work. But I'm not sure AfD is the best place to make that complicated a decision. Beyond the movie character, there's even the matter of the differences between film and book to cover, as those have been analyzed as well. Either way, the article needs an improvement to focus on notability. But when we consider the subject holistically, a fictional element that is analyzed in secondary sources, it's pretty clear this this meets WP:GNG . Here's a Springer Nature book chapter [66] that dedicates several hundred words to the character and their death, as part of a discussion of cuisine. (Incidentally, this is a morbidly fascinating read). This academic book [67] has hundreds of words of coverage of this character, relating The Godfather to the real world, comparing the authenticity of the book and the movie, etc. This book has more analysis [68] This book's commentary [69] provides secondary coverage of the character in "life" as well as their death, also examining how various film-making techniques were used. Here's a bit of a shocker - a religious analysis of the notable scenes [70] This represents a non-exhaustive search. I'm willing to change my ! vote if someone has a good way to capture the notability for our readers, but again, a flat merge into a character list is probably not going to do it here. — siro χ o 05:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's a good idea for an article about the scene. I checked the sources, and they seem to be okay for use, though I'm not sure about the title of the article, more consensus would be needed for that. Spinixster (chat!) 07:16, 24 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

Rudolph Ware: Article is being targeted because of contraversial statements the subject made, but I'm unaware of anything else that notable about them. Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , and California . Eve rgr een Fir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Eight published reviews of two books would normally be enough for a keep from me per WP:AUTHOR , but it's weak because one of the two (the one with fewer reviews) is a multi-editor edited volume. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per David Eppstein Johnbod ( talk ) 02:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Islam , Africa , Illinois , Michigan , and Pennsylvania . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep In agreement with David Eppstein and Johnbod . This scrapes over the line. Edwardx ( talk ) 10:40, 15 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

Richard Vuylsteke: Fails WP:GNG . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and Taiwan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources O'Connor, Christina (2017-07-18). "A Full Circle" . MidWeek . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "When Richard Vuylsteke arrived at the East-West Center to begin his new job as president, he garnered a bit of attention for the haste at which he moved into the position. He landed in Hawai‘i from Hong Kong on Dec. 30, 2016, and insisted on starting the job by Jan. 1, 2017. ... Throughout his career, Vuylsteke has constantly been on the move. He’s had a varied career that spans industries — including the military, academia and journalism — and most recently was president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. But his appointment at the East-West Center is something of a full circle — Vuylsteke was a research assistant there during his time as a graduate student at University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in the 1970s and 1980s. ... Vuylsteke grew up in Illinois and spent a year in India as a Fulbright scholar and three years in the Army before coming to University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa as an East-West Center scholarship recipient for graduate studies in Western and Chinese political philosophy." Blair, Chad (2016-08-26). "New President For EWC: Richard Vuylsteke succeeds Charles Morrison" . Honolulu Civil Beat . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "The East-West Center Board of Governors announced Friday that Richard Vuylsteke, an East-West Center alumnus “with extensive experience throughout the Asia-Pacific region,” has been named as the next president of the institution. ... Vuylsteke was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Rajasthan, India. He earned his Ph.D. in Asian and Western Social and Political Philosophy at the University of Hawaii Manoa." Leong, Lavonne (2017-04-18). "Talk Story: Richard Vuylsteke" . Hawaii Business . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "Vuylsteke (pronounced VUL-stek) has had a global career that has carried him through universities, journalism, the military and the business world. He recently left his post as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong to assume leadership of the East-West Center, whose mission is to promote cross-cultural understanding and dialogue among Asia, the Pacific and the United States. Vuylsteke is the center’s first president who is also an East-West Center alumnus." Hrushka, Anna (2017-03-03). "A variety of challenges for Richard Vuylsteke" . Pacific Business News . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "When Richard R. Vuylsteke started his new role as president of the East-West Center on Jan. 1, he was returning to familiar territory. Vuylsteke was an East-West Center scholarship recipient in the 1970s while he attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Since his first stint at the Honolulu-based center, Vuylsteke’s career has led him to work in a variety of sectors including academics, business, government, journalism, NGO management, think tanks and most recently as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong." "In Brief" . South China Morning Post . 2008-02-25. p. 3. ProQuest 266596470 . Archived from the original on 2023-09-18 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "The American Chamber of Commerce announced that Richard Vuylsteke, former executive director of AmCham Taipei, had been appointed its new president from today. He will succeed Jack Maisano, who had served as president since February 2005. The new president had been executive director of AmCham Taipei, Taiwan's largest and most active foreign business organisation, since August 1999. He also taught for four years at the US Foreign Service Institute school, and was senior editor of the Free China Review, now named the Taiwan Review, for 12 years and wrote extensively for publications based in the United States, Taiwan and Hong Kong." Singson, Ben (2023-08-23). "Hawaii wildfires weigh heavy on minds of those with Jacksonville ties" . Journal-Courier . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "Richard Vuylsteke, an Illinois College graduate and professor for the Daniel K. Inouye Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, said he was not aware of how badly the fires had destroyed Lahaina until later into the night. He said the images of the community after the fires were "painful to look at. "" Culpan, Tim (2001-10-09). "Richard Vuylsteke speaks on functions of AmCham" . Taipei Times . Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "Richard Vuylsteke has been the executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei since September 1999. Tasked with keeping the Chamber functioning day by day, Vuylsteke's role is to keep the lobbying effort moving forward, coordinate with other members, and help people have fun. He spoke with special contributor Tim Culpan about the executive functions and workings of Amcham" Lams, Lutgard (2006). Fell, Dafydd; Klöter, Henning; Chang, Bi-yu (eds.). What Has Changed?: Taiwan Before and After the Change in Ruling Parties . Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag . p. 258. ISBN 3-447-05379-8 . ISSN 1612-572X . Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Google Books . The book notes: "According to Richard Vuylsteke, former senior editor at the Free China Review , pressure on adhering to the careful wording that was in line with government policy was much more effective for the newspaper, the Journal. Under the editorship of Vuylsteke, the Review was able to muster more freedom to push the limits. The editor recalls that they were the first ones to use the word martial law in print in a government publication instead of the phrase emergency decree, which nobody really understood the exact meaning of. " Lin, Syaru Shirley (2016). Taiwan's China Dilemma: Contested Identities and Multiple Interests in Taiwan's Cross-Strait Economic Policy . Stanford: Stanford University Press . p. 153. ISBN 978-0-8047-9930-0 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Google Books . The book notes: "AmCham head Richard Vuylsteke, who had direct contact with senior Taiwanese officials, continued to represent local firms that wanted more extensive liberalization but did not want to confront the government directly. He pointed out that “many companies have been spinning off divisions that concentrate on China operations and listing them on the HKSE. Others are delisting in Taiwan altogether. The main result is to sap the strength of Taiwan's financial markets" (Vuylsteke 2009; AmCham 2006). He attacked the TSU for preventing the CSTED from advocating closer economic ties with China." Heenan, David (2005). Flight Capital: The Alarming Exodus of America's Best and Brightest . Mountain View, California: Davies-Black Publishing. p. 190. ISBN 0-89106-202-5 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Small surprise, then, that returnees and newcomers are expressing appreciation of Taiwan's capital city. ... "It's improved significantly in the past fifteen years. It's a very livable city and it's much more affordable than Hong Kong or Tokyo. " Richard Vuylsteke, a nineteen-year resident, agrees. As executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce, he describes the country generally as "one of the easiest places in Asia for an expatriate to live. Between 85 and 90 percent of those posted here would like to extend their stay. "" Wolf, Burt (1994). Burt Wolf's Table . New York: Doubleday . p. 125. ISBN 0-385-47274-9 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Each time I visit the Republic of China in Taiwan I spend a few hours with a friend of mine, Richard Vuylsteke. Richard has devoted the past thirty years to the study of Chinese culture, and his writings on the subject regularly appear in the Free China Review . During my most recent trip I was talking to him about the traffic in Taiwan and my failure to understand what was going on in the streets. To me it was utter chaos. To Richard, however, Taipei's traffic is just another example of how Chinese thought patterns and their physical manifestations differ from those of the West. He pointed out that local traffic is totally understandable once you view it in the light of Taoist doctrine. " "East meets west in the islands of Hawaii" . Illinois College Quarterly . Illinois College . Summer 2017. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17 . Retrieved 2023-09-17 . The article notes: "He was an East-West Center grantee in the 1970s, earning M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, specializing in Western and Chinese political philosophy. He has taught courses at the University of Hawaii and Chaminade University in Asian history and social, political and legal philosophy. Vuylsteke has served as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, president of the American Chamber in Taipei, editor-in-chief of the Taiwan Review, and area studies coordinator for the U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute in Taipei. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Richard Vuylsteke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 00:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the current page is anaemic but notability is determined by the existence of sources not their use in the article and Cunard seems to have unearthed enough coverage to get us over the GNG bar. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 16:53, 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

Paul Müller (biologist): Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Biology , and Germany . UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets NPROF 6 as president of Saarland University from 1979-1983. See the German version of the article. Jahaza ( talk ) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets NPROF #5 as the chair of biogeography at Saarland University. Meets NPROF #6 as the President of Saarland University between 1979 and 1983. Meets NPROF #6 as President for Research of German Rectors' Conference . Meets NPROF #5 as head of biogeography at the University of Trier between 1999 and 2006. All that was just from one paragraph on the German Wikipedia article. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . My German isn't up for reading the de version but in addition to the above, there seem to be several notable awards, plus a species named after him, and what looks to be an obituary cited. Looks like an aborted translation of the de article on a notable individual, that was incorrectly tagged for notability. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Faaimata Hiliau: The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ( [30] [31] ) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. C F A 💬 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Christianity , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC (and even WP:GNG if you count the Compass documentary in addition to The Sydney Morning Herald feature article mentioned above). Added two articles from The South Sydney Herald about recent activity related to climate change which Hiliau has been involved in ( speaking at Pasifika community gathering and formal visit to government ministers and MPs in Canberra ), as well as an external link to the ABC TV Compass documentary about Hiliau and the future of the United Church, with a viewership of 166,000 in August 2023 per MediaWeek . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per GNG. There were already 2 independent sources with SMH and compass, and Cielquiparle has added 2 more. Newystats ( talk ) 03:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment She seems to be notable but the references am not sure could have given her a keep. -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a hugely important non-Anglo female faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. SproulesLane ( talk ) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:23, 2 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

Physics Essays: Though WP:NJOURNALS may apply here, Though this article passes WP:NJOURNALS , I could not find any secondary sources which contains significant coverage about this journal. Other editors have raised concerns about this article's reliability on its talk page. NJOURNAL states that "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I believe this applies here. Ca talk to me! 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Wording edited for clarity in 08:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Ca talk to me! 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep By the WP:NJOURNALS rule of thumb, being indexed in Scopus is a decent indicator that a journal is article-worthy. Having been indexed in the past means that Physics Essays qualifies. The same goes for having had an impact factor in the past (prior to being included in the non-selective ESCI ). I think the general gist of the notability is not temporary guideline applies here. Whether or not the journal is a reliable source ( it isn't ) is irrelevant to the question of whether we should have an article for it. Moreover, we do have things to say: the article covers the downgrading of the journal over time, which is important information. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing that Physics Essay does not meet NJOURNAL. I am arguing that it does not meet GNG. As it is stated in NJOURNAL , it does not override GNG. Your argument would be stronger by providing sources in accordance to GNG. Ca talk to me! 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have very little interest in arguing the relationship of different all-caps shortcuts on some notional org chart of Wikipedian decision-making, and in fact, I think arguments are strongest when they make sense without referring to any opaque jargon. Instead, arguments are strongest when they are rooted directly in whether material is encyclopedic. We have something to say; we can back it up with sources that are worth trusting; and the topic is naturally separate from related subjects to an extent that a stand-alone page makes good organizational sense. XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe this article's existence is a violation of Wikipedia's very wp:founding principles. Specifically, NPOV and "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia". Since there is zero significant and secondary source covering this topic, we cannot represent all significant viewpoints because there are none. This results in an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. Deletion is not cleanup does not apply because there is no room for improvement. Everything reliable piece of information have been said due to its lack of sources. SNG is not a arbitrary threshold; it is a test to see if an article on an subject can stand and could be improved to not violate policies. Notice how every SNG have a variation of "likely indicates that reliable and significant sourcing exists on this topic". Because of this, I believe your intrepretation of SNG is against concensus. Another issue is that this article is nothing more than a simple database listing. There is nothing more to say than this journal was listed at x and x. Wikipedia is a encylopedia, not a directory for all-things-journal. Ca talk to me! 00:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Empirically, my interpretation of SNG is in line with consensus, judging from the other ! votes on this page and the history of deletion debates about academic journals. A directory-of-all-things-journal would include all journals, not only those that are indexed in selective indices and have quantitative information available about their influence over time. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NJOURNAL is a good rule of thumb. That's why it is followed so often. However, as said above, SNGs are just a suggestion. What trumps all is existence of good coverage. Being indexed in selective indices does not automatically generate reliable coverage. Simple "quantitative information" is not enough. Following Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not , data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources . That is not significant coverage. This is not a novel concept; following the spirit of notability , interpretation that SNG trumps GNG is not in line with the intent behind notability as a whole. Additionally, essays should not trump established guidelines unless in rare circumstances , which I am not seeing here. Ca talk to me! 11:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] XOR'easter, the distinction between the general notability guideline and a subject specific notability guideline is not some minor bureaucratic distinction: it's frankly notability 101 , and critical to understanding what the burden for inclusion in the encyclopedia actually is. An SNG can only provide temporary presumption of notability for intermediate periods of retention: ultimately it is still an absolute requirement that a topic be subject to significant , independent coverage in reliable sources , and eventually the advocates for retention are meant to meet that burden. The existence of an SNP covering a general type of subject does not obviate that requirement, it only militates for giving a certain amount of time to allow GNG sources to develop and/or be found. If and when a significant amount of time has passed and this is not occurring, policy is unambiguous that the article should be deleted, not kept around indefinitely just because of a "rule of thumb" presumption (which Ca is quite correct, does not trump GNG). This is a procedural, policy-oriented space: it's not really sensible to try to hand-wave away the "all-caps shortcuts" without addressing the content of the arguments raised concerning what they actually say... Those are policies and guidelines --you know community consensus ? . There, not a single cap any any link.   ;) S n o w Rise let's rap 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the page you refer to as "notability 101", A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right . "Notability 101" explicitly states that a subject-specific guideline can be an alternative to the general guideline. Both are ways to judge that a topic is presumed to merit an article . The sources already present in this article are independent and reliable. They represent the judgment of people whose job it is to evaluate journals that this journal is worth documenting. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but that's a somewhat selective quoting of the policy and just not how the policy reads as a whole. For that matter, there have been a number of community discussions reaffirming the point that SNGs do not invalidate the need for WP:SIGCOV as the ultimate test that all articles must pass at some point in order for their subject to have been established as "notable". Some of these discussions in the last couple of years lad to an extensive pruning of the SNGs (including full deprecations of existing guidelines in some cases), specifically because they were starting to give an impression of an alternate route to notability than coverage in reliable sources, which the community never intended. I don't want to quote paragraphs at you here, but the most relevant portion of WP:N to understand this distinction are WP:NRV and WP:WHYN . I'll grant you that the current lead of the policy could be drafted better to make this distinction clear, but the fact is that the distinction itself is the subject of robust community consensus on the matter, and captured elsewhere in the policy. S n o w Rise let's rap 23:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First, WP:N is not policy. Second, I've been there for plenty of "community discussions" and recall circular debate, acrimony, and only the most narrow of "consensuses" obtained by the end. The changing of standards for porn stars and sports biographies doesn't amount to a trend; species and academic biographies have been unaffected, for example. Third, this journal does have coverage in reliable sources . If all we had to go on were the forum posts complaining about it and calling it a home for crackpots, I wouldn't have ! voted to keep it. XOR'easter ( talk ) 14:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep covered (in the past) by JCR and Scopus and thus easily passes WP:NJOURNALS . That the journal is now shit does not mean it's a non-notable journal. Papers there routinely make the news because they make sensational (see nonsense) claims [14] [15] . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 17:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Scopus indexing is a big deal. Journals change, this was more notable in the past. Still a keep for here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notability is not temporary. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 06:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per User:Headbomb , User:Randykitty , User:Oaktree b said. MICHAEL 942006 ( talk ) 15:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW . A WP:NJOURNALS pass, per XOR'easter and others. Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW . -- Bduke ( talk ) 03:33, 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

Ann Jago: Dazzling4 ( talk ) 16:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately I agree there are a lack of sources - almost all are brief mentions of attending the same school as other England cricketers, the best I could find was this: https://bergmanosterbergunion.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BOU-Magazine-2018-pp65-83.pdf (page 81), mostly trivial information and not enough for GNG - EdwardUK ( talk ) 16:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Cricket , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've used the source shown above, and also found https://thisnzlife.co.nz/moa-bones-limestone-caves-and-velvet-worms-explore-the-prehistoric-treasures-on-and-below-a-familys-waitomo-farm/ which is a profile of her and her family, and expanded the article from that. Pam D 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting: the wording "Ann Jago visited New Zealand after her tour as a member of the English Women’s Cricket team" (from the NZLife source) suggests that she played in NZ for England, but that isn't shown in the article. Pam D 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD : - That is an interesting one - England didn't tour New Zealand after the South Africa tour until 1969 , and nowhere includes Jago as part of that tour (pretty sure she had finished playing by then). The visit to New Zealand before that was in 1957 , again can't find any evidence of her being on that tour. CricketArchive doesn't have her playing any matches in New Zealand, hence why it isn't included in her article. Perhaps she simply visited New Zealand for fun after the South Africa tour? The wording of that sentence could imply that. Mpk662 ( talk ) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : International cricketer, and looks like she passes GNG given the excellent work of PamD above. Played more than just two matches as well, and have updated her infobox to reflect that. Mpk662 ( talk ) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks to be enough GNG coverage in the article now, after update, for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . International Women's Test cricketer, now expanded, but a keep eitherway. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now a clear keep. There may be more stuff on Kent sources - there’s been a big push on awarding women’s county caps recently and as an international she may be covered in that stuff. I’ll check annuals at some point Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 09:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Done more than enough for me to satisfy WP:GNG . MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:31, 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

World on the Move: Nothing to show that this radio programme (no longer running) was particularly notable JMWt ( talk ) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added some citations. Flurrious ( talk ) 22:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Flurrious Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Flurrious. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:20, 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

Recurring jokes in Private Eye: Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture , Lists , and United Kingdom . Dronebogus ( talk ) 08:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The concept of the recurring jokes in the magazine meets WP:GNG , a list of the jokes meets WP:NLIST . See: The Guardian [46] WSJ [47] The National [48] The Age [49] Even Reuters has a bit about them [50] . Article needs some love, but AFD is not cleanup. — siro χ o 08:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Guardian is clearly relevant, but do the others really talk about running gags in the paper vs. just the paper? Plus the Age link is broken. Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes they do. WSJ : "a baffling shorthand of catchphrases and in-jokes". The National : "The jokes were always there, such as nicknaming HM the Queen as Brenda, while the purported thoughts of Prince Charles – Brian – are a regular feature. Their name calling has been a regular petty feature – Andrew Neil as Brillo, Piers Morgan as Piers Moron and Richard Branson as Beardie spring to mind." The Age : "You have to be in on the in-jokes". Reuters: "Newcomers to the magazine may be baffled by its in-jokes ..." GrindtXX ( talk ) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for all the above reasons. The Eye is well known for its in-jokes, some of which have progressed into general circulation (e.g. Tired and emotional , which now appears in the OED), others of which are impenetrable to anyone other than regular readers, and which merit encyclopedic unravelling. GrindtXX ( talk ) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . North America 1000 09:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Not willing to entertain a nomination which came about to spite someone in an unrelated argument . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not! You’re assuming bad faith and making an ad hominem attack. I sincerely hope the closer ignores you irregardless of outcome. Dronebogus ( talk ) 12:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What Rhododendrites wrote seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether you did it to spite someone is arguable, but it certainly seems so if one goes to the link and reads what you said in an unrelated discussion. Anyway, keep . Athel cb ( talk ) 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ive struck the linked comm since people seem to be misinterpreting it in a poor light. Dronebogus ( talk ) 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't need to assume. You were explicit about it. Striking it doesn't undo your bad faith edits -- it just tries to pretend otherwise. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article subject is not "made up", it was originally split from the parent article due to the latter's length. The terminology used in Private Eye, per Siroxo's sources, is part of what makes the magasine an institution, and much of it has entered common parlance. Some of the more trivial examples could surely go, but they are not an argument to delete the whole article. Jdcooper ( talk ) 15:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep per Rhododendrites. This is very likely to have been opened in bad faith, and I would support sanctions against Dronebogus for pulling this stunt. XfD is not a weapon and should not be used as such. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 23:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep makes sense. Even if this was nommed in good faith it has a serious component of looking as if it wasn't. Best to let it slide for six months or so. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I can see why this was nominated. Almost all conceivable articles named "Recurring jokes in X" would be deletable. This is a rare, genuine exception but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise given how much of the article is unreferenced and seems like enthusiastic fan writing. Extensive cleanup is required. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 17:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very selective merge . The article doesn't contain sources indicating significant coverage in reliable sources exists for recurring jokes in Private Eye as a group; this discussion has turned up precisely one such source and I haven't been able to find any more myself. The bulk of the sources are discussions of the magazine as a whole which mention recurring jokes only in passing ( GrindtXX provides an indicative list of trivial mentions , which contribute absolutely nothing to notability). This is a ! vote to merge rather than delete because this article is much better-sourced than Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) , and the main article doesn't mention a few better-known jokes. (The procedural issue is probably moot now, and it's mostly semantics anyway, but it's probably worth noting that none of the WP:PROCEDURAL circumstances pertain and that what "procedural keep" !voters seem to want is a speedy keep per criterion 2.) – Arms & Hearts ( talk ) 18:18, 15 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

Thomas Bruce White Sr.: To that end, this should likely be re-directed to the film that covers the case he investigated as a part of the FBI. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 04:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : on the good faith assumption that Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! searched for sources and none were found Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep besides the TSHA entry on the article at the moment and the book which discusses his career, I quickly found this article from the Statesman and this entire biography . Did you really look for sources? -- User:Namiba 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Of course there aren't much internet sources on him, his work in the Osage murder case was a hundred years ago. There's a copious amount of sources for him in print and paper, and even if there weren't- the fact that he was instrumental in one of the most brutal murder cases in American history makes him notable enough. HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Handbook of Texas has an entry on the subject here . There's also this biography. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep seems to pass WP:GNG with sources provided in discussion and the article. -- Paul McDonald ( talk ) 20:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Laurel Neme: I don't see that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm thinking she is notable per WP:NAUTHOR . Here are formal book reviews for her 2009 work, in addition to general media attention into the work: New Scientist , E–The Environmental Magazine , Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences , and The Oregonian . Kirkus Reviews reviewed 2 picture books she wrote: [6] [7] . There is also this article from The Burlington Free Press on her 2009 book that might be good to add, but I haven't had the time to look at it yet—please mind the gruesome photograph though. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Vermont . Bridget (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep sourcing is not great but she does seem like a notable figure. Llajwa ( talk ) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes GNG based on reviews of work posted above by Bridget. An entertainer with reviews of their work at this level would certainly be viewed as meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I found a review of Animal Investigators in Publishers Weekly , and at the Wikipedia Library, a Jan 2015 review from NSTA Recommends ( National Science Teachers Association ) for Orangutan Houdini ; a March 2010 Animal Investigators review from Choice via ProQuest 225690255 ; a March 2014 review of Animal Investigators from Connect via ProQuest 1522744253 ; the 2009 Burlington Free Press report on Neme and Animal Investigators ( ProQuest 439866714 ) looks helpful (no photo in this version), and ProQuest also has some further coverage/reviews of Animal Investigators (e.g. NPR interview, local news). WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr ( talk ) 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of blade materials: Some of the info is LEAD is not trivial but there's no sourcing. The only sources that talk about this as a group are not reliable; it's mostly based on self-published work (not RS) and company info sheets (which have info about individual materials but not the group as a whole). I'm not saying it's not a notable topic because it could be, but I don't think there's anything currently on this page that meets our criteria for inclusion. I tried to make edits but I felt like I was just removing things because there weren't sources I felt like I could mine. This is my first time submitting an AfD so please correct me if I'm doing it wrong. SomeoneDreaming ( talk ) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - AfD is not for clean up. Skyerise ( talk ) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have been using this article for reference while shopping for pocket knives for my own use. I have found it accurate and useful. I suppose it may be too trivial for knife makers, but not for consumers. David R. Ingham ( talk ) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The list appears a useful summary although it might be better classified as part of a series of "alloys good for this type of application" articles. I'd be a little uncomfortable if it could be demonstrated that Wp was being subverted to be a resource for "survivalists" etc., but at the same time feel it's wrong to delete information if accurate. MarkMLl ( talk ) 11:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products , Technology , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the topic is important, though I agree that sourcing could be a lot better. There are TV shows on this topic, so I am sure there will be paper or glowing screen references available too. Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dance cover: lullabying ( talk ) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment perhaps redirect/merge with Choreography ? - KH-1 ( talk ) 06:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Music . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Very clearly meets GNG. I've added two sources to the article and improved it a bit [23] [24] . Article still needs some love. — siro χ o 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a third source to the article, NYT [25] — siro χ o 03:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Several more added. — siro χ o 07:21, 29 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! 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Verging on No consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Call it a WP:HEY Keep if you want. The sources currently in the article are more than sufficient for establishing notability. I'm sure there's a lot more to be said about this trend and its history, too. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources have been found to establish notability. Consider moving to Cover dance since that's the term used in most sources. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to agree with the move. From my little research while improving the article, "cover dance" is the activity/hobby/community/etc, whereas "dance cover" is the actual performance and/or recording, so cover dance is the broader term. We could probably just do a WP:BOLD move after the AFD closes. — siro χ o 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the article's current refs. Thanks for adding them, @ Siroxo ! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

G'Kar: Only one decent source about him in the page, and a BEFORE check found no others. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appropriate in-depth coverage in multiple dead tree books in my possession: Bassom, David, and J. Michael Straczynski. Creating Babylon 5: Behind the Scenes of Warner Bros. Revolutionary Deep Space TV Drama . New York: Ballantine Books, 1997. ———. The A-Z of Babylon 5: The Complete Reference Guide to the Groundbreaking Sci-Fi Series Created by J. Michael Straczynski . New York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997. Guffey, Ensley F., and K. Dale Koontz. A Dream given Form: The Unofficial Guide to the Universe of Babylon 5 . Toronto, ON: ECW Press, 2017. Johnson-Smith, Jan. American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and Beyond . Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 2005. Lancaster, Kurt. Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan Performance in a Media Universe . Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001. Lane, Andy. The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorised Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series Babylon 5. Vol. 2. London: Virgin, 1999. ———. The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series, Babylon 5 . London: Virgin, 1997. If there's an ABF that none of these contain sufficient non-trivial independent commentary on G'Kar, I simply don't know what to say. Babylon 5 was from the era of Genie, Compu$erve, and AOL. It was discussed on BBSes before there were such things as pop culture websites, so it doesn't entirely surprise me that not much was found in a standard BEFORE. Adding Katsulas (the actor's last name) or Mollari (his opposing character's surname) will get you better results. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, while this does help establish notability and SIGCOV, I would like to know what these sources in question say about G'Kar before making a vote, as these are physical books I don't happen to have access to. I'd also like to see how they can be used to improve the current state of the article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not organized to provide a single character sketch. For example, roughly half of them go through the series episode by episode, so there are G'Kar commentaries on multiple relevant episodes. Dream Given Form has (p. 480) a full page bio/obit of Katsulas, since it was published after his death that notes, in part, "G'Kar's transformation, especially when read in conjunction with Londo 's, is truly one of the great character arcs in television history." There's more like that scattered around these books. The card representing G'Kar in the B5 collectable card game gets a multi-page treatment (interspersed with commentaries on the other ambassadors' cards) in Interacting with Babylon 5. Bottom line? If I had the time to improve the character article with the sources present, that would be a better use of my time than expounding on them here. Jclemens ( talk ) 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course. Still, given how you've described them to me, I'm going to have to say Keep on this one. Combined with some of the sources other commenters have found, there's way more than enough to establish G'Kar here. Thank you for taking the deep dive through your books for this one. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens. Easily meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment More secondary sources: Science Fiction Television Series, 1990-2004 has a lot of content on G'Kar from comments by the actor and fellow actor. Daranios ( talk ) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough secondary sources have been provided. Many more where G'Kar is at least mentioned appear in the usual Google Books and Google Scholar searches. If the nominator believes that none of them amount to anything, I think at least a few words of explanation would be in order. Daranios ( talk ) 18:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Right now the article is clearly in an unencyclopedic state. Assuming it is true that sources do exist on this character, it still requires a rewrite. Draftification would give time for the article to be improved and submitted via AfC. If the article cannot be improved within the time the draft is there, then one would have to call the claims of sufficient sourcing into question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of WP:DEL-REASON apply to this article? If you're going to argue that it should 1) be removed from mainspace, with 2) a ticking timer to deletion under G13.. . why should it be deleted? Plenty of articles suck; articles sucking is not a valid reason for deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Jclemens on this one. It's been established more than enough sources exist, and thus there's no reason to suddenly go about removing this article and putting a time limit on it. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens passes WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there appear to be sufficient sources for an independent article. Otherwise a redirect to a character list would still be preferable to deletion. The article as it stands could probably be trimmed to include less plot summary and more "real world" context but no need for deletion. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Few years ago when I was doing a B5 article pass for notabilty, I've started the analysis section. Granted, it is still bare-bones, but the source cited is reliable and is a two-page long book chapter treatment of the character, at an academic level (author is a professor, book is published by Rowman & Littlefield ). I think that's meets WP:SIGCOV , and per comments above, I am sure we can find another source or several that helps with the GNG requirement of multiple sources (which I understand as "at least two"). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ is right the article is mostly fancruft now, but the topic is notable and the article just needs to be expanded with non-plot summary information and with footnotes added. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep! – There are sources that prove its notability and literary analysis. It could have some "expand" tags on it to improve it but regardless I think it is definitely notable and should not be deleted! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 10:46, 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

Finnish School of Watchmaking: WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , and Finland . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted in the revision history, the article has been improved after the first deletion nomination by @ SailingInABathTub : with additional sourcing from reliable sources (two NYtimes articles), replacing a previously used blog post source. Diletantique ( talk ) 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . One can find many articles about the school in Finnish newspapers and magazines. (e.g. Yle.fi , hs.fi , Tekniikka & Talous , most of which are unfortunately behind the paywall) I am not familiar with WP:NCORP , so I let others decide whether these are enough to pass the test. Jähmefyysikko ( talk ) 16:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage by e.g. Yle and Helsingin Sanomat , which are both reliable: [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , etc. The National Library of Finland 's newspaper archive (online access highly limited for non-researchers) also has a ton of hits, e.g. Länsiväylä 12.2.2022 (two-thirds of a spread) and 20.11.2021 (half page), Kauppalehti 23.4.2020 (two pages), Savon Sanomat 28.2.2020 (two-thirds spread), Helsingin Uutiset 12.2.2020 (third of a page), etc. Also a whole bunch of historical hits, e.g. both Uusi Suomi and Etelä-Suomen Sanomat in December 1959, Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on 7.11.1945, etc. - Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ljleppan. Satisfies WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:59, 22 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

Eduin Quero: Joeykai ( talk ) 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've already found a handful of articles in Spanish news and will expand the article now. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:BEFORE , meets GNG: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] A lot of them talk about his expulsion from the team in 2018 due to animal cruelty, which definitely should be included in the article. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per sources presented by @ NoonIcarus . Svartner ( talk ) 05:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Meets secondary sources per WP:GNG . Demt1298 ( talk ) 15:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails GNG. Sources above are routine match reports, routine contract signings and refbombing an alleged animal cruelty incident. Quero doesn't pass WP:CRIME either and it's UNDUE to focus on such a negative event. (Was he ever convicted?). The sources in the article aren't any better. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the coverage of the animal cruelty incident is most likely the first thing people will see about Quero when searching for sources, this does not detract from the fact that he is a professional footballer with a modest (but sufficient for GNG) amount of coverage. I've improved the article since the AfD was started, and I'll review the sources I've added here: La Vinotinto - Coverage of the beginning of Quero's career in Venezuela, talking about his breakthrough into the first team and including quotes from an interview conducted. Táchira - Again talking of his early career, and his potential as a young player to represent his nation at under-20 level - includes quotes again, as well as information regarding his early life. Liga FUTVE - Perhaps a primary source, but a pretty comprehensive article on Quero and his time with Falcón, again including quotes from the player. These three sources covering his career, as well as a number covering the animal cruelty case, should be enough to satisfy GNG. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk ) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ligafutve is the official website for a league Quero played in and is not independent. tachira.gob.ve is a government site so I don't know how reliable it is. lavinotinto is nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only speaking about the animal cruelty: Quero published the incident on social media, it is the reason why he was expelled from the league and he apologized for it. He hasn't denied or excused himself for it, so I'm not sure if there's another side of the story that casts doubts on what happened. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 09:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously standards of WP:GNG . The sources are not cursory by any means and provide reasonable coverage of him beyond simple appearances. This is rather clear to me. Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Red diaper baby: Insufficient sources. Was not able to find when doing WP:BEFORE . Riverbend21 ( talk ) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Riverbend21 ( talk ) 18:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are already a great many references in the article that explain this term's notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left – the phrase does not seem notable independently of the book which invented it. The article contains a total of four sentences including the lede. Insufficient number of sources, and of the present ones, only LA Progressive (not a notable publication) touches on the phrase; The New York Times mentions it only in its headline, Marin Independent Journal is about a book and its author, the other two references are about books and are used to source just their existence. The further reading section seems like a general collection of everything else that merely mentions it. Categories and interwiki link can be kept on the redirect. – Vipz ( talk ) 11:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The term "red diaper baby" has been around long before Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left was published. See this Google Scholar search . As well, see this magazine article from 1989, for example: New York Magazine . New York Media, LLC. 1989-02-13. Other notable uses of the term include https://lccn.loc.gov/2004463389 and https://lccn.loc.gov/2017900690 , as well as the summary provided by the publisher for https://lccn.loc.gov/2022931969 See also http://ptsss.org/docs/nst121.pdf#page=103 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's the case, then delete ? Significant coverage of the phrase itself establishes notability, not "notable use" for whatever purposes they use it for. – Vipz ( talk ) 06:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] if what's the case? Kire1975 ( talk ) 05:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BEFORE : there are plenty of sources. I added one. Bearian ( talk ) 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The page needs cleanup, but the sources are plenty sufficient to establish notability. Kire1975 ( talk ) 05:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable concept. pburka ( talk ) 23:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Renaldo Lapuz: Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Texas . Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I found some additional coverage in my WP:BEFORE search before WP:DEPROD DING: [21] , [22] ~ Kvng ( talk ) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and United States of America . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to American Idol (season 7) . Seems to have gained a little bit of notability during his time on the show, and there may even be some information worth merging into the season 7 article, but a standalone article hardly seems necessary in this case. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 02:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Sources published after his unsuccessful 15 January 2008 audition on American Idol : San Diego Jr., Bayani (2010-12-08). "Renaldo Lapuz revisited" . Philippine Daily Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2010-12-12 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "... Renaldo, according to new manager Jared Marshall, is back to square one—living in a small rented room and working the night shift at a Wal-Mart outlet in Reno, Nevada. ... Renaldo, who will turn 48 on December 18, recently composed and recorded a holiday carol entitled “Christmas Chocolatte.” ... This year, he will spend Christmas like any other holiday since migrating to the United States in 2004" "Catching Up With 'American Idol's' Most Memorable Castoffs" . Yahoo! . 2012-01-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "Admit it: You've probably had this furry-hatted friendship ambassador's anthem "We're Brothers Forever" lodged in your brain ever since he auditioned with it in Season 7. (Everybody, now: "I am your brother, your best friend forever...") Really, "We're Brothers Forever" probably should've been Season 7's coronation song instead of "Time Of My Life. " Renaldo later released two independent albums, 2009's Renaldo Lapuz and 2010's Rey, but those recordings, unsurprisingly, weren't nearly as popular as "We're Brothers Forever," so he was last reported working as a janitor at a Wal-Mart in Reno--where customers still recognize him, even without his hat. Renaldo still has hopes to pursue a musical career." Norman, Michael (2008-03-13). " 'American Idol' reject Renaldo Lapuz to perform at RocBar in Cleveland's Flats" . The Plain Dealer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "The "American Idol" wannabe was laughed out of the room when he auditioned for Season 7. Something about his off-key voice that the haughty judges couldn't grasp. Well, Lapuz has the last laugh. The Nevada resident has become a smash on YouTube with his song "We're Brothers Forever. " The a cappella ditty -- delivered with an off-kilter panache you rarely see anywhere, let alone on "American Idol" -- has inspired fans to add musical accompaniment, turning the warble into something some might call a "power ballad. " The one-time reject is even heading into the studio to record an album. But first, Lapuz will bring his shtick to Cleveland." Additional sources: " 'American Idol': I Am Your Brother!" . Orange County Register . 2008-01-17. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "In seven short minutes, the show turned Renaldo Lapuz from oddball to star. After his "audition" Wednesday night, Renaldo is literally an overnight sensation. Already, YouTube is filling up with new versions of Renaldo’s stirring anthem "I Am Your Brother Forever," and discussion boards are pouring out the love for America’s new feathered friend, who brings "hope to those who are in despairs. "" Barnes, Brad (2008-06-27). "We've Had Enough" . Ledger-Enquirer . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "The best they've thrown at us in terms of memorable pop culture icons this year is Renaldo Lapuz --- that "American Idol" guy in the white costume with a Jose Feliciano riff and mad love for Simon. Not to discredit Lapuz. You now can specially order his winged hats or book him for your party via his Web site, and that's no small feat. " Romero, Katrina (2008-01-22). "Who is Renaldo Lapuz?" . Balita USA . Archived from the original on 2023-05-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-22 . The article notes: "After appearing on an "American Idol" audition episode Jan. 15, Renaldo Lapuz seems to have taken the Fil-Am community and the Internet by storm. ... The 44-year-old Lapuz, a Reno, Nevada resident, has acquired much attention among online blog communities, many of which have remixed his audition song, while one "official" site is selling T-shirts sale which emblazon his song title. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Renaldo Lapuz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While this is purely anecdotal, not a formal criterion, I would note that I saw this AfD discussion only because I happened to look up Lapuz today. I found the article to be useful. — Shmuel ( talk ) 18:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See Cunard 's contribution and my early comment, both above. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Kvng and Cunard that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NSINGER with sources presented by Cunard. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 02:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

En pièces détachées: Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs , Music , and France . UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lots of references in the corresponding French article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_pi%C3%A8ces_d%C3%A9tach%C3%A9es Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A Google Books search turns up many paragraphs of coverage in books about Hallyday and French rock. I can also find a number of in-depth contemporary reviews in major newspapers/magazines which suggest notability. Appears to meet WP:NALBUM . — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 18:56, 5 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

Teresa (Barbie): Article does not establish notability. Of the seven references present on the article at the moment: Ref 1 is a YouTube video on a fan channel, probably a copyright violation, and is a primary source (it's a release trailer) Refs 2 and 3 are primarily about other characters Ref 4 is a picture of Barbie merchandise (primary source) hosted on Flickr Refs 5, 6 and 7 are primary (barbie.com) In my opinion, the article's prose makes no attempt to establish the notability of this character, and the references provided do not establish notability either. Adam Black t • c 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions . Adam Black t • c 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The sources included in the article are all pretty much not valid for establishing notability, being primary or unreliable sources. But, searches are actually bringing up some commentary on the character, particularly on the depictions of her ethnicity. While a lot of it is fairly brief, this book has a whole page on the topic, and is the best I've found. If not kept, it should at least be redirected to List of Barbie's friends and family#Female best friends , and have some sources actually added there. Rorshacma ( talk ) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources found after my initial comment in addition to the one I already mentioned above seem to push Teresa into passing the WP:GNG . The article should be updated to replace the primary sourced "plot" content with the sourced analysis, but it does not appear that Deletion would be appropriate here. Rorshacma ( talk ) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Barbie's friends and family#Female best friends , most non-notable characters get redirected, which is optimal for this one as well. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 18:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Rorshacma provided a good book reference, and there is plenty more: Another book gives about 2.5 pages to Teresa here in Barbie Culture by Mary F. Rogers. Sloan gives some discussion of her creation, lack of good marketing, and devolution to just another Barbie in Women's Roles in Latin America and the Carribbean , which was cited by Taber, Clover, and Sanford in "Performing gender in a Barbie Expo: White passivity, exotic otherness, and tradition in a fashionista bow" . Goldman also discusses the poor marketing and whitening of her in "La Princesa Plástica: Hegemonic and Oppositional Representations of Latinidad in Hispanic Barbie" (from the book From Bananas to Buttocks: The Latina Body in Popular Film and Culture , and then goes on to liken Teresa to Argentina and Barbie to the United States as they are depicted in a short film using the dolls as characters. Aguiló-Pérez also discusses Teresa in "Accessing Barbie Conversations about Class and Race", chapter four of An American Icon in Puerto Rico: Barbie, Girlhood, and Colonialism at Play identifying her as a common favorite amongst those that played with her and identified with her darker hair and skin, but also criticizing her relegation to the sidelines as Barbie is spotlighted in both animated releases and marketing commercials. The above doi links are all accessible via the WP:Library access. All that said, enough sources WP:NEXIST to establish her notability. The article can obviously be improved to incorporate some of this, but it does not need deletion. - 2pou ( talk ) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I am convinced by the sources found by Rorshacma (at least a page of The Marketing of Toys ) and 2pou (several pages in Barbie Culture ). Barbie is important; people write about it. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Techno India University: It literally only includes one piece of information, which is about some random hazing ritual somebody in 2017 did. Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 20:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Technology , Asia , India , and West Bengal . Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 20:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] - Keep I'm able to find atleast 3 sources mentioning Techno India University: - Telegraphindia.com This is a article about a recent attempt by pupils of the university (and associated public school) to create a Durga idol out of trash - Dailystar.net This is a article about a MoU signed between a Bangladeshi university and Techno India University - telegraphindia.com This is a article about the convocation ceremony. There are a bunch of others from telegraphindia.com (which makes sense given that The Telegraph (India) is the primary English newspaper of the region) as well mentions in other national newspapers-- Sohom ( talk ) 18:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added a list of sources that mention the university to the article. In addition to this, I also want to point out that the youtube video linked as one of the references is actually a recorded clip of a news broadcast by ABP Ananda , one of the major Bengali TV news shows in Kolkata. This news story made national headlines as mentioned in indiatoday.in , timesofindia.com and telegraphindia.com Sohom ( talk ) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sohom Datta : Sorry for such a late reply, but you seem to have added citations in inappropriate places in the article. You added sources to the lead section which don't support the claim at hand ("Techno India university is a private university in Kolkata."). Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 04:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuickQuokka Fixed, thanks for the heads up :) Sohom ( talk ) 06:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review of existing and new references would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question to Sohom about the first comment. Just have to ask. How is it so amazing that the third article was published exactly on the day of your comment? Suitskvarts ( talk ) 07:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Suitskvarts It wasn't amazing, I assume Google recommended the latest news articles that it found wrt to university. I typed in "Techno India University news Kolkata" which imo is a good approach of finding relevant sources for Indian schools, since if there isn't a single newsworthy article, the subject would definitely be non-notable (most colleges/universities have difficulty making it into the news from this area due to the sheer number of such institutions/degree mills that are called colleges etc). Sohom ( talk ) 08:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - subject has decent coverage. The article has a section on abuse with references which is negative for the subjective. Here is another reference on more abuse https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/12/21/techno-india-university-faculty-sexual-harassment . New women & gender studies center https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788434170/19CC049530954205PQ/1 (this might be a press release). Coverage of a technology conference the subject hosted https://www.proquest.com/docview/2809556906/19CC049530954205PQ/2 . A lecture on tigers held at the university https://www.proquest.com/docview/2843074252/19CC049530954205PQ/35 . - Indefensible ( talk ) 22:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep after Sohom Datta 's spectacular work on fixing the article Quick Quokka [⁠ talk • contribs ] 12:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Techno India Group . The campus appears to be based physically inside the Techno India Group building. The primary sources claim that the university is a subsidiary of Techno India Group . The company's Wikipedia page appears to be be a list of its subsidiaries. There are many private colleges, schools, universities and such in the world and, although they may exist, it doesn't mean that they are noteworthy. 99% fad-free ( talk ) 11:33, 29 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

Dea Liane: The director certainly gets praised but Liane is only mentioned as one of the cast (albeit a leading member of the cast). A Google search reveals very little, suggesting Liane is only at the start of her film career. Fails WP:GNG Sionk ( talk ) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . She received extensive coverage in multiple extremely reliable sources ( Le Monde , La Croix , Télérama , Le Figaro, L'Humanité, and so on). I've added some of it to the page. More exists. See for yourself. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably a week pass at AUTHOR, there is coverage in L'Humanite and Le Figaro for the novel. Rest seems ok, could use better sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This story about her acting career in Le Monde [36] and this, a long NPR-style interview over her novel on public radio in France [37] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the L'Humanite and Le Monde sources, among others. Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:20, 23 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

Girls' Brigade Singapore: Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability! ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , me !) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the strength of added references. Patronage by the country's president is an argument in favour of notability as an important part of youth culture in Singapore. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:08, 6 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! 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Eastmain . Hyperbolick ( talk ) 07:34, 12 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

Sheikh Ahmadullah: These sources do not establish notability of the person. AlbeitPK ( talk ) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Islam , and Bangladesh . AlbeitPK ( talk ) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Bangladeshi newspaper constantly covered significance news and column about Sheikh Ahmadullah. This proves that he has fulfilled WP:GNG . I suspect the removal proponent is aggressively trying to remove Ahmadullah and his organization's articles. Because in recent times he has proposed the removal of these two. And he didn't make any edits on the wiki other than these. ~ Deloar Akram ( Talk • Contribute ) 08:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable person. Md Joni Hossain ( talk ) 16:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Ontor22 ( talk ) 11:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While it has been variously asserted by nom and the current majority for keep that the sources do/don't establish GNG, there has been no discussion of individual sources that could move towards decisively substantiating such evaluations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [26] Kaler Kantho , [27] Jugantor , [28] Republic TV and many more notable, reliable and established news link can be presented about him. See google search [29] [30] [31] 202.134.11.243 ( talk ) 15:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep subject appears to meet WP:GNG . -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk ) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cryptovirology: Other sources such as Scientific American and the NIST do not mention the word. Also, COI editing is involved here: Special:Contributions/Adamlucasyoung . PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see use of the term in any RS, other than here [22] and I'm not sure if that is even a valid source. Appears to be a new word that never caught on. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I stand corrected, Gscholar has many papers using the term and it's been in use since the 1990's [23] , [24] and [25] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [2] is a paper by the person who coined the term originally, and so is [4]. Leaves [3], which is not enough. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep @ Oaktree b got one that passed the nominator's litmus test but there plenty are more. For example: Bhardwaj & Das, Chaos Control Dynamics of Cryptovirology in Blockchain, Chapter 7 of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology Applications (Wiley 2020) Tivari et al, A Brief Survey of Crypto Virology and Worms (2018) There are 684 855 hits on Google Scholar for this term, only a few of which are by Young. Yes, many are not RS but these would have been found on the most minimal WP:BEFORE search. If @ PhotographyEdits still feels this term has not been "adopted in the wider world" then I think it would be incumbent on them to explain what efforts they made to exclude the possibility the google scholar results contain less than two reliable sources with significant coverage of the term . Oblivy ( talk ) 07:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The number of passing mentions does not mean it passes the WP:GNG . Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. A whole lot are just returning a hit because they cite the original paper by A. Young but do not add anything about the term. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 12:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you consider the Bhardwaj & Das book chapter? It is literally about cryptivirology ("the study in this chapter deals with the dynamics of worm propagation in cryptovirol- ogy"). Is that a passing mention? I don't understand this: Quite a lot of them are citogenesis, because the cryptovirology word has been included for a long time in the first sentence of the ransomware article. Can you explain? Note that when "a whole lot" of papers cite a paper about a concept that can be evidence of notability. Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Your nomination statement only talked about existing sources and I think disregarding hundreds of hits would generate some explanation. Oblivy ( talk ) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] >Can you confirm you did a WP:BEFORE search that included Google Scholar? Yes, I did. Please also see my comment below. The ransomware article weirdly states it is part of a larger field called cryptovirology, while this does not seem to be the case. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete , not a standard terminology, looks like a promo for its author. Artem.G ( talk ) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] still sounds strange to me, but google scholar shows 855 results. Artem.G ( talk ) 07:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first paper in the results cites Wikipedia itself. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two books here [26] and [27] . The term is also used in French [28] and here [29] . The term might not be that well-known, but it's used enough to at least show basic notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and here [30] from 2008. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Something I did not mentioned but I should make clear: the article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK . As the originator of the terms says in the following article: https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/cryptovirology/ "Years later, the media relabeled the cryptoviral extortion attack as ransomware." Therefore, this article should be a redirect to ransomware article. The term should only be mentioned in the early history of ransomware. Also, meeting WP:GNG does not mean the subject is required to have an article. We can merge an outdated term into the article with the common name. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems we are heading toward a consensus to keep the article, but could we evaluate the nominators thought that this should be merged with ransomware ? It's not clear whether this is quite right as Cryptovirology looks like the study of ransomware and similar methods. Pinging @ Oaktree b : @ Artem.G : @ Oblivy : any thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It looks like cryptovirology is essentially "the use of cryptography in viruses." It looks like it's mostly ransomeware encrypting data, but according to the article it's also about things like publishing user data in encrypted form to be found by virus makers, and also asymmetric backdoors. So if the article was to be merged it would have to be merged into multiple articles. Ransomware seems to have pretty good coverage of encryption usage Backdoor (computing) has a section on asymmetric backdoors that references essentially the same things as the cryptovirology article Private information retrieval is something the article claims is a theoretical use of cryptography in viruses The rest (the article mentions viruses communicating with cryptography, and "cryptographic counters") would have to go into Computer virus So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 15:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also Kleptography , which may get its own AFD if this one succeeds but could be a merge target. One of the books mentioned above distinguishes cryptovirology into "active" and "passive", where active is essentially ransomware and passive is essentially the kleptography article, so by that definition we would have it covered. The one thing missing is cryptographical virus communication, but that's not discussed in the article other than a trivial mention, so there would be nothing to merge. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > So the real question is probably whether the use of cryptography in viruses is well-covered enough that it needs its own article. My answer to this is a pretty clear 'no'. Also, all the articles you linked is pretty much industry standard terminlogy, while this really is not. My vote is either 'delete' or 'merge and redirect'. Ransomware seems like the best merge target. I might open an AfD to Kleptography as well soon. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Freda Ayisi: She still fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Ghana . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GNG and SPORTBASIC with significant coverage in the Islington Gazette and Athletic sources. gobonobo + c 07:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Athletic article has few sentences specifically on Ayisi and heavily pads the article with quotes from her/stuff that has nothing to do with her. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 3 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

Inma Puig: It may be WP:AB , clearly nothing to pass WP:ANYBIO . She has written some books, and she had some media coverage as psychologist of Barcelona, but without any kind of significant impact. Most sources are quite promotional-like, mainly because of her involvement with sports. Chiserc ( talk ) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Psychology , and Spain . Chiserc ( talk ) 09:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - One of most prominent an maybe the most football psychologist, with many sources such as [38] from El Pais, one of Spain's leading newspapers... and [39] from Galicia's leading newspaper... Article needs improvement, not deletion . Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 11:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I am not convinced on the notability of this psychologist, since most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain). In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources. The source you mentioned is actually an interview, if I understood correctly, and, indeed, she is covered by media, but most sources I found are promotional-like coverage and nothing to validate clearly WP:GNG . Chiserc ( talk ) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "interviews" have secondary coverage... Also I'm pretty sure using "most articles reflect a limited geographic scope (only Spain). In that sense, a Spanish-language Wikipedia version may be more suitable based on current sources" is an invalid and bizarre reason to delete an English wikipedia page... She is one of the most prominent if not the most prominent football psychologist... Article needs improvement, not deletion Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think there's enough out there to show notability. Article needs an expansion/re-write to demonstrate this. Giant Snowman 18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Spanish-language sources seem sufficient to show notability. Notability does not depend on language. If you can't check the sources available in a relevant language, ask someone to help, don't go to AfD. Telling people who object to your AfD to leave to Spanish Wikipedia is discriminatory and unhelpful. See WP:NONENG . Akakievich ( talk ) 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

DD Osama: With one mixtape under their belt, no chance of meeting WP:MUSICBIO either. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , United States of America , and New York . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Signally fails WP:GNG. Nothing more, as Gorillaz tell us, to say. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Album review in Pitchfork [48] , piece in Hip Hop Canada [49] , the Hype [50] . I think he's ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist meets notability standards if he "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Here are some examples of independent coverage on DD Osama by publications that are considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE : Pitchfork , XXL , HipHopDx , Rolling Stone . Célestin Denis ( talk ) 19:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with the points mentioned above that show the subject has had multiple reliable sources cover his music. The subject is also still only 16 years old and is already signed to a major record label. He meets Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and unless he stops making music, he will likely pass Criteria 3 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO too. Hiphopsavedmylife ( talk ) 06:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater): PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Taiwan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources . DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete insuffient coverage. -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:21, 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! 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob delete - I'm not seeing RS. It is possible they exist in languages I don't read but if that's the case I encourage ! keep voters to bring sources to the discussion. JMWt ( talk ) 08:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per DCsansei and JTtheOG. 58.152.55.172 ( talk ) 10:43, 19 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! 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cottage Hill, Indiana: What I can see of it looks like maybe a neighborhood, maybe just a locale.... Right now it's just a phrase on a map and the name of a cemetery. Mangoe ( talk ) 10:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:21, 19 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! 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Current only sources is the GNIS, which has been ruled unreliable/not counted as official legal recognition by WP:NGEO . Likely just a hill. OpenStreetMap puts the label right next to the cemetery, on the outskirts of Brazil, Indiana . Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Cottage Hill was one end of an interurban streetcar line to Harmony, Indiana . [1] that opened in 1893 and probably went out of business in the 1920s or 1930s. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Fisher, Vicky. "When the trains stopped" (PDF) . Bell Memorial Public Library . I tried to get information on this line, without a great deal of success. Everyone talking about it says that the east end was in Harmony; but they they don't all say that the west end was in Cottage Hill. I neve found a source that showed a map of the line. And again, this is a passing reference: stations and stops ae not the same thing as towns. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is a particularly bad nomination; a simple newspaper search will generate hundreds of articles and mentions. See, for example, just whipping up a random something-something quickly for our purposes here, THIS town coverage from a special correspondent, datelined Cottage Hill, from the South Bend Tribune of June 25, 1908. Carrite ( talk ) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] THIS from a 1911 issue of the Brazil Daily Times mentions a "Cottage Hill band" giving a box supper at "Cottage Hill school". Carrite ( talk ) 04:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these more or less passing references says that Cottage Hill is a town unto itself and not just a neighborhood of Brazil. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Carrite. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 23:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete my search shows a gazetteer from the 1860s showing it was listed as a post office. [1] on page 530 talks about the person who bought a farm and cleaned the place up and then created the Cottage Hill cemetery using his surname as a possessive pronoun. I'm also not convinced by the newspaper clippings which have been presented so far. One is from South Bend and all the other small places it lists are from the greater South Bend region, but this is on the other side of Indiana, and the second just shows there was a school named Cottage Hill. I'm willing to be convinced, but I think this was a post office and cemetery and farm based on my research, and I typically will tend to vote Keep on these things. SportingFlyer T · C 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment leaning delete. I can't find a Cottage Hill in the microfilmed Clay Co post office records . it don't see it on the 1915 county map, altho maybe I missed it. it's only mentioned as "Cottage Hill Cemetery" in the 1909 county history can't really find any news coverage discussing it as a populated place at any point It might have been a preexisting location on the National Road but finding no evidence of that (yet?) The interurban stop probably doesn't qualify it for notability I'd be open to a redirect to Dick Johnson Township or a move to Cottage Hill Cemetery but meh. Update: I skimmed a history of early transport in Indiana and no sign of Cottage Hill just the discouraging comment "The country lying between Terre Haute and Indianapolis was an almost unbroken wilderness, the settlements were separated by extensive and gloomy forests, and only a few villages were scattered along the line of the National Road. The railroad left this latter highway at Plainfield, from which point to Greencastle but a few settlements were to be found, and beyond that place for a number of miles conditions were even worse." There's a map that includes Brazil as a stop but Cottage Hills makes no appearance. Hahaha Cunningham Tavern on the National Road burned down 1855/1856. So maybe something! jengod ( talk ) 21:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I regret to inform that this location is notable, or at least is the setting of a folksy and charming yarn about Abe Lincoln in 1858. I have expanded the history section and will add a touch more from the 20th century shortly. jengod ( talk ) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Carrite; and per WP:NTEMP . Shotgunheist 💬 16:29, 12 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

List of Aeroflot destinations: A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists at AfD in an orderly manner and include a link to the RfC in their nominations; it was also recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. The consensus has been reaffirmed in several AfDs since then. This list violates WP:NOT . Wikipedia is not meant to host a database of every single city that an airline flies to as of March 2024 or whatever month it is. Nor is it supposed to provide an indiscriminate collection of every destination in history. Even if Aeroflot flew to some city for a few years in the 1960s, it gets added to the list. Not to mention that in Soviet times, Aeroflot flew to over 3,000 destinations! All the former destinations border on airline trivia. If we look at how the list is referenced, we realize that it is basically a repository for airline data. Someone accessed the airline's route map in December 2018 and cited it for over 100 destinations. When I click the link today, I am only able to download an undated table of Aeroflot's routes. To verify all current destinations, I can instead visit the airline's flight schedule and copy down all the cities that appear when I click the dropdown under "City of departure", or I can consult a third-party aggregator of scheduling data, like Flightradar24 or FlightMapper.net . Then one of these websites can be cited for each current destination. You can add more references, like news stories about a new destination, but they would be redundant. Also, you cannot use such a reference on its own to say that Aeroflot still flies to a given city as of this month . For example, the reference for Lagos is a list of destinations from 2000 and the city is labeled 'terminated', which implies that someone had to check Aeroflot's current schedule to see if it still flies there. Ultimately we have established that the information in the list is indeed verifiable. But the problem here is not one of verifiability. It is one of suitability – the suitability for Wikipedia of a list that essentially reorganizes data sourced from flight databases. In addition, maintaining the list effectively makes it a newsfeed of airline destination updates. For instance, the list informs the reader that Aeroflot will resume flights to Chengdu on 1 April 2024, and in December 2023 it noted that service to Sanya would begin on 27 December and to Blagoveshchensk on 31 January. The tracking of these periodic changes in airline schedules goes against WP:NOTNEWS . There are 187 remaining stand-alone lists of airline destinations. I am only nominating Aeroflot's as a test case for those list articles that include prose. While the list is unsuitable for Wikipedia, the prose has to be addressed separately. Some of it repeats information found in the history section of the parent article, and I have copied over some of the remaining prose. Please see my explanation on the talk page of what prose I copied or did not copy to the parent article. (So if the outcome of this AfD is that Wikipedia should not have this list article, I believe we'd need to redirect it to the parent article rather than delete it to comply with WP:PATT .) Sunnya343 ( talk ) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Aviation , Transportation , Lists , and Russia . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notified: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. The information about past destinations or the destinations of a defunct airline may not be readily available elsewhere. Even if someone has access to a collection of old editions of the Official Airline Guide, such a collection would be less accessible than a Wikipedia article. Aeroflot's route network was not just the routes it could make money on, but included destinations that it served because of the national interests of the Soviet Union. Understanding how destinations were dropped as the result of a trade embargo or other Western response to Russian or Soviet foreign policy is an important part of the company's history. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. If that were the case, instead of having articles meant primarily to present a digest of information found in secondary sources we'd just present raw data and let our readers figure out what they all mean. It's like saying that we should have lists of all the people who've every lived in Moscow because that will help us better to understand Moscow. A live feed of raw data (including, for example, hourly Dow Jones Industrial Average figures since the Dow's inception, right through today's closing bell) just isn't what Wikipedia is. Largoplazo ( talk ) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will echo what Largoplazo said as well as Beeblebrox's comment in the RfC regarding the difference between information and knowledge . This list is just raw information: "As of March 2024, Aeroflot flies to Yerevan, Baku, Minsk, ..." and "Aeroflot used to fly to Kabul, Algiers, Luanda, ..." It does not impart any of the knowledge that you describe in your last two sentences. The list could comfortably exist on an aviation-enthusiast wiki. On Wikipedia, however, WP:NOT defines our scope, and lists of airline destinations like this one lie outside of it. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Struck those sentences since I've been criticizing aviation enthusiasts unfairly. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 01:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I must note again that merely including up-to-date information like start dates is not a violation of notnews, nor is that a basis for deletion as an aversion for detail can simply be resolved by noting a route is upcoming. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia maintaining periodic changes, though it may not be necessary to have standalone articles dedicated to a single corporation's business operations like this; my greater concern would be the lack of detail as it's not particularly useful to a reader that a certain airport is a terminated destination (when? from where?). Reywas92 Talk 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At the risk of bludgeoning, I wanted to clarify that my idea with the NOTNEWS argument is similar to what FOARP said in the AfDs that they started: if you try to keep the list up to date (which is what people in good faith have been doing), what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news ( source ). We can disagree about whether the practice of documenting every single change to an airline's destinations is a NOTNEWS violation. However, even if we discontinue this practice, we are still left with the NOTDB argument, which is my main argument. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This isn't really related to the AfD but per Reywas92's point... it is useful to note terminated destinations for readers in some instances, especially for readers interested in the historical footprint of an airline, such as myself. SportingFlyer T · C 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As an aviation enthusiast I, too, am genuinely fascinated by certain destinations, and I do believe there is a place to talk about some of them on Wikipedia. A great example would be the paragraphs that people wrote in the Anchorage and Magadan airport articles about Aeroflot's and Alaska Airlines' flights between Russia and Alaska in the 1990s. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is significant prose in this list article, and which destinations were served by the primary carrier during the Cold War is not insignificant in the slightest. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, and simply listing the destinations of most airlines does violate WP:NOT - except, of course, when it's encyclopaedic, meaning it's beyond mere directory or database, and Aeroflot is one of the airlines where I think the information is clearly encyclopaedic. I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. SportingFlyer T · C 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. Regarding historical destinations, we already have a great alternative: Aeroflot § History . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's already very lengthy. SportingFlyer T · C 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to the people who've opined so far and those who follow: As the nominator noted, this nomination follows from an RFC that already took place. This isn't the place to relitigate it—that would take another RFC. Given the RFC, this is the place to determine whether compliance with it calls for the deletion of this article, or whether there are factors that set it apart from the domain of articles that the RFC covered. Largoplazo ( talk ) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of the airline destination articles which were deleted were simple lists of destinations which violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY , which is what that RfC agreed on. This article is above and beyond WP:NOTDIRECTORY because of the prose involved. It's possibly a valid split. SportingFlyer T · C 12:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see my discussion of the prose in this article in the last paragraph of my rationale. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 02:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While such a list does seem unlikely to be kept up to date, and I do not see it as particularly useful, It is not obvious exactly what part of WP:NOT it is claimed to violate. · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am referring mainly to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE . Sunnya343 ( talk ) 04:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete in line with the 2018 RfC. The prose section is relatively short and can easily be merged into the Destinations and History sections of the main Aeroflot article. Rosbif73 ( talk ) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that moving/combining the data to the Aeroflot page as a subsection. However, the data should *somehow* be kept and not fully deleted. This data will be viable when/if Worldwide-Russo relationship(s) improve in the future. Metcalf81 ( talk ) 17:29, 3 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! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. I believe that consensus has changed since the 2018 RfC given that there are still nearly 200 pages like this for various airlines, without even getting into such lists that may appear in the articles about the airlines themselves, and the 2018 RfC should be disregarded. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My full reasoning & citations here along with logic in a competing parallel AfD raised by the same editor DigitalExpat ( talk ) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We should bear WP:VNOT in mind: the fact that information is well cited does not guarantee its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sunnya343 ( talk ) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Metropolitan90 and DigitalExpat. S5A-0043 Talk 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the submitter of this action is disguarding consensus. Axisstroke ( talk ) 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Srijanx22 ( talk ) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the consensus doesn't apply anymore. TheTankman ( talk ) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Colinstu ( talk ) 20:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this is certainly valuable information to be part of an encyclopedia and be maintained regularly. Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Floripes Dornellas de Jesus: Nerdy314 ( talk ) 02:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Christianity . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Servants of God, the first step on the road to canonisation, are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nothing the matter with Catholic sources when we're talking about a Catholic woman on the path to sainthood. Appears notable: pilgrimage site, celebration of her day, etc. Pam D 13:38, 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

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama: A before search only came up with unreliable sources such as linkedin, youtube and instragam and database sources and non-independent sources. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Pakistan , India , and Jammu and Kashmir . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this is the major peace foundation funded by the Nobel Peace Prize money awarded the Dalai Lama. Notable per WP:COMMONSENSE , and hopefully additional sources will be added. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NOCOMMON . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there are plenty of mentions in books , which are potential sources. Nominator does not appear to have done a search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. Skyerise ( talk ) 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of those book sources are by Rajiv Mehrotra, the secretary of the organisation or the Dalai Lama thus not independent as required for WP:NORG , the rest are either the foundation or its members used as sources ( example ). Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The foundation has received significant coverage in at least three, independent, reliable sources : [68] , [69] , [70] . - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've expanded the article using these sources. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot fully review your source 1 and 2 as those books aren't displaying previews for me, however the search inside function is showing for book 1 that the organisations name appears 3 times on unidentified pages and the text that is displaying around said appearances is not helpful in determining whether the text is SIGCOV about the organisaiton or whether this is just mentions. Same thing for source two but with 2 appearances of the organisations name one of which is reference, however the source is used for the criticism and other coverage in the article so may be more in depth then I can tell from what little is viewable by me. Source 3 is the only source I can fully review as it is a journal paper that is free to download. The coverage in source 3 about the foundation is focused on the WISCOMP so would meet SIGCOV. So in total sources 1 and 2 I have not fully reviewed and source 3 is SIGCOV. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was able to access versions through my university. Source 1 has around a page of coverage as part of an encyclopedic listing of various organizations. Source 2 is a book chapter discussing activism by Nobel laureates. The foundation is mentioned in various places. The criticism information I added comes from a section of around 3 pages just on this organization. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 16:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources exist. Editorkamran ( talk ) 07:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have just opened an SPI into two brand new accounts that appeared at the article to remove criticism coverage. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peacebuildera . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and redirect to 14th Dalai Lama . Notability cannot be inherited, and the sources don't even remotely meet the standard for WP:CORP in terms of significant/exclusive coverage of the organization. Steven Walling • talk 01:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This may have been stated by the 14th Dalai Lama, but the work will continue after he's gone. The Carter Center is the closest American parallel that I can think of. It's specific purpose for existence is to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering. After both President Carter and Rosalynn Carter are dead, the Carter Center will carry on with the work they started. The center itself will not lose any notability, because the notability is in the work of the center. The 14th Dalai Lama is likely to be the last Dalai Lama, at least that's what he's said. The work of the Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will continue with the same name. — Maile ( talk ) 20:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - GNG is met, and the article is notable; I am in favour of keeping the article instead of merging. Ekdalian ( talk ) 07:45, 2 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

Fondazione Child: Emir of Wikipedia ( talk ) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy . Emir of Wikipedia ( talk ) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Invalid justifications. Jack4576 please stop making such votes, if you object to an AFD please provide sources here by yourself instead of doubting if others conducted online searches. Thank you. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I do have concerns about some of the writing about the organization, but the WHO acknowledged the organization's sponsorship of a major conference ("We are deeply grateful to Foundation CHILD (Fondazione per lo Studio e la Ricerca sull’Infanza e l’Adolescenza), from Italy, that provided partial financial support to the technical meeting on “Caring for Children and Adolescents With Mental Disorders: Setting WHO Directions”...."). Fixing minor mistakes and editing down verbiage is not the purpose of AfD. They have done enough, on a global basis, to be notable. Bearian ( talk ) 19:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While not familiar with Italian sources, this is trivial coverage [1] , about typical of them, only being briefly mentioned in sources. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Joji Nagashima: Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Japan . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There does seem to be adequate coverage in English in Google Books, and there also look to be multiple sources in the ja article. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is coverage in Japanese, which counts towards notability per WP:GLOBAL & WP:NONENG . Would be nice if WP:BEFORE had been followed here. DCsansei ( talk ) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added three citations, including coverage in Japanese press fround through ProQuest International. MrSpartan456 ( talk ) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to be a notable indiviual and passes WP:GNG . Powerviki ( talk ) 15:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per coverage founded above in Japanese. Antimargi ( talk ) 16:40, 2 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

Lymm Baptist Church: (Contested WP:PROD ) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England . WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Needs to be considered carefully. It is not a listed building (I have verified this at the National Heritage List for England ), but there is a substantial paragraph in Christopher Stell's Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in the North of England (1994), which is considered to be the definitive gazetteer of Nonconformist places of worship in England. I need to find out whether there is anything in the Buildings of England : Cheshire volume. Leave it with me for now and I will update. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Note to add: I've asked at WP:RX re. Buildings of England: Cheshire . Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Follow-up : the chapel is mentioned in the Buildings of England : Cheshire volume, but not substantially: Baptist Church, Higher Lane. Built in 1850. Of stone, with nice Decorated Gothic window tracery. The attached school was added in 1851 and extended a year later. The earlier part has two big gables, the latter gabled dormers and windows with cusped heads. (p.447) I suspect that won't be enough, even alongside the much more substantial piece in Stell. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : I see this news story, which provides RS SIGCOV but does not otherwise build towards GNG due to it being local coverage. This is a pretty neat source with SIGCOV, but it's partially by a congregant and was published by the denomination that the church is affiliated with. A similar problem exists with this . Another local news story can be seen here . There are two images on a local history website showing that the congregation has been around a while, but add nothing towards GNG. This is a missionary org associated with the parish that against adds nothing towards GNG. Ditto for this . This is RS but is local and just says they raised funds for refugees of the war in Ukraine. All in all, the church is real and likely of at least some local historical note, given what Hassocks5489 turned up. Since we can verify it with one independent source and it seems to be a focal point for that region's Baptists, I say it can be considered weakly notable outside of the GNG standard. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, this book only covered the CoE parish in town, so I suppose it's unlikely the building is of architectural interest. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 20:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not sure I follow along with the conclusion that the links above show it is a focal point for Baptists in the region. It is a meeting point for sure, by nature of being a church, and presumably the focal point for Baptists in that town. But Lymm itself is just over a half-hour drive from both Manchester and Liverpool, which are presumably host to much more of a true focal point for Baptists in the region, unless we define region very narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 21:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (With regret) Delete -- There is nothing to indicate this is not a typical local church, no different from many we routinely delete. Personally, I would like to keep many of them, but that is contrary to the consensus. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the numerous reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion. Note that local coverage is permissible for historic buildings, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to add my source assessment table, including the sources highlighted by Pbritti . Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Nonconformist Chapels and Meeting-houses in the North of England Per Hassocks5489 ✔ Yes Buildings of England: Cheshire Per full entry provided above by Hassocks5489 ✘ No Is this the busiest building in Lymm? , Warrington Worldwide Short, very locally oriented article about weekly activities at the church, like painting and a gardening club — arguably not Sigcov in line with WP:AUD ✘ No Story 81 - Mission on your doorstep , Baptists Together Non-news website of the Baptist denomination Lymm BC belongs to, based on interview with Lymm BC leader ✘ No Justice flows in the North West , Baptists Together See above Notably, per The Baptist Times , the paper was apparently involved in a Pakistani fake news controversy, but that is not relevant for Baptist issues ? I would argue this very short article is more about the North Western Baptist Association annual forum (Lymm BC is just mentioned as the place the conference was located at) ✘ No OSCAR Self-written description hosted on another website. ✘ No Lymm.uk Ukraine Fund Listing ? May be similar listing as above ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AUD which is part of WP:NCORP does not apply to churches as shown at WP:NCHURCH which states that a church can pass WP:GNG instead of NCORP so that local sources are acceptable for WP:GNG so your chart incorrectly excludes at least 1 local source, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This seems like a borderline case that might benefit from a little more time. I'd like to say how impressive all of your detective work is, looking hard for sources that might establish GNG even when you admit that it might fall short. I wish more AFDs had this level of investigation done. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The pdf of the historical article "A Brief History..." in the footnotes gets us a long ways towards satisfaction of GNG. The extreme weakness of our WP article makes it difficult to defend as an encyclopedic topic, but there is a legitimate historical article there if someone takes time to research and write it. Carrite ( talk ) 03:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another comment from me I've reviewed the historical article linked by Carrite above. I am satisfied that it is a decent example of its type (I can say from experience, having read (literally) thousands of church and chapel histories of wildly varying quality), and in conjunction with the sources I have there should be enough to "Keep" this. I will set about improving the article now and will report back here when I have got as far as I can. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rewrite complete with sources currently available to me. Pinging previous participants in discussion: @ WhinyTheYounger , Pbritti , Peterkingiron , Atlantic306 , Liz , and Carrite : Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Prob Delete - I think the history of this chapel is interesting, but for me that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. I say this as someone who is interested in British nonconformist chapels and who has delved into 100 year old newspaper archives to read about them. For me the issues are a) the architecture is nothing special for the era b) there are hundreds of similar chapels across the UK (for example in my Welsh village there were 8 similar chapels of different denominations of which 4 are still standing, all of which have a history documented in newspapers and mentioned in local church history books) and there's not much which is unique about this one c) there's an unwarranted importance given to small religious congregations which would not be deemed notable in other circumstances. For me, I think there's a line and a small congregation in a building that only dates back to the 1860s of a kind that is frequently seen across the country is not really notable - even if there is a newspaper trail of articles about fetes, preachers and prizegiving ceremonies. JMWt ( talk ) 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article has sufficient sources now and I would argue that churches are often notable as public buildings that are significant to their community even though I'm not religious. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another comment from me : If consensus goes with deletion in the end here, please could it instead be moved to my Userspace instead so I can seek other sources: I know various people who are likely to have access to physical/published sources, but would need to ask around. Ta. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Sourcing isn't great, but is over the GNG line IMO. SportingFlyer T · C 15:47, 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

Khan Garh Tehsil: I think two reasons for the nomination. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. SNG would be the only possibility and not even the requirements for that are met. More simply, the only reference give does not even mention it and in a search I can't find anything to even confirm that it even exists, not even on Google maps. North8000 ( talk ) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The place exist. See Khangarh, Sindh , this and this --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 ( talk ) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Saqib : Thanks. So I think that that reinforces that it already has an article? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by Saqib. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 ( talk ) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mccapra : ?? ? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Saqib’s sources verify that Khangarh/Khan Garh is a local government area (tehsil). As a local government area any tehsil is notable. Tehsils may or may not be approximately similar to towns, and the fact that we already have an article on the town doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also have an article on the tehsil. Is what I meant. Mccapra ( talk ) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article has only one reference which is dead but is archived at the wayback machine. And what's at the wayback machine does not even mention the topic. That said, I'm going to step back and let others decide. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for the same reason that we have articles on Schenectady County, New York and Schenectady, New York . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 ( talk ) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [4] [5] [6] and [7] all easily available from Ghotki District show that Khan Garh or Khangarh is a verifiable tehsil/taluka. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Phil Bridger . Local government units at the Tehsil level are routinely kept on Wikipedia even in the absence of GNG level sourcing. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More policy-based discussion is needed. Just because something exists, does not make it notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To simplify, I'd agree (and already agreed) that a Tehsil meets NGeo should be kept without needing GNG sources. I looked at all of the sources noted, and from what I can see none of them is a wiki-suitable confirms that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists. The only reference in the article is to a sources list in the wayback machine which seems to say it doesn't exist. Others are ambiguous, don't say that it is a Tehsil, and seem to be referring to Khangarh, Sindh . Others are to blank sourceless pages in the wayback machine (including the only two cites at the Ghotki District article and even those don't really say that it exists. Can somebody find ONE wp:RS that clearly says that it exists as a Tehsil? And maybe even put it in the article because the article currently the article has ZERO wp:RS sources, and even the one non-RS source that it has (a sourceless page in the wayback machine) doesn't even claim that it exists. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to being deliberately obtuse here, as Eluchil404 in his reply to you above listed sources (I checked the first and the third, which is enough) that confirm that this is a tehsil. If you didn't know that a taluka is the same as a tehsil then just look in your favourite encyclopedia. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please quit the "deliberately" crap. Beyond that, I've done my best here. I'm going to unwatch this and let y'all decide. Anybody please ping me if I may be of assistance. North8000 ( talk ) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP per Phil Bridger . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Replaced the existing archived reference that did not mention Khan Garh Tehsil with an archived reference from a Government of Pakistan website that clearly mentions it (page 18 of 38 - Khangarh Taluka). Also added a Dawn newspaper reference mentioning 'Khangarh taluka'... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 02:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great work and a huge change. That makes it Keep for me. North8000 ( talk ) 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Huang Renjie: Delete Tls9-me ( talk ) 10:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Chen, Yawen 陈雅雯 (2023-06-16). " "敢把皇帝拉下马"——国象甲联黄仁杰力擒韦奕旁记" ["Dare to bring down the emperor" - A side note of Huang Renjie's capture of Wei Yi by the National Chess Federation] (in Chinese). China.com [ zh ] . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: "黄仁杰一直被称作中国国象界的新锐，是山东队重点培养的年轻棋手。作为2004年后出生的小将，黄仁杰的成绩也足够优秀，曾获得2018年世界青少年锦标赛超快棋赛14岁组第一名，2019年第四届全国智力运动会获国际象棋少年组个人及团体双料冠军，以及2021年获男子国象世界冠军分区赛中国区冠军。本次常规赛前八轮比赛中，黄仁杰取得5胜2平1负的不俗战绩，也是山东队的主要得分手。" From Google Translate: "Huang Renjie has always been called a rising star in China's national chess world and is a young chess player that the Shandong team focuses on training. As a young player born after 2004, Huang Renjie's performance is also good enough. He won the first place in the 14-year-old group of the 2018 World Youth Championship Blitz, and won both the individual and team awards in the chess youth group at the 4th National Mind Games in 2019. Champion, and the China Champion of the Men's National Physics World Championship Division in 2021. In the first eight rounds of this regular season, Huang Renjie achieved a good record of 5 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss, and is also the main scorer of the Shandong team." Ge, Huizhong 葛会忠 (2020-01-17). "16岁小棋手黄仁杰与国际象棋"一见钟情" " [16-year-old chess player Huang Renjie fell in love with chess at first sight]. 中国体育报 [ China Sports Daily ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: "尚不满16岁的黄仁杰是一位下棋认真、吃饭“不够认真”的少年。1月16日，第二届“滨海新区杯”国际象棋中国公开赛在天津结束了第六轮的争夺，赛后和小伙伴一起吃小火锅时，两人并不是面对面坐着边聊边吃，在火锅开锅前黄仁杰也没有像大多数同龄人那样拿出手机玩游戏，而是打开手机里的国际象棋棋局认真研究起来，... 在去年的第四届全国智力运动会上，黄仁杰代表山东队获得了少年男子个人和少年男子团体两枚金牌。" From Google Translate: "Huang Renjie, who is not yet 16 years old, is a young man who plays chess seriously but is not serious enough about eating. On January 16, the second "Binhai New Area Cup" China Chess Open ended in the sixth round in Tianjin. After the game, when eating hotpot with friends, the two did not sit face to face and chat while eating. Before the hot pot started, Huang Renjie did not take out his mobile phone to play games like most of his peers. Instead, he opened the chess game on his mobile phone and studied it carefully... At the Fourth National Mind Games last year, Huang Renjie represented Shandong The team won two gold medals for the Junior Men's Individual and Junior Men's Team." Chen, Yawen 陈雅雯 (2021-11-11). "青岛城阳队小将黄仁杰夺得"上海海湾杯"国际象棋新人王赛冠军" [Huang Renjie, a young player from Qingdao Chengyang Team, won the "Shanghai Gulf Cup" Chess Newcomer King Championship]. China.com [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: "小将黄仁杰近来势头大好，2019年便帮助青岛城阳队以冠军之姿冲进甲级联赛。2021年初，黄仁杰代表兄弟队济南银丰队出战，夺取了第一届中国城市国际象棋联赛总冠军。今年五月底，黄仁杰在“华颐杯”2021年国际象棋男子世界冠军 分区赛（中国区）中，击败各路强手，登上冠军宝座，成功闯进世界杯。有诸多成绩在前，本次黄仁杰夺取新人王赛冠军，是意外之喜，也在情理之中。" From Google Translate: "The young player Huang Renjie has been gaining momentum recently. In 2019, he helped the Qingdao Chengyang team enter the First Division as a champion. At the beginning of 2021, Huang Renjie played on behalf of his brothers team Jinan Yinfeng and won the first China City Chess League championship. At the end of May this year, Huang Renjie defeated various strong players in the "Huayi Cup" 2021 Men's World Chess Championship Division (China Region), ascended to the championship, and successfully entered the World Cup. With many achievements ahead of him, Huang Renjie's victory in the Rookie of the Year Championship is an unexpected surprise and is reasonable." Xie, Bingxin 解冰昕 (2023-10-24). "黄仁杰夺得中国国际象棋新锐赛冠军" [Huang Renjie wins China Chess Emerging Championship] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency . Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: "中国国际象棋协会消息，“瑞贝卡杯”2023年第三届中国国际象棋新锐赛23日在南京结束全部九轮争夺，最终黄仁杰夺得冠军，赵晨曦位列第二，奚奇获得季军。" From Google Translate: "According to the China Chess Association, the "Rebecca Cup" 2023 Third China Chess Emerging Competition concluded all nine rounds of competition in Nanjing on the 23rd. In the end, Huang Renjie won the championship, Zhao Chenxi ranked second, and Xi Qi won the third place." Ge, Huizhong 葛会忠 (2023-08-01). "国际象棋世界杯赛黄仁杰轻松晋级" [Huang Renjie easily advanced to the Chess World Cup]. 中国体育报 [ China Sports Daily ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24 . Retrieved 2023-11-24 . The article notes: "英伦和“00后”小将黄仁杰都需要从首轮打起。不过黄仁杰的对手美国棋手刘宇镇缺席首轮比赛，黄仁杰不战而胜，顺利进入第二轮。" From Google Translate: "Both England and the "post-00s" young player Huang Renjie need to start from the first round. However, Huang Renjie's opponent, American chess player Liu Yuzhen, was absent from the first round. Huang Renjie won without a fight and successfully entered the second round." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Renjie ( simplified Chinese : 黄仁杰 ; traditional Chinese : 黃仁傑 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard 's sources. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 15:34, 29 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

Arthur Buchardt: This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years ; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ANYBIO https://snl.no/Arthur_Buchardt Geschichte ( talk ) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Store Norsk Lexicon link shared in the comment above this shows notability; it's also used in the Swedish article for this person. Could probably add a few more sources, but it seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:18, 17 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

Alan Bell (sprinter): Otherwise unable to find SIGCOV, calling a GNG fail Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I added several new cites to the article . Newspapers covered him on a first-name basis, see for example "Alan rings up double to start the season" . Liverpool Daily Post (Merseyside ed.) . 1978-03-20. p. 13 . Retrieved 2024-01-11 . They demonstrate WP:SIGCOV -- I found them by just scrolling through the over 2,000 matches for "Alan Bell" from 1977-1985 in the UK, there are still many yet to be found. Clearly satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT , and he is quite fast too as his 45.65 400m in the 1980 UK Champs semifinals was the #3 UK mark of all time. -- Habst ( talk ) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , per Habst's expansion and work. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:56, 15 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

Jürgen L. Born: - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Definitely unnotable, no widespread coverage at all besides his own personal pages. May be self-promotional. GuardianH ( talk ) 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep there is a large amount of coverage (lots of negative coverage, some standard media interviews) but might fall under WP:BLP1E as outside of interviews it's all about one scandal afaict. eg. [20] [21] . However, the subject had an interview as recently as [22] 2020. As such they would not meet BLP1E, hence my lean towards keep. — siro χ o 22:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The de:Jürgen Born article has some sources as well, and is much more in-depth. . — siro χ o 23:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As suggested by Indefensible , I've taken a look at the sources in the German article. Note that in what follows, I'm also including sources I found during my research that are not in the German article. This article in Welt is definitely in-depth coverage, and it's quite a reputable publication. I would also say that this is coverage of Born more so than the scandal itself. This article on the Werder Bremen scandal covers Born quite in-depth as well. This is pretty good biographical coverage of Born, another GNG source. This is some further reporting on the scandal and Born. This is an article in the Spiegel from when Born assumed his position at Werder Bremen (1999), and this article is more coverage of him long after the scandal. All together, there's more than enough here to fulfill the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC , and a pretty good article could be written from this information. For future reference: This is a timeline of the corruption scandal, which might be useful if the article is not deleted. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 19:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ GuardianH as a lot of good sources have been found. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mirza Akhtar Baig: These people may have won the recent election there's no official ECP notification yet. . As per reports, ECP will publish the notifications of successful candidates by 21 Feb 2024. Furthermore, the results of many seats are being challenged in court due to allegations of rigging. It would be premature for us to declare those individuals as MNAs. Saqib ( talk ) 21:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Asad Alam Niazi ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sadiq Iftikhar ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ahmed Salim Siddiqui ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Adil Khan Bazai ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Jamal Shah Kakar ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Jamal Raisani ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Malik Shah Gorgaij ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Aneeqa Mehdi ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Chaudhary Naseer Ahmed Abbas ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Muhammad Ilyas Chaudhary ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Bilal Azhar Kayani ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Zubair Khan Wazir ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Fatehullah Khan (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa politician) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Muhammad Idrees (Pakistani politician from Kohistan) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hameed Hussain ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Malik Muhammad Idrees ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Raja Usama Sarwar ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Fatehullah Khan Miankhel ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Zulfiqar Ali (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa politician) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Abdul Latif (Pakistani politician) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ali Asghar Khan (Pakistani politician) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Shahzada Muhammad Gushtasap Khan ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Arshad Sahi ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Yousuf Khan (Pakistani politician) ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Rana Atif ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Sohail Sultan ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Usman Owaisi ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Daniyal Chaudhary ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Syed Shah Ahad Ali Shah ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Keep : Once there is at least one reliable source reporting the successful election of a Member of Parliament, they are notable per WP:POLITICIAN . The nominator themselves has done the same in previous elections. All these individuals have been elected Member of Parliament per reliable sources except Salman Akram Raja who has general notability. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I repeat what I wrote on your talk page, just because a mistake was made in the past doesn't justify repeating it. You must present a single reliable source that explicitly states "Mirza Akhtar Baig or others have been elected as members of parliament." I feel its very important to await the official ECP list of notified members before proclaiming them as winners solely based on election results. -- Saqib ( talk ) 21:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dunya News source is in the article which states Mirza Akhtar Baig has won – all of these articles has a reliable source declaring the subject as having been elected – as far as the challenge is concerned, the challenges keep happening months later that does not mean that we should hold off for months and no, that was not the mistake, it was your consistent behavior throughout past elections, you used to start creating articles as soon as any network reported a winner. You created hundreds of articles that way. And per WP:POLITICIAN , you do not need official ECP notification, one reliable source is good enough. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 22:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I reiterate official notifications from the Election Commission of Pakistan are crucial before creating BLPs on individuals under WP:POLITICIAN.-- Saqib ( talk ) 22:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are entitled to your opinion which used to be different during previous elections. Per WP, any reliable source is good enough, you do not need official ECP notification. Yes, if official notification is contradictory later on then the article can be nominated for deletion. As per this moment, these individuals are all elected per WP:RS thus notable for an article. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 22:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above Codenamewolf ( talk ) 22:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Above CSMention269 ( talk ) 09:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nominator cites WP:NPOL but seems to have missed the sentence that states This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them . Curbon7 ( talk ) 04:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Curbon7 : The BLPs were created based on the provincial election results . The election body has yet to release a list of MNAs elected to the assembly, officially confirming their status as elected lawmakers. The process of taking the oath and assuming offices occurs afterwards. For example, 2018 general election were held on 25 July, but ECP notified the final results on 7 August and issued a list of the MNA-elect and then on 13 August , MNA's-elect took oath and assumed office. I say let the election body notify official results & then we're safe to create BLPs under WP:POLITICIAN. -- Saqib ( talk ) 10:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Major networks in the country have declared these individuals as winners, per WP:RS , we are safe to create articles, if there is a contradiction in ECP notifications then articles for those individuals can be nominated for AFD, that will need to be decided on case by case basis. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep all satisfy WP:NPOL ; no community consensus that considers prouncements of election commonissions the *only* reliable source. Definitive, yes, but not in exclusion of all others. No prejudice to renominate individuals not subsequently reconfirmed by the EC as elected. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 22:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In general, WP:NPOL does cover candidates who are elected but have not yet taken office. That said, we have deleted articles of individuals whose election are overturned and who have not taken office. But, unless or until that happens, we should rely on the RSs, which can include preliminary election results. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 18:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nepal Mathematical Society: * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose : the nominator hasn't outlined their WP:BEFORE process undertaken prior to this AfD, which must include a search for local and offline sources. I'd be willing to change my vote if this can be explained Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Same reasoning as the comment I left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am simply asking the nominator, (or somebody else) to provide assurances that they have complied with WP:BEFORE, before I am willing to cast a delete vote. Can you provide assurances that you conducted those searches JML1148 ? The nominator has yet to do so. Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the same reasoning as the reply I made regarding me conducting a BEFORE search myself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Horizon Institute . JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Keep for lack of adequate WP:BEFORE ", without citing any sources yourself to back up the claim that I failed to find them, is nothing more than a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and should be given little weight. Unlike, for instance, what David Eppstein did below and actually found a source that I had missed and actually made me seriously think about withdrawing this nomination (which I won't do - I'll let it run to give others a chance to find and evaluate sources). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not asserting that there must be sources. I'm just asking whether or not before a deletion occurs, process has been followed. Don't see what's wrong with that. There is a reason editors usually provide deletion reasons that discuss WP:BEFORE Jack4576 ( talk ) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . These academic societies are often difficult to source in publications independent of themselves, and in this case the language barrier doesn't help. But there's in-depth reliable independent coverage at [12] , newspaper coverage of some of its events, and incidental coverage in multiple other reliable publications. It is the officially-listed mathematics society for its country in the International Mathematical Union [13] . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per information identified by User:David Eppstein . Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per David Eppstein. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 00:20, 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

Katrin Kneipp: I originally created this article as I believed them to be notable due to Fellowship of the APS and high citation count. Kj cheetham ( talk ) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. My own view is this shouldn't be deleted. - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Kj cheetham ( talk ) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Germany , and Massachusetts . Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Too notable to delete. She appears to have retired. In terms of privacy concerns, neither the article nor Wikidata show a date place of birth, name of spouse or where she now lives. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Hold . It needs to be confirmed that E. Rumpelstilzchen is Katrin Kneipp. If it is then we must delete the page. I know several people in SERS so I will ask what her status is (offline from Wikipedia). Ldm1954 ( talk ) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I, Harald Kneipp, use 'Rumpelstilzchen'. I am Katrin Kneipp's husband. We dont want appear in Wikipedia. E. Rumpelstilzchen ( talk ) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then that's a done deal, if not the way you might want. Presuming that you are who you say you are -- and any rando on the Internet can make any such claim -- you are not Katrin Kneipp herself. Even in legitimate BLPREQUESTDELETE cases, such requests from third parties are not considered. Ravenswing 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep regardless of subject preferences. No, there is no necessity of deleting pages based only on subject demands. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is only for borderline cases. APS Fellow is not borderline; it is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3 . Her citation record also gives a strong pass of WP:PROF#C1 , far from borderline for that criterion. I think we should have articles on all female APS Fellows. Allowing subject preferences to stand (regardless of their legitimacy) would put an unfixable gap in our coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs ) Keep: Leaving aside that there are many people who'd love to wipe clean biographies they themselves can't curate, I agree that this isn't a borderline case, and there's no evidence to suggest that this is really the subject. In any event, people who are resolute in keeping out of the public eye probably ought not publish research papers bearing their names, or give interviews. Ravenswing 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under the assumption that the requester is not Katrin Kneipp herself, or someone with a full power of attorney (due to illness or similar). The evidence above indicates that this is not the case. (I have changed my vote after evidence for who posted the request has been provided. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion for the record. If this was by the subject or an authorized representative (which a husband alone is not) then provided there was nothing contraversial in the page, the deletion request should be honored. The topic of Right to privacy is not simple, neither is Right to be forgotten . Independent of these a person should have the right to correct erroneous information about themselves and have it removed. I recognize that not everyone will agree with this position, but to me it does not matter how notable they are, this right exists during their lifetime. To me this is a question of morality beyond Wikipedia. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Although clearly notable there is sufficient evidence for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to apply. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Wait until situation is clearer. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] I admit confusion. To what evidence to you allude? The subject of the article has not been heard from, the subject's husband would have no unilateral right to request deletion, we have no evidence that User:E. Rumpelstilzchen IS the subject's husband, and in any event we've not heard from him in a week. Surely we're not deleting articles on the unsupported say-sos of SPAs. Ravenswing 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nititad Promotion: UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:JNN argument without substantiation. Historically one of the largest record labels in Thailand, as attested by the Billboard piece cited in the article. More in-depth coverage very likely exists in pre-Internet Thai news sources, in addition to the Siamdara magazine article cited in Thwiki [4] , mention in this Thammasat Journal of History article [5] , and this Krtungthep Turakij article about its current business [6] . This 1994 TV Digest magazine article about the rift among its key people, reproduced in this forum post [7] , is an example of the level of coverage it had in the day. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 13:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Paul_012. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article was subjected to an unwarranted level of abuse in the process of its creation; it was draftified, nommed for speedy, prodded, and now AfD'ed. Sometimes people are trying to tell you something when they create an article, folks. Chubbles ( talk ) 14:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Paul 012, and it is not clear that the sources in the article fail GNG. Third largest label in a large sovereign nation? That seems a very high indication of notability to me. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:56, 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

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute: Almost all of the sources cited in the article are primary sources. The only sources I've been able to uncover that discuss the organization in-depth are from trade or gun hobbyist publications, which fails ORGIND (particularly here, where the trade publications are also run by organizations that have ties to the firearms manufacturing industry). voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Firearms , and United States of America . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SAAMI documents are widely used, e.g. at the UN, see https://unece.org/search_content_unece? keyword=saami or https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/62086/documents . It's unlikely you'll uncover in depth discussion from third parties about most standards bodies, so let's be ready to remove International Electrotechnical Commission too. Standard bodies are important because of the impact they have on everyday life, not because the NY Times wrote about them... Also a standard bodies run by industry actors is nothing out of the ordinary, see for example Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards JidGom ( talk ) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many standards bodies have received significant coverage (see, e.g., [7] and [8] ). If a standards body has not received significant coverage, it is not notable per NCORP; organizations are not inherently notable. I only pointed out that SDOs are industry-run because it's relevant to whether any sources are sufficiently independent. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JidGom : If you modify your comment after someone has already replied, please indicate what parts have been edited using strikethroughs and insertions per WP:TALK#REVISE . Best, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry about that, I entirely missed that you already answered as I was editing. I added URLs referencing the organisation activity that are not from trade rags. You'll hopefully agree that the UN references pass the significant, independent, reliable and secondary criteria... The main issue here is that trade rags seem to be much better at SEO than more important organization like ANSI or the UN, making it look like all coverage is from industry rags... JidGom ( talk ) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that the links you've provided meet NCORP because they're search results, and the first search result from the first link is a submission by SAAMI , which is obviously not independent. If you'd like me to evaluate sources that you think establish notability, please provide your three best sources . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/consultativeStatusSummary.do? profileCode=2718 as reference WRT UN ECOSOC status and that's as canonical as it can gets JidGom ( talk ) 11:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what you mean by canonical, but the fact that one organization (org A) has status with another, notable organization (org B) does not make org A notable under NCORP . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I have added 5 references to the article. For lack of a better place, I put them in the "References" section although they are not inline citations; I'm sure this violates the Manual of Style in multiple ways but there you go. National Institute of Justice ( United States Department of Justice ), Royal Canadian Mounted Police , The Trace , Center for American Progress , The Washington Post . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the article from The Trace could establish notability. The Center for American Progress piece is largely a summary of that source, so I wouldn't count it towards establishing notability. The rest of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the organization in my opinion. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appropriate number of non primary sources have been added. 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) JidGom ( talk ) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well many primary sources have been added, that was the issue from the start. Somehow when I pointed that International Electrotechnical Commission had exactly the same issues the tag added is asking for primary sources not deletion... IMHO this passes the criteria defined in WP:NGO . JidGom ( talk ) 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tagged the IEC page for relying on too many primary sources. Primary sources do not establish notability. Additionally, WP:NGO does not establish presumptive notability, but rather notes that particular non-profits are usually notable. NGO still requires citation to several independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the five refs I added to the article 7 November as noted above. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that it is sufficiently referenced. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [9] and [10] combine to meet GNG. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 05:08, 23 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

Chikki Panday: User4edits ( talk ) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't think this is the same perso:n www.opindia.com/2021/11/mumbai-police-summons-chikki-brother-of-chunky-panday-ncb-aryan-khan-drug-case/, which is a blacklisted spam site here. I see nothing for this businessman we'd use for sourcing; nothing at all that I can find to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A quick Google News search for Chikki Panday and चिक्की पांडे (in Hindi) has yielded a substantial number of articles. A new section has been added, accompanied by some sources, and additional citations will be appended soon. Also, yes this is the same person mentioned in the link you shared above so the subject satisfies the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG . 1.23.250.87 ( talk ) 07:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not establish NBIO or pass GNG . User4edits ( talk ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Brother of a famous actor" isn't notable. Had he not been summoned by police, he'd still be a non-notable businessman. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Receiving "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, as emphasized in my vote above, aligns with the WP:GNG standard. WP:SIG specifies that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have cited two additional sources to further substantiate the content and will continue to augment the references for a comprehensive overview. 1.23.251.79 ( talk ) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits ( talk ) 16:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI the article is not based on WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY and it appears there might be an oversight in reviewing the WP:GNG guidelines, which specify that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I also must point out that in this edit, you removed two of his official positions in a central government institution without any valid reason. Furthermore, attempting to suggest that the article is based on an WP:INVALIDBIO or WP:BIOFAMILY biography is not accurate. 1.23.251.79 ( talk ) 17:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Saying an appointment in a committee of MTNL , that too only a specific region of Mumbai is equivalent to a committee of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India) is absurd, and so is being named as a member for representing one out of 28 states in 2008 (16 years ago). Both are misleading and appear advertising. Nonetheless, the subject is not notable, and will be dealt as per this DR, I see you've undone my edit, best of luck. I don't own anything here. User4edits ( talk ) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (spout) 17:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Week Keep -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per @Oaktree b and @User4edits, no notability Tehonk ( talk ) 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject has substantial coverage in various reputable sources aligning with the criteria outlined in both GNG and BASIC. As per these guidelines individuals are considered notable if they have received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources that are reliable, independent and unaffiliated with the subject. Furthermore it's emphasized that even if the coverage in any single source may not be extensive the aggregation of multiple independent sources suffices to establish notability. Given the presence of multiple sourced materials within the article the subject in question unequivocally meets the criteria stipulated by these policies to affirm notability.- FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 02:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's worth noting that an analysis of pageviews for the article reveals consistent engagement with significant monthly views since its inception. Notably in 2015 the article garnered nearly a million views on two separate occasions. While pageviews alone do not establish notability this observation underscores the level of interest and attention garnered by the subject. Although unrelated to the notability policies it serves as an additional testament to the subject's relevance and public interest. - FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17 , BADNAC speedy overturned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : In addition to my above comment 18:52, 5 February 2024 -- 1.23.251.79 appears to be a WP:SPA familiar with WP:POLICIES but contributions only to save this DR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanne Pandey (Both Pandey/Panday are married) See Special:Contributions/1.23.251.79 Thanks, User4edits ( talk ) 05:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is a red flag, not helping the deletion request. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Fitindia above. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . GSS 💬 07:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful if keep voters highlighted the sources they believe show notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject seems notable to me based on the sources provided. I performed a quick search on the subject and there appears to be some level of notability passing GNG. Mevoelo ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rodrigo Álvarez de Asturias: and with no significant coverage Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 22:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : An attempt at WP:BEFORE was clearly not conducted. Simply Googling his name returns an absolute slew of sources providing WP:SIGCOV indicating he easily passes WP:GNG . Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further, I am going to reiterate what Jack1956 said at this other AfD that this account only appears to exist to nominate articles for deletion (and to add on) without conducting proper searches before nominating (per the series of rapid-fire bad nominations). Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Before fail. Srnec ( talk ) 02:07, 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

Cambodia's Kitchen: Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD . Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk ) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Cambodia , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD" . The Sydney Morning Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald ' s Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here . The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet." "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne" . The New Zealand Herald . 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls." Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot" . Herald Sun . Archived from the original on 2023-07-02 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder." Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots" . Time Out . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast." Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare" . Concrete Playground . Archived from the original on 2024-07-04 . Retrieved 2024-07-04 . The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf." Here Internet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable: Its editor is Samantha Teague. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018)," "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information." "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes." "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited." "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece." "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning." "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party." Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press ( 1 ), Johns Hopkins University Press ( 1 ), Routledge ( 1 and 2 ), Taylor & Francis ( 1 ), and Text Publishing ( 1 ). There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources mentioned in the comment above are more than enough for notability, easily passes GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:19, 13 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 McNulty: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG by having coverage in multiple RS over a span of at least 4 years ( CBC 2019 being the oldest that's actually about her content creation). Also the claim of "just a YouTuber" doesn't particularly make sense as being a YouTuber is the primary thing she is notable for, see especially being YouTube's top Canadian creator of 2023 ). I would say it's more accurate to say she's a contortionist with significant performance as a YouTuber. Samsmachado ( talk ) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We don't count youtube views as notable. That article just mentions her name in a list of people and isn't strictly about her. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete. : Being on youtube is fine, but we need SIGCOV. The one CBC article is about her, the rest are interviews or brief mentions. The National Post isn't substantial coverage. This is typical [18] . One more big non-CBC source and I think we'd have enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Even in French-Canadian media, only a brief mention [19] . TOOSOON I think Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think we should necessarily expect French-Canadian media to cover her. She's from an anglophone area, and now lives in Los Angeles. Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 00:43, 29 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! 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A google search brings up Global News CTV News CBC Girls' Life and CP24 Jannaultheal ( talk ) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I reviewed this as part of NPP, and I'm confused we find ourselves at AFD. From the start, the article met WP:GNG according to the sources in the article. How are [20] and [21] not sigcov? Since then, she's been interviewed all over, as Jannaultheal points out, so it's even less tenable. Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 00:55, 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

Big Mama stela: This seems like a very marginal topic that doesn't need its own page. Angryapathy ( talk ) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After the good work that Joe Roe did with the page, I believe that we can rename this article Arco I and close the discussion. Angryapathy ( talk ) 19:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing for this stone item, lots for Big Mamas of all sorts found... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] HOAX? Why would an Italian stele have such an odd English name. Who knows. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename to Arco I . This really is (was) a terrible article: as far as I can tell the "Big Mama" nickname is completely made up, the connection to Ötzi is highly speculative to say the least, and even the title is spelled wrong (it's about a stel e , not a stel a ). But underneath it there is actually a notable topic, which is named in one of the external links as Arco I . Google Scholar and Google Books searches turn up plenty of sources that could be used to expand it. For now I've stubbed it to verifiable info. If kept it should be moved, if not to Arco I then to something like Arco stelae where we could cover the whole group of six. – Joe ( talk ) 09:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename per above. Llajwa ( talk ) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a not-yet-created Arco stelae page. I think Arco I alone might not meet the notability criteria. -- Broc ( talk ) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking for more clarity on whether Arco I is notable in itself or whether the resulting article should be Arco stelae . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Arco I itself is notable, I think the references linked above and now cited in the article amply show that. The question is more one of WP:PAGEDECIDE : covering them together in Arco stelae would avoid repeating a lot of contextual information, but we currently only have material on Arco I, so unless someone is volunteering to write about the others I don't see that as a viable outcome right now. In any case, I don't see why that needs to be decided at AfD. – Joe ( talk ) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final: As such, there is no need to have separate articles for every final, unless that much is extraordinary and therefore has exceptional, WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 men's finals do not achieve sustained coverage, and therefore are just an unnecessary WP:CFORK from the main articles about football at these Olympics. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football , Olympics , Nigeria , Germany , Spain , Argentina , Brazil , and Mexico . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Maybe needed a separate AfD, however I would merge and redirect Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final , too Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics and follow suit with 2012, 2016 and 2020 articles. Regards. Govvy ( talk ) 13:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : What part of WP:CFORK policy indicates these articles are unnecessary? Looking at WP:BADFORK , it seems like only two types of content forks ( "Pages of the same type on the same subject" and "Point of view (POV) forks" ) are considered unacceptable, and this article doesn't fit into either of those categories. On the other hand, it does seem to fit into the WP:GOODFORK criteria of Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections , so that seems like it would be an argument for keeping the article. -- Habst ( talk ) 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A page that covers the same subject as another page of the same type is often called a "redundant content fork". The most common occurrence of redundant content forks results in 2 articles on the same thing; the extra one is a "redundant article fork". A separate article on the finals is not needed, when it could be covered perfectly well in the main articles e.g. Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament , and a split is not required as the article is not too long. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , thank you, I don't think that describes the current situation though. There is no redundancy because all the information in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final isn't covered in the parent Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament . If it could be covered perfectly well, then I think that would need to be done first before a deletion decision is made. In fact, the gold medal match is only given a small four-line table in the parent article with no match details at all, and despite that the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. -- Habst ( talk ) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A selective merge can be done if that's the consensus of this AFD. But creating separate articles for the finals of an under-23s tournament where the main article has almost no text about its matches isn't the correct article setup. the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. That article is long because it's filled with tables and WP:NOTSTATS violations, whereas prose is what that main article needs, as per MOS:PROSE . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , WP:NOTSTATS says that the solution to too many stats is actually to split them out into a separate article, which I believe is contradictory to the premise of this AfD wanting to remove content forks: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article . Prose can and should certainly be added, and there is definitely enough WP:GNG coverage to summarize, e.g. at [59] and [60] . But adding prose would only make the article longer, which would further necessitate a content fork. Thanks, -- Habst ( talk ) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The main article needs prose as per MOS:PROSE . Splitting the prose out into the final article instead of in the main article is not correct. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Joseph2302 , thanks, I do agree with that. Because the main article needs prose and is already quite long, that would necessitate splitting out some sections into content fork articles, so I'll !vote to Keep this article on that merit combined with the above WP:GNG sourcing. -- Habst ( talk ) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep - inappropriate bundling, but in any event there appears to be coverage out there. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED . The Olympics, and its football tournament, are also clearly notable events. Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – It is exactly the finals from 2008 to now that have received enough attention from the media. In the 70s/80s there is indeed a lack of coverage, but these last four finals have extensive sources in different languages ​​available online. Svartner ( talk ) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPINOFF . I think the 2008 article needs further fleshing out, but otherwise I think the Olympic finals for the men probably stand on their own as valid spinoffs. Jay eyem ( talk ) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Firstly, it's not a strict U-23 tournament. It does allow for some players of any age or salary to participate on each team. Secondly, deletion was never an option here, as it would be a redirect - so it's a WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD failure. And how does one think there wouldn't be significant coverage? Nfitz ( talk ) 18:02, 29 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

Kagiso Mohale: Ineligible for PROD. No suitable redirect exists AFAIK. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , and South Africa . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as what JP has found alone seems to indicate that it passes GNG Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 09:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it appears the Cricinfo spelling of his first name is incorrect, on CricketArchive as Kagisho Mohale and a search of that name shows up more coverage. This , that and a Diamond Fields Advertiser piece found on Newsbank re his promotion to the Knights franchise as starters. 100 FC/LA/T20 appearances represents decent amount of cricket notabilìty. JP ( Talk ) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for pointing this out. While I don't think the first two sources contribute much (three-ish sentences of coverage and an interview), the third one is much more promising and an indication that there might more coverage out there to meet GNG. JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Spelling of his name differs between sources, but certainly WP:GNG passing coverage that JP has found. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Beyond what has been found, this should perhaps dictate logic should be used – if a cricketer makes this many appearances at the highest level, then they're probably notable. AA ( talk ) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and mention in the article the dual version of his name's spelling. I would say he passes WP:SIGCOV . In addition to the sources already mentioned there is another source here: [4] . Contributor892z ( talk ) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that this is a WP:MIRROR . JTtheOG ( talk ) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Table manners in North America: In fact it is about the History of table manners in North America and is heavily slanted towards the etiquette inherited from Europe. It does not even (as far as I can tell) acknowledge that Other People Exist and that people in North America who do not share a European heritage have very different norms. In terms of policy, I'm arguing that WP:NOTESSAY applies and that it is essentially impossible to write a page on this subject without a large dose of WP:OR and bias. I accept sources exist. I accept on that basis the topic is notable and noted. But this page has not been substantially edited for many years, has displayed bias for many years and has asserted that something extremely complicated (ie eating norms within a highly multicultural society) are relatively simple (ie the norms inherited from Europe are the basis for etiquette for everyone there). I can't see how this can be overcome. JMWt ( talk ) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a quick keep and comment : the article does provide references, I think a review and perhaps pruning is in order, but not deletion. I refer humbly to table manners for consideration and juxtaposition. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 10:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the subject is clearly notable. I'm sympathetic to the idea of addressing imbalance, but I can't see how we're ever going to end up with an article covering social norms of eating in a wide range of cultures if we simply delete the article because it's unbalanced. That leaves no incentive for anyone ever to correct it. And there is no deadline. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The current state of the article is not a valid WP:DELREASON . As said above, there is WP:NODEADLINE . The article is reasonably sourced and can be salvaged with editing as an alternative to deletion . Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The editor's talk page identifies them as a 2018 WikiEd Student Editor at Everett Community College. This was the editor's one and only Wikipedia creation. Given that, the subject matter was likely classroom-assigned, and makes more sense. — Maile ( talk ) 04:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP Lightburst ( talk ) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics: I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH ( talk ) 22:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Mathematics , and Massachusetts . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Really seems to me that this should have been bundled with the nomination of David Kelly , as the two are almost inextricably linked. Here are some sources not present in either article: AMS Notices , more than one full paragraph devoted to discussing HCSSiM Passing mention in a book about Paul Erdos Post at the AMS Blogs about HCSSiM (note that AMS blogs are similar to the blogs described at WP:NEWSBLOG ; they have a legitimate editorial process) [26] fluffy coverage of Kelly in the Riverside Press-Enterprise versions of the article about speed limits were published moderately widely (e.g. in the Boston Globe more AMS stuff -- JBL ( talk ) 23:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi! I am an alumna of the program in question. I'm 100% new to editing wikipedia, so please pardon my lack of knowledge about how everything works. I agree the article is inadequately sourced, and would be more than happy to try to find better sources for lots of it, but I wanted to check first what kinds of sources are allowed. I have read WP:NOR and understand that sources should be secondary or tertiary sources, but am unsure what kinds of sources qualify as such. For example, does this letter to the editor (page 2 of the pdf, from Susan Landau) qualify as a secondary source? Or this one? Also, there is a documentary being made about the program. When that gets published, will it be a secondary source or a primary source? With-High-Probability ( talk ) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (To clarify since I can't figure out how to edit - the second post I linked is self-published, but it is by a mathematician and mathematics educator, which means it's a subject matter expert AIUI.) With-High-Probability ( talk ) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A documentary could be primary or secondary depending on the details. For example, if it has footage of someone involved with the program being interviewed as a "talking head", then I'd call that a primary source for the person's own statements. What I'd look for is whether the program itself had editorial control over the documentary, i.e., whether the documentary is independent . XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi With-High-Probability , I found both the sources you mention (Susan Landau's letter and Jim Propp's blog post) but decided not to include them in my list as indica of notability; I think they could be used cautiously as sources if the article is kept. (Landau's letter could perhaps be used to support inclusion of people on a list of alums, for example.) -- JBL ( talk ) 21:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are by now many other summer mathematics research programs for bright high school students, but this appears to be the one that started them all. I think there is enough coverage for GNG as linked above. For another hard-to-Google but in-depth and reliably published source, there's Susan Landau's "How I spend my summer vacations", AWM Newsletter 11(6), 1981, pp. 8-9, https://www.drivehq.com/folder/p8755087/1748723574.aspx . However, I don't think Kelly has independent notability from this program, so my opinion on his AfD was to redirect here. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think we have enough to justify an article. XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I'm seeing steady (if slightly low-wattage) coverage over the years by the AMS, e.g. in the Notices, and other sources. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think I'm convinced there's enough independent sourcing here to write a verifiable article of acceptable quality. -- JBL ( talk ) 21:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per sources from JBL and per reasoning of David Eppstein. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

David Molina: Joeykai ( talk ) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A century of caps for one of the most successful teams in the Honduran top flight over an eight-year-old career makes him notable and significant, at least locally. Here are two substantial sources: [12] and [13] . Anwegmann ( talk ) 04:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to be an important figure for F.C. Motagua , winning titles with them, there are probably more local sources for him. But the article certainly isn't the best, needs a lot to be added too it. Govvy ( talk ) 08:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The article needs improvement, but it doesn't fail WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 03:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA ( talk ) 10:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ IJA : That statement is not supported by our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) . Robby.is.on ( talk ) 11:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT . If editors disagree, please ping me with two or three sources that you believe contributes to WP:GNG . BilledMammal ( talk ) 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BilledMammal : Anwegmann linked "two substantial sources". Robby.is.on ( talk ) 11:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He linked one source, as articles from the same media outlet are not independent of each other. We need more than that to meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] [14] is another brief profile. Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 03:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've expanded the article with the three sources that have been mentioned here plus a fourth one. I think the article's okay now though it could be more detailed. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 10:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . I think the El Heraldo and Diez pieces are decent enough for GNG considering the subject. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hotel Timor: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , Travel and tourism , and Asia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sourcing from AusLondonder convinced me that the hotel is notable for the history of East Timor. The hotel is the location of flashpoints in the conflict such as reported in the Guardian 24 years ago. It is also the location where the referendum results are being read . I am quite convinced that the place itself is notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added additional sources, including the www.dn.pt article and the Guardian article, but never came back to ! vote. This hotel is a character in the story of East Timor's independence, as supported by reliable sources. Oblivy ( talk ) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it has enough sources and seems notable Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Home Sweet Home (Dennis Robbins song): Redirecting this to Dennis Robbins may be a better alternative. DreamRimmer ( talk ) 02:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would at least be worth a merger rather than just a straight redirect. The song is mentioned on Robbins' page, but the Billboard review isn't and the specific charting isn't in prose. Although I did also find blurbs and charting in Cashbox ( [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] ) which could be enough to keep. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to pass WP:NSONG , as it spent 20 weeks on chart based on this link . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NSONG . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a few more opinions before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hey man im josh. Meets WP:NSONG . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Uda Makuruppe: No reliable source. Hongsy ( talk ) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka . Hongsy ( talk ) 02:50, 9 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! 01:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. Described along with Palle Makuruppe as a village in A gazetteer of the Central Province of Ceylon . Combined population given as over 200 in 1871, 1881 and 1891. [24] . Rupples ( talk ) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Satisfied this was recognised in the 19th century censuses as a populated place. Can be retained under WP:GEOLAND as notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP . Mapping indicates residences thereabouts per OpenStreetMap and aerial views but boundaries of the settlement appear not to be strictly defined. Acknowledge there's little to say, but this shouldn't mean wiping communities off Wikipedia (if I'm allowed to put it in such terms). It may be preferable to place such settlements in list form within an an article covering the lowest administrative area with a redirect, but that's a separate decision and would probably require a policy change. Rupples ( talk ) 03:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Added some detail. Article could be retitled Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe redirected here, given the gazetteer source has a combined entry and Makuruppe is the only name shown on OpenStreetMap. Rupples ( talk ) 08:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Makuruppe - satisfies WP:NGEO . Dan arndt ( talk ) 05:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . So long as redirects are in place it benefits the encyclopedia by merging nearby settlements, when there seems not much chance of developing the individual articles beyond a short stub. So in this case having Makuruppe as the article title with redirects from both Uda Makuruppe and Palle Makuruppe seems the way to go. Rupples ( talk ) 09:50, 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

Spoilage: I've transferred the most numerous entries to Spoiled . Articles could easily be written (and should) about spoilage in business and of food in its place. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I have added a source at Tampering with evidence for Spoilage of evidence being used as an alternative name for this concept (which immediately came to mind when I saw the term, and was a surprising omission), and have added that to the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 02:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I do not see what is wrong with this DAB page. Bearian ( talk ) 01:12, 3 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

DLIN: I can describe this as no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG but in a search I found zero, so not even enought to confirm that this exists. It's not even mentioned at the Computational complexity theory article. If it exists, the coverage here (a one sentence definition) could go in that article. North8000 ( talk ) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Usage in academic sources. Entirely about DLIN: [17] [18] . [19] [20] Mentions: [21] [22] A412 ( Talk • C ) 19:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the good sources found by A412. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 21:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources above, and in general its relevance to the P versus NP problem . I have added references in the List of complexity classes and in P versus NP problem . AmirOnWiki ( talk ) 08:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Searching for both the keywords DLIN and NLIN on Google Scholar finds some 170 hits, with the combination of keywords seeminingly eliminating many of the false positives that you would get from only one: most of the results are highly relevant. These are a niche topic in structural complexity (because not robust classes) but notable enough. Leaving the same comment on both AfDs. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on what folks have found that I didn't find. North8000 ( talk ) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Derna dam collapses: (Doing bullet point list since reasoning is a lot & currently featured ITN article is involved in discussion) In the creation edit ( [16] ) it was noted that 18,700+ bytes were directly copied from Storm Daniel’s article. Prior to AfD (excluding a bot edit), article was 20,700 bytes, meaning only 2,000 bytes worth of new content, which from a look at the edit history, is mostly source and format style additions (aka barely any new content). Article is directly tied to Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#We should split up the section about the dams collapses into a separate article , which currently has a completely split consensus. A formal discussion & discussion close is probably needed, given the complexity of the issue and large-split issue involving a currently featured ITN article. Previous article on this event, 2023 Libya flooding was merged following talk page discussion consensus . Given the lack of consensus and basic WP:CONTENTFORK , article needs to be deleted until a consensus forms to create/split the dam collapses out of Storm Daniel . Noting for reference that Storm Daniel is currently featured on ITN at the time of this AfD nomination. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or create better split — The Daniel article is becoming >100,000 bytes; and will expand much more as there is still daily notable coverage. In the next year there will be a long aftermath, so it needs to be split at one point. Starting with copy-paste (like had been done) followed with a short summary at the main page is a good way in my opinion. 109.37.148.122 ( talk ) 18:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wanting to point out, that was already done in Draft:2023 Libya flood (created prior to this article and is in a whole lot better shape than this article). Given the lack of consensus for this article to even exist right now, the copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK is not the proper course of action and needs to be deleted until there is a consensus for such an article. The CONTENTFORK article was opposed to be several editors and supported to by several editors. The issue on whether or not it is notable is irrelevant, given the lack of consensus in the ongoing discussion involving more than 30 editors. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CONTENTFORK is not the main discussion here, because this discussion is about the bigger question if a page should exist about the Derna dam collapses. After this consensus CONTENTFORK should be solved. So that’s my reasoning, in the broader perspective, a page with content about the dam collapse could exist and so I vote keep. (An easier way could have been redirecting this CONTENTFORK-page to the storm Daniel page and starting a discussing at the talk page there). And note that the discussion you are talking about, was at the time the article was around 25,000 bytes; while it now 3.5 times bigger and still expanding. 109.37.148.122 ( talk ) 07:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Libya . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support/Delete Prose is only 21k bytes per [17] and thus a split should not exist per WP:SIZERULE . Notability has no bearing here because the content is being covered on Wikipedia as is. Noah , AA Talk 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Do you think that if this had happened in the US it would even be a question? ★Trekker ( talk ) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] StarTrekker , please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors, especially when they are nationalist or otherwise discriminatory in nature. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing nationalist about it, I'm not Libyan, I'm just very heartbroken and felt like saying the sad truth that media doesn't give the attention to non-Western tragedies like it does western ones. I know this article will be deleted and my comment wasn't a "vote", just felt like its something people should be thinking about. Feel free to remove it if you think its wrong to comment about it. ★Trekker ( talk ) 22:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ StarTrekker : It really wasn't something for people to think about. There isn't anyone that questions the notability of the topic. The main problem is that this is duplicated text. It was literally copy/pasted from Storm Daniel , which is currently featured and mentioned on Wikipedia's main page (In The News section). That is why it needs to be deleted. It would be the same as if someone copy and pasted the information from Tornadoes of 2023 into an article of Tornadoes during 2023 . That is why I nominated it for deletion as a WP:CONTENTFORK , which is point blank a duplication reason. You might want to consider striking through your comment, as it really sounds like an accusation toward other editors (i.e. WP:ASPERSIONS ). Cheers! The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Unnecessary duplication of content from an article that does not need to be split. This can all stay in a single article per WP:NOPAGE . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep as the main issues have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 05:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. The dam failure and the storm are two distinct and independently notable events. This situation meets the criteria for a WP:CONTENTSPLIT . It is clearer for the encyclopedia to cover these two events in standalone pages, rather than having Storm Daniel be 75% about the dam collapse and 25% about the storm. Under the guidelines of WP:NOPAGE , the two should be separate articles - including the dam collapses in the Storm Daniel page makes it harder for a reader to understand the dam failures, not easier. Understanding the dam failures requires understanding the political and economic conditions of Libya since they were built - to me the political history better explains the disaster than the direct effects of Storm Daniel. The Storm Daniel page currently has a paragraph entirely about the successive changes in control of Derna during the civil war. It seems very silly to me to insist that that content stay on a page about a storm, rather than giving the dam collapses a proper treatment in its own article. Jsfigura ( talk ) 00:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC) — Jsfigura ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Along the lines of this discussion, made a bunch of edits to get the article into better shape as a standalone article. Restructured and rewrote parts of the copy-pasted text, added sections, and added some additional information. Jsfigura ( talk ) 02:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or create better split I dont have a stake in this fight seeing how this discussion seems to me to be more of a procedural thing than a fdiscussion about the merits of the standalone article, but I do wanna voice my opinion that we should split off this section into the standalone article as argued by me and others here: Talk:Storm Daniel/Archive 1#We should split up the section about the dams collapses into a separate article Daikido ( talk ) 04:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely. This is the second deadliest dam collapse in human history . Now, I understand that the timing of the creation wasn't right, since there was a discussion and no consensus yet, and this isn't to be encouraged, but we should move on. This is, of course, a notable enough article, there will, of course, be enough content to justify the split. This is just the beginning of a major humanitarian disaster. Death toll is going to rise, there will be better analysis of what happened. There will be political, social, infrastructure consequences. No doubt there will be enough material for a 100000 bytes article-- Kimdime ( talk ) 07:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Regarding the title of the article, I think it's right to focus it on Derna rather than Libya on a whole, seems like 98% of the victims are in Derna, so it totally makes sense.-- Kimdime ( talk ) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve; the corresponding section at Storm Daniel#Derna dam failures can provide a summary. Yadsalohcin ( talk ) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I split the article from the article on Storm Daniel in accordance with the guideline of WP:Splitting . It appeared that a consensus was emerging on the idea that it should be split, and so I removed some text from storm Daniel and put it into the new one, as the guidelines suggested. It appeared that a consensus had emerged but nobody had actually taken action to execute it, so I did that. It is clear that the second deadliest dam collapse in human history is a notable event in and of itself, and that the article on Storm Daniel was too long to be one article, so I moved some text from the Article on Storm Daniel and put it into the new one on the dam collapses. Now this is duplicate text, because somebody reverted my edit on Storm Daniel to put the text back there. Now that this is clear, the article on Derna Dam Collapses should be kept and improved, because it deserves an article. Narayansg ( talk ) 15:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A notable event that easily pass GNG. Even though the storm is a cause, the collapse of the dams with its subsequent effect on Derna is the more significant event. It needs to be covered on that as a subject by itself rather than as only part of storm article. Hzh ( talk ) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The collapse led to a significant number of fatalities, which makes it a notable event worthy of a stand-alone article. ArticCynda ( talk ) 18:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawing AfD — Reasons for the AfD seem to have been addressed (i.e. not a pure copy/paste WP:CONTENTFORK anymore) and there seems to now be a majority consensus for a split. I would like to note, as someone else earlier did as well, that @ Narayansg : did create the article at not an appropriate time, basically disregarding the discussion of 31 editors with several opposed to the split, but the majority consensus now is to keep/split the article, so AfD issues have been addressed. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some editors have argued for Deletion so this AFD must not be closed early. L iz Read! Talk! 07:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have for procedural reasons undone the content split and redirected the article to Storm Daniel , because this article was created at odds with the developing consensus there which has not been in favor of a split, especially as earlier consensus was to merge 2023 Libya floods . I don’t know if this should be converted to an RfD as a result, but I very strongly feel that this XfD should never have been opened—the discussion should stay centralized at Talk:Storm Daniel . — Jasper Deng (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should try to read the room, there is quite many people here, in fact a strong majority, that expressed an opinion in favour of keeping this article, therefore undoing the split doesn't appear to be a constructive move even if it makes sense from a procedural perspective (and I agree it was not the right time to create the split, but we should move on)-- Kimdime ( talk ) 10:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is WP:NOTAVOTE . One of the keep !voters is an obvious WP:SPA that's a likely sock of someone (I'm trying to determine who, then will file the SPI). The participation at this AfD so far has been much less than at that that talk page discussion and the arguments presented here do not at all outweigh the arguments made there.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which account do you believe is a Wikipedia:SPA ? Jsfigura ( talk ) 01:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jsfigura : It's quite obviously you, as I labeled above. Do you have any prior editing history? If so, please note it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsfigura . -- Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I take great issue with this. Do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet without evidence. It's terrible behavior and terribly rude. I took the time to familiarize myself with the guidance to editors before commenting, particularly because the topic I wanted to comment on has some procedural nuance. I would have thought that was desirable for a new editor. We have differing opinions on how to handle this article - do not WP:BITE me. Jsfigura ( talk ) 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : notability is the sole criterion dictatating whether a subject deserves its own article, and the 2023 Derna dam collapse (or 2023 Derna flood or 2023 Libya flood) clearly does. I'd suggest adopting summary style and leaving behind, in Storm Daniel#Libya , an automatic excerpt of the new article's lead. I had proposed Draft:2023 Libya flood before. fgnievinski ( talk ) 00:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING . Events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 07:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since it appears the dam failures was actually due to poor infostructure due to the civil war, and the storm was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Incoporating it in the storm article would require adding a massive background on the Libyan Civil War, which would distract from the main idea of the article. -- 72.68.134.26 ( talk ) 16:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Derna dam collapses The CONTENTFORK arguments have not been upheld at the discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel , and even if this AfD results in "keep" it will likely get redirected unless consensus at that talk page changes significantly.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The consensus in this discussion is to keep the page. The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel never reached a consensus. Since this page was created, the large majority of comments on the issue have been here. I don't think it matters on which discussion page the consensus emerges, and I don't think that split discussion trumps the consensus to keep this page. Jsfigura ( talk ) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion at Talk:Storm Daniel is a clear consensus not to create. The discussion at that talk page has broader participation and therefore has more weight. - Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of the most recent ten comments in that discussion that make a support/oppose statement, 5 of them are in support of the split and 5 of them oppose. That does not seem to me like a clear consensus not to create a standalone article. That seems like no consensus reached. I'm getting tired of this discussion and I assume that someone else will make the consensus determination and deletion decision, so I suppose we'll see. Jsfigura ( talk ) 21:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename article to Derna disaster 2023. The disaster is a combination of factors, including Storm Daniel, the collapse of the dams, bad building codes and land use planning, little storm/flood water management, poor disaster response, and the civil war. Entitling the event as the Derma dam collapses is too narrow and only deals with a momentary event, but as we are seeing, this disaster is more complex, prolonged, and a combination of both human and nature factors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firth m ( talk • contribs ) 18:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per multiple editors. The storm and the dam collapse were two different events, and it was the dam collapse that was catastrophic. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 03:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Looks a valid content split. Passes notabilty criteria separately from Storm Daniel and nominator now agrees to retain. Rupples ( talk ) 19:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per above. The dam collapse and its tragic aftermath are notable enough to remain separated from the Storm itself, despite one causing the other. RopeTricks ( talk ) 10:30, 24 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

Ralph Bernstein: Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Engineering , Germany , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , utterly ordinary career. Also, the article was created by a banned sockpuppet, a paid editor. — Biruitorul Talk 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - 100% agree MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In what universe is being elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) an "utterly ordinary career"? The notability of researchers in industry as well as academia are covered by WP:NPROF which assesses notability by their impact on their field. He meets criteria #3: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society ) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics ). StarryGrandma ( talk ) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . StarryGrandma ( talk ) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . IEEE Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3 , one of the main examples used in WP:PROF of the sort of thing that passes that criterion. G5 speedy is not in play because the article was created before anyone was indeffed (which is, by the way, not the same thing as banned). And in what universe would, say, "professional athlete did professional athlete things" be regarded as a valid deletion rationale, or "100% agree" be regarded as a substantial contribution to a deletion discussion? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 05:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:Prof#C3 is passed. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep : Clear C3 pass as an IEEE fellow. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : not only IEEE, but NASA medal, etc. would be enough even if he weren't an IEEE Fellow. Basically a speedy or snow keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Auto dialer: Article has had lack of citation warnings on it since 2011 yet remains practically unsourced. Only section of article that is sourced relates to telemarketing regulations. Given that there exists a well-sourced article on telemarketing that makes reference to automatic dialing, seek to get agreement to redirect to that article. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising . Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Rambling Rambler : You removed a section which was referenced to "Popular Mechanics" which is massively popular and one of the industry standards for those types of mags. I rememeber reading it, in the 1980's and 1990's. It seems to be a valid secondary source. The subject seems to notable and I think with a bit of work it could be a good article. scope_creep Talk 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, they've removed it twice now, and it was one of the things that inspired my objection to the BLAR. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Scope creep : I removed it, as explained in the change notes, because the source was only used to support the following claim: "A semi-automatic dialer is a human-controlled dialer. All actions, such as dialing, playing the audio messages, recording, are initiated by a human, normally by the press of a key. It is a productivity tool for telemarketing agents. The first semi-automatic dialer was offered on the commercial market in 1942. It was manually operated and came in two models; one that stored 12 numbers and a second which could store up to 52 numbers." However if you read the source itself it only actually supports the lines I've put in bold in the above quote. It doesn't support the claim it was the first offered on the market, nor does it support the definition of a "semi-automatic dialer". Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rambling Rambler , that's not good practice. What you could have done is put a cn-tag after the unverified bit, for instance. However, that article is talking about an auto-dialer of the mechanical kind, which isn't what the article is about, allegedly. Drmies ( talk ) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies if it was an article that was otherwise citation heavy and showed signs of active improvement I'd probably have done so. Here however it's an article with warnings going back a decade regarding a lack of verifiability, so when a quick google only shows marketing companies wanting to sell you stuff and seem to have just taken their content straight from this article (" In those days, auto dialers were semi-automatic dialers, and they were limited to storing between 12 and 52 numbers. Employees had to press a key to initiate the features ") I thought best to go on the side of caution by removing the section given it couldn't support the notable information of the subsection. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait, Rambling Rambler --so you were trying to improve an underreferenced article by removing the one secondary source it had? Drmies ( talk ) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies , no, as previously said I was removing a source that was being used to back up claims the source doesn't corroborate. Nowhere does the source state that it's a "semi-automatic dialer" (a term and definition that is uncited itself) nor that, whatever the device in popular mechanics could be defined as, it's the first one on the market. In fact it's hard to consider the device in question an "automatic dialer" as described by the article lede; that being an electronic device or program that automatically dials a large amount of telephone numbers and either plays a pre-recorded message or connects to a human callhandler. Instead the device in the popular mechanics source is anything but that. In fact its implementation is really akin to an early version of the contact list on mobile phones, where the phone number is saved against another identifier (usually a name) and selecting that identifier is enough for the phone to dial the specific number associated. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am the one who objected to the BLAR. I understand that the article is in terrible shape. But AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any actual argument for deletion besides that. It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable, and not particularly urgent or sensitive that we needed an instant fix. It's not a concept I particularly edit or care about, merely a random move I stumbled upon and didn't agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yip. I agree totally. scope_creep Talk 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] " It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable" It wasn't "lazy" at all. I read through the actually cited content in the autodialer article, noted the bottom contained a "see also" for the telemarketing article, and noticed that the article's content is effectively duplicated in that second article. Telemarketing details both the concept of automatic dialing and regulations on its use, both of the leftover thrusts of the auto dialer article after removing the unsourced content. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then replace "lazy" with "not the best approach to the situation". Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably not a perfect solution but so far no one else has offered up any others to the situation other than just leaving it with zero applicable citations beyond duplicating content on the article I redirected it too. And frankly I find it most irritating when you've stated it's "not a concept I particularly edit or care about" and only seem to want to almost insultingly criticise what I did without offering any solutions yourself. Rambling Rambler ( talk ) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The intention of that comment was simply to show I have no biases for or against auto dialers. I primarily work in music and video games, areas where there are constantly "fanboys/fangirls" trying to protect what they like or erase what they don't. " Swifties ", "K-pop Stans", people all caught up in the " console wars ", etc etc. I was merely saying I have no bias of that sort. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Robocall : and do the same with the the alternate spelling,

keep

Professor Hershel Layton: Meanwhile, others were just from game reviews with the same name, including the current sources used in the receptions section. Unfortunately, we need more to pass WP:GNG threshold. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Television , and Video games . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I almost immediately found this source talking about Layton's name being an unusual one for a protagonist, the use of his name as a title (which they identified as a relative rarity in modern games), and how he differs from a typical protagonist. This doesn't fulfill WP:THREE , but just from that quick search and the source provided, I strongly believe that any deeper search would come up with more. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the Eurogamer article Greenish Picke! linked and the Siliconera article that Cukie Gherkin found, Tablet has an article, "The Summer's Hottest Video Game Is About a Scholar Named Hershel", that foregrounds coverage of the character over the video game, particularly how being named "Hershel" makes the character a distinctly Jewish gentleman . " Three best sources " is an essay rather than a guideline or policy, but for what it's worth this demonstrates there are three solid sources for the character's notability. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I believe the Eurogamer, Siliconera, and Tablet sources puts us at WP:THREE . Could definite use a trim of the in-universe story appearances stuff, and an expansion of the reception with these sources, but overall that's clean up stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe the sources presented demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . I believed the 3 sources above should be enough. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

1944 Kearsley Shire Council election: Steelkamp ( talk ) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia . Steelkamp ( talk ) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose - Second line of the article clearly establishes notability, "the first time a communist party had won a local government majority in the English-speaking world" is 100% notable Obviously other Kearsley Shire Council elections should not and do not have their own pages Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't necessarily mean this election deserves its own page though. This could easily be accommodated within the Kearsley Shire page itself. Steelkamp ( talk ) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Kearsley Shire can cover this history. Reywas92 Talk 18:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and I am surprised this article was even nominated for deletion. The second and third paragraphs of the introduction clearly establish notability. This is a notable local government election in Australian history, one that has attracted both specific studies by historians (Martin Mowbray's article in the leading journal Labour History , which is cited in the article) and observation in larger studies of the CPA. Stuart Macintyre in The Party frames his discussion of the CPA's local government efforts around its 1944 success in Kearsley (pp.155–156). J.D. Playford's PhD thesis, "Doctrinal and Strategic Problems of the Communist Party of Australia, 1945-1962" (ANU, 1962) suggests that the support the CPA secured in Kearsley and other municipalities influenced its postwar electoral strategy and objectives (pp.30–31). I also do not see the relevance of Kearsley not being a capital city LGA; much of note in Australian politics has occurred beyond capital cities and we should not encourage a capital-centric attitude. My recommendation, far from deletion, is expansion: there is plenty more to say about this unusual and notable result. Axver ( talk ) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not only did this election end with a controversial result (the election of a handful of communist party members (5/8 seats) - the most in any local election, leading to a government majority), but there was ample coverage, and an indication of lasting effects. Trainsskyscrapers ( talk ) 3:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Keep the nominator's personal opinion regarding notability is irrelevant; there are more than adequate reliable sources, both contemporary and subsequent (even 50 years later, eg [19] ), to satisfy WP:NEVENT . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn and Trainsskyscrapers. Academic coverage is enough. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 ( talk ) 15:43, 16 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

Batman and Superman: Di (they-them) ( talk ) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . Di (they-them) ( talk ) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and tag as a set index. This is functionally a directory of works that a reader might expect to find when searching for the title phrase. Frankly, it is probably also possible to write a substantive and well-sourced article discussing the various scholarly juxtapositions of these characters as archetypes. BD2412 T 20:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's useful as a disambiguation because there are a few titles that use similar formatting and it serves as a landing page for those titles. Since a disambiguation page is necessary, it might as well be a full fledged set index to catch the rest of the works where the characters overlap. Also, as BD mentions, an "actual encyclopedia article about the duo" should be encouraged here. -- T avix ( talk ) 01:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : necessary dab page (or possibly set index), though needs some reformatting. Pam D 07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguate - Kazamzam ( talk ) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disambiguate per Kazamzam. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Undying Land: Interested to hear if anyone else can show how this book meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt ( talk ) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature . JMWt ( talk ) 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Schweitzer, Darrell (August 1986). Geis, Richard E. (ed.). "The Undying Land" . Science Fiction Review . Vol.  15, no. 3 #60. pp. 46–47. ISSN 0036-8377 . Retrieved 2023-07-17 – via Internet Archive . The review notes: "Similarly, a real Lost Race novel cannot be written anymore, because this is no longer 1890. All Mr. Gilmour has managed to do is create a pastiche. He has done so most skillfully, to the extent that, with very minor changes, The Undying Land would pass perfectly for an obscure novel published in All Story in 1911. He has got the whole routine down perfectly: competently readable prose, wooden characterization, impossible dialogue, wild implausibilities, and even a trace of Age of Imperialism racism. (That is, the non-negroid Lost Race is said to be more "clean cut" than regular Africans. A very authentic touch.)" Chow, Dan (January 1992). "The Undying Land" . Locus . No. 372. Archived from the original on 2023-07-17 . Retrieved 2023-07-17 . The review is listed here in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database . I do not have access to the full text of the review. D'Ammassa, Don (December 1986). "The Undying Land". Science Fiction Chronicle . No. 87. The review is listed here in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database . I do not have access to the full text of the review. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Undying Land to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Cunard's findings. I'll specifically note that adding the references to the article, which has been done, is above-and-beyond conduct per WP:NEXIST . Jclemens ( talk ) 04:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard . 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - thanks to the sources added by Cunard. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY by Cunard . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:24, 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

1888 Albion football team: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Michigan . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While the team played only two games (a third game was cancelled), both games received WP:SIGCOV . I've added summaries of the games. Cbl62 ( talk ) 10:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 05:04, 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! 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Lizbeth Goodman: Avishai11 ( talk ) 00:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Avishai11 ( talk ) 00:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of book reviews (now added to the article) give her a pass of WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 01:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per

keep

2005–06 Udinese Calcio season: Zero in-depth sources from independent reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Serie A season, reached semis of Coppa Italia , played in UEFA Cup , definitely has sources, (such as [14] ). Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Disclosure: I'm the one who started the article. I think being one of the top 20 football teams in one of the top 3 football leagues on the planet makes the article practically inherently notable. Yes, I will improve it with sources and more information, but the crazy urgency shown by Onel (it's NOT an old article) would've been warranted if the subject was more obscure. This nomination feels almost comically out of place at this point in time. At least Onel did the right thing by taking it to AfD instead of draftifying again. Oh, and draftifying is among the most arrogant thing a Wikipedia editor can do. O s c a r L 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Article is sourced only to databases. Fails GNG. There are no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject - the season - directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. The above mentioned source is not about the subject of the article [15] . // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know if you're acquainted with football, but season by season articles for each major team (among the biggest in the world) is the standard. The fact that sourcing could improve does not detract from the fact that the Udinese season, just like all the other ones in existence, is notable by virtue of its subject. See here : "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements." It's not a case of "Other stuff exist" either, I am actually basing it on Wikipedia guidelines. Please, give me time to improve refs, I did not expect such a rushed action for something that is basically a staple in top level football club articles. O s c a r L 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Honestly, this one shouldn't even be a discussion. A top-flight Italian team which competed in a European competition easily garners SIGCOV to more than meet GNG. Online sources are available, including a number listed on the Italian Wiki . The article needs improving not deleting. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as above. Another nomination where no knowledge of the subject has been shown and no research/BEFORE has been undertaken. Giant Snowman 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Draftify as per above this is a top Italian team and one of the top European and world at the time so clearly warrants a season article. This article is clearly in need of improving, not deleting . However, as this is almost 20 years after the season, I don't understand the pushback by OscarLake to draftifying the article and improving it in draft space. Currently the article is a short lede, an inclusion of the ladder, and the squad. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 15:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem with draftifying an article that is (or should be) assumed to be notable enough is that it reduces the amount of editors who can help out with improvement. No one beyond the article creator is going to know about the draft's existence really. Also, I don't take kindly to one single editor undemocratically taking it off mainspace with no consensus-seeking discusisons beforehand. The nominator in question has gotten criticism for this. If you are draftifying at the speed and volume that the nominator is, then there will be a pushback from some editors. Communication and collaboration are important for the Wikipedia project, neither of which happened in this case. O s c a r L 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point, and I would support having the article in the mainspace if it was a recent season, but as it's over 20 years ago, I don't think having it in mainspace encourages too many editors to work on it. Regardless I am against deleting it. Regarding the nominator, I'm not such a big frequenter of AfD, but after this, just today I came across a bunch of bad nominations by them, so I can understand. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 05:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Stevie’s argument above. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Yes article has issues and needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. Bad nomination. Govvy ( talk ) 16:16, 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