Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Eleri Morris: – dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , and Football . – dlthewave ☎ 14:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify some promising articles in the Illawarra Mercury , not quite at GNG level yet but an active AFLW player who should accumulate more coverage as her career progresses. – Tera tix ₵ 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has two articles about her in the Illawarra Mercury, as well as a few profiles. Also an active player who is playing well and will generate more coverage for sure. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both articles are in-depth about her exclusively, so I'm not sure how she fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. as she clearly has that. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 17:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't see much coverage in sources apart from the two mentioned above, but since they both directly address the subject, I think they're enough to satisfy relevant notability guidelines. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Contains no secondary and independent sources. ––– GMH Melbourne 11:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's simply false, you might dispute whether the sources are sufficient to clear GNG but to assert no such sources are present is wrong. – Tera tix ₵ 13:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, that is my bad, because a couple of the sources led to dead links and paywalls, I brushed over them. ––– GMH Melbourne 23:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Kenny Imafidon: Gsearch is straight to social media; article also details his arrest/criminal charges, which seem to have more information than the rest of the article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree and believe he is already notable and with the publication by Penguin of That Peckham Boy next week he will receive extensive coverage and be even more notable. He co-founded and leads a respected and financially successful think tank. He is a published author He is notable, as far as the major UK news outlets are concerned for his life story and the way he overcame prejudice and a potential lengthy jail sentence. His charitable work is substantial, including BBC Children in Need, which is very much a 'great and good' organisation. He met the Queen - OK I'm not that convinced by that one but many people are. Jimmy Wales big fan of Royal Family. He is already a significant black voice in society with regular interviews on the mainstream media and is likely to become an even more significant figure as his work continues. His 'Gsearch' is just like most Think Tanks - books are so 20th century I am afraid. most of their work is for clients and does not make it into public print except in brief headlines from time to time. YellowFratello ( talk ) 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there are no published sources about him, the article can't be kept. We need proof of notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Guardian article is not a published source? YellowFratello ( talk ) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the prompt - I have done more research and added references from The BBC, The Independent Newspaper and The UK Daily Mirror. I hope these will answer any questions of Notability. YellowFratello ( talk ) 18:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added more sources. It seems he's notable on more than one count - for the charitable work, which now has independent sources to verify, and also potentially for being the first person to sit and pass A Levels in prison (less coverage but more is possibly findable on this). I think the page should passes GNG and should be kept. Zeromonk ( talk ) 17:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Propose remove deletion template as concerns addresses by a group of editors working on page. YellowFratello ( talk ) 07:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:NBASIC . Significant coverage can be found in The Independent , The Evening Standard , Time Out , The Mirror , & The Bookseller . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 09:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Think we have agreement will remove template. YellowFratello ( talk ) 08:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sources added since the nomination show that the subject meets WP:GNG . Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ) 18:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ghulam Rasool Saeedi: However, the creator Youknowwhoistheman moved it back to the main NS without any discussion. So, I think it's reasonable to nom. it for deletion. From what I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or even AUTHOR. Plus, this piece is just a Letter to the editor , so one should simply ignore it when establishing GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Thanks for noticing, I think that before putting any new article in draft, it should be given time. So that it can be properly prepared. You put it in draft in a very short time without thinking. Secondly, always try to improve an article before putting it on deletion, rather than nominating it for deletion. Now coming to the point, is this article really not passing the general notability of Wikipedia, WP:GNG ? So, I think you should have done a little more in-depth study. If you search his name in Urdu and English, you will find mention of him in hundreds of books. And there are hundreds of books in which he is mentioned, but he has not come in the world of internet. Which is absolutely right according to Wikipedia policy, for more information you can read WP:Offline . Yes, it definitely seems to me that the way you put the article in draft in a hurry, it seems as if you have some personal enmity with him. Thanks, take care! Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 15:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Youknowwhoistheman , It's strange that everyone thinks I have some sort of agenda or personal enmity with them. Rest assured, I don't have any personal issues with the subject. He's deceased—may he RIP. Tbh, I didn't want to nominate this for deletion. I wanted to give this bio a chance, which is why I draftified it instead of AfD'g it. However, you moved it back to the main NS - leaving me no other option but to bring it here. So you need to avoid WP:ATA and prove that he either meets GNG or AUTHOR. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah sure, it is left to other editors to decide. again, thanks you! Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Islam . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Keep . Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There is an entry about this person in The Pakistan National Bibliography book from 1975 -- having a subject listed in a national book of biographies is always a good indicator of notability. Second, a Google Scholar search turns up his name referenced in a number of works . Finally, the citations provided in the article appear to be solid overall and support notability. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SouthernNights. WP:BEFORE was not done properly. A simple search in Urdu newspapers brings a lot of coverage: [13] , [14] . Meets WP:NSCHOLAR . Bad nomination which should be withdrawn asap. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 ( talk ) 00:43, 1 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

Bangkok Gay and Lesbian Film Festival: Fails GNG. Would reconsider if additional sources can be found in Thai. LibStar ( talk ) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Sexuality and gender , and Thailand . LibStar ( talk ) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nomination failed to mention that one of those "gnews hits" is a lengthy article in the Bangkok Post , entirely about this film festival. Also failed to mention that the article is well-cited with multiple sources, including another lengthy article from The Nation . Demanding sources in Thai is a novel move for an AfD nomination. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't demanding sources in Thai. LibStar ( talk ) 00:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep unless some demonstration is forthcoming why the currently cited sources should not count towards the GNG. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Bangkok Post , and even the interview in the Nation offer significant coverage and are on the page. Other coverage exists, for example TBP again calling the festival a "tremendous success". Article in Time Out' . .Also see this . And plenty of other mentions. Not to mention probable sources in Thai that the nominator mentions. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Koopa Troopa: A lot of sources mention them in brief, but there is very little actual commentary on them in these sources. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that the Koopa Troopas have enough sources to build an article. I'd suggest a redirect to the Mario characters list as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the detailed and well sourced concept and creation section, which shows the characters impact on the franchise. As I've reminded many times before, reception sections are not the only way to proving notability. A common way, but not the only. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I haven't looked into additional sources myself enough to give a recommendation at this point, but I just wanted to point out that all but one source in the Concept and Creation section are primary sources - they are all just from the "Iwata Asks" series on official Nintendo websites. And per the WP:GNG , in order to be able to help establish notability, sources need to be "independent of the subject". Rorshacma ( talk ) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters - even if notable it clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a very lacking reception that feels incredibly stretched-out. No prejudice towards recreation if someone manages to find more reception. IMO there is very little difference with the issues that led Boo (character) to also be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm struggling to understand how INDISCRIMINATE applies to this. Can you better explain? Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It lacks any reception besides one IGN list entry. The "Passionfruit" site is dubiously notable, and the rest belongs in Legacy not Reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's...not what INDISCRIMINATE itself refers to. None of its points apply to this. And Passionfruit is part of The Daily Dot , which is reliable per WP:VG/S Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very well, I will change my opinion to keep since things seem to be going in that direction. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just wasn't really sure about its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Serge's rationale. I don't really feel I can add on more from that though. Captain Galaxy 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Recently, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ made an argument about another article list that "if I had known merging would have cut down this much information I wouldn't have voted to merge". That stuck with me, and I feel that is more a valid concern here. There is clearly a lot of development and legacy information in this article and how it impacted the development of the series, and when you look at the list itself there is no feasible way to maintain this information over there (the enemy sections are all short and brief), and trying to brute force it in will create a weird instance of WP:UNDUE when you compare it to how the rest of the sections are structured given there's not the same level of development info for those other enemies. One could argue too for a "death by 1000 cuts" approach: is it possible to illustrate a character is so recognizable that its notable regardless of a lack of discussion? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Sergecross's statement. I do think that the Koopa Troopa deserve their own page, mainly because they've been in the franchise (almost) since the start. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I find what Kung Fu Man said compelling - often, merging can be fairly destructive, and in this case, I find it difficult to see a reasonable happy middleground between giving Koopa Troopa's dev info and impact too little or too much weight on the list. While there definitely should be more info on the article, the sheer amount of info that would be lost in the merge makes it feel like no one would actually benefit. To me, I feel like we sometimes treat "having an article" as a status. Would a reader benefit from having Koopa Troopa info either dominating the enemies list or simply being absent? It's important that we don't let such a concept be used to justify the splitting of articles with hardly anything to them, but this clearly has something that's lost in a merge. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's valid concerns made over just merging as Koopa Troopas have significantly more references detailing them than say, a Podoboo (or most Super Mario enemies for the matter). Plus, the current article is honestly fine as it is with the only problem being the reference formatting for some of the last few references used but otherwise, another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP . SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 05:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per source discussion above. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Geographia Map Company: The only source currently in the article only briefly covers this company, and I couldn't find much else beyond brief mentions, non-RS, and some letters to the editor with promotional language to boot, nothing to establish notability. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Geography , New Jersey , and New York . Let'srun ( talk ) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to flawed WP:BEFORE nomination. I have begun the process of adding reliable sources for this article—which involves a company that has been active on two continents for over a century—and its founder, Alexander Gross. Stony Brook babble 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment venerable, renowned company: "A list and brief history of London Atlases" . thehunthouse.com . Retrieved January 29, 2024 . Geographia Ltd., was founded in 1911 by the Hungarian Alexander Gross (1879-1958). Originally "Geographia" Designing & Publishing Co. Ltd., of 33 Strand the firm produced street maps of towns and cities all over the world until being absorbed by Collins Bartholomew in about 1987. From 1923 to at least 1925 the company was called "Geographia (1923) Ltd.". Djflem ( talk ) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Significant coverage of Geographia is available in books on the more notable daughter of Alexander Gross, Phyllis Pearsall . For example: Hartley, Sarah (2002). "Chapter 4: Geographia: Marking Out the Future". Mrs P's journey : the remarkable story of the woman who created the A-Z map . Pocket Books. pp. 27–37. ISBN 978-0-7434-0876-9 . Ross, Val (2003). "Chapter 12: The Mapmaker and Her Business". The road to there : mapmakers and their stories . Internet Archive. Tundra Books. pp. 115–123. ISBN 978-0-88776-621-3 . Additional coverage includes the following newspaper articles: [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] . Jfire ( talk ) 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:HEY . In-depth coverage provided and article improved. S0091 ( talk ) 18:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Campism: The sourcing in the article is as follows: Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? New Politics (1) Why not? For sake of argument, why not? Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes New Politics (2) Why not? For sake of argument, why not? Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes Negation Magazine Why not? ~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. This discusses the third camp during the cold war. It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way. ✘ No Democratic Socialists of America Why not? This is the blog of a political organization. It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA". This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp . ✘ No Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N. ? Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech. If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS . ? Source link is broken. ✘ No Third World Quarterly Why not? Why not? While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism". ✘ No Open Democracy Why not? Per WP:RSOPINION , Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact . ? Moot as clearly not reliable. ✘ 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 }} . What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability . As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself. Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch ( RSP entry ) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog ), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory ( Hindustan Times ). In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp , which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Red-tailed hawk : Thank you for your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG . SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 07:42, 6 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! 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [62] . Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view. This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists. SociusMono1976 ( talk ) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion. Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it: Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion. If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion , it can be. The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards , may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:30, 21 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

Marie-Elisabeth von Humboldt: Present on 2 other projects, but they are entitled to make different decision. There is some evidence of being a benefactor (supporting the local parish), but that itself was inherited. The pages of Wilhelm and Alexander seem sufficiently well-developed that a merge wouldn't be helpful. Klbrain ( talk ) 18:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, what to answer? The page poses a problem for the person's notoriety. But, from the perspective of diversity in Wikipedia, I find it interesting to have the perspective of female personalities. In general, the existence of biographical writings is used to determine whether or not an article is admissible. Here, it was the subject of an article in a book, but in the 19th. From a diversity perspective, I find this article important. In itself, it does not bother people who are not interested in the subject. And people who are interested will learn something there. The article is neither a subject of contention nor a subject of controversy, it is not about a recent person, nor of self-promotion. Where is the problem ? She hasn't done enough work to have the right to appear in an encyclopedia? History of women is important itself, simple conclusion. And in the 18th, be a mother was a job. There are 5 or 6 pages linked to this page. Marion ( talk ) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I must add something : german page exist first. Then, I translated the page from german to french. Then I decided to give an emphasis the this article, by making a translation to english. So, in french, when I created the article, nothing was told about it. In german, I dont know as the article exist previously. Marion ( talk ) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And I also want to add an argument : in wikipédia, there are more men biographies than women (statistics). And, when I read them, as I am for a long time a wikipedia reader, I noticed we often read that men "became" something, someone, an artist, a politician etc. by their own. But, here is also a part of feminist ideas, I find important to explain people grew up in an environnement. In social sciences, we used to consider the environnement as much as the person. So this page has also this aim, to remain in the 18th, people could became scientist when women were activ in the education. Because there were no schools. And because, men, with letterature wont organize themselves for children. Women did the link for that, they were central. So : I find Marie-Elisabeth has a full place in wikipedia by her own. For the reason why, research in that field progress (role of women in the Royalties times) in social sciences and this article can be developped in the future. We are more in a time where we find informations about women than in a time where we consider women are part of their husband life or "only mother". Be a mother is something, women who read wikipedia, can find as as much important than being politician. Because, there are so many ways to be mother than to be politician. And not all women dream to be politcian or artist or scientist. So my hypothesis, is, that more women would read wikipedia if there are more diversities in biographies as well. But of course, it is an hypothesis made because I studied social scientist, I used to consider feminists ideas. And in France there is wikipedia project quite activ, but I am not part of it directly, I follow it from far, it is called "the without pages" (les sans pages) where people create biographies of forgotten women. Marion ( talk ) 06:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And to conclude : I really don't appreciate the method. I am very strict on that way even when I contribute in french wikipedia (my main activity anyway). When something hurt someone but, when that problem dont bring a real deficcience to the full project of wikipedia, a simple discussion inside the article page of discussion, would be enough to start a debate. Always bring deleting process to start a discussion is an abuse. If we do that, wikipedia dont increase, but decrease, more quickly than social sciences increase. So do whatever you want, I dont appreciate the way. Marion ( talk ) 06:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless it can be expanded to say more about the subject. Nearly everything in the article currently is not about her - it is about her family, her husbands, and what happened with her bequest after she died. Marion Leconte , I take your point, but the Notability rules are the same for men and women - the question is whether there is enough material about her (not the people around her, but her) to support an article. At the moment it isn't there, but I will be happy to change my view if extra relevant material can be added. -- Gronk Oz ( talk ) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for historical reasons. The article is richly sourced and explains her family relationships, her strong interest in the education of her sons, and the significant position she inherited.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 10:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as owner of the Falkenberg estate which she remodeled heavily. Axisstroke ( talk ) 15:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I proposed, maintaining my delete position. Regarding the Falkenberg estate, the expansion there can readily be described on the Falkenberg (Berlin) page (which is what is done over on .de). If family relationships are seen as important, these should should sit on the articles of one of the sons (or, indeed, why not for one of the husbands). Klbrain ( talk ) 14:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I maintain my arguments. I understand the point of view for deleting this article. But, in the reason of diversity, we need to accept, motherhood and planning education of children is important as much as people who organised wars, planned destructions or else. No place for her in her husband pages : they don't exist (if I dont mistake). Marion ( talk ) 18:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The importance of the motherhood and fatherhood and planning the educations is undisputable, but this isn't a good case study of any of these. The source that support Marie's maternal care for her children is a 19th century hagiography "The mothers of great men and women ...". The other key sources, Minguet (1969) has a quite different view (automated translation of paragraph 19 of 'Première période' ) Marie Elisabeth von Humboldt, was a haughty, cold woman who had little emotional relationship with her children. After the disappearance of her husband, who was a "...man of pleasant trade, of lively and cheerful conversation"... it is on the contrary, "... an atmosphere of compassed formalism and boredom created around her Madame de Humboldt mother". Klbrain ( talk ) 23:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, this is a personnal point of view (yours). But people spoke about her, she has a public notoriety and there is a picture in common, a category in common, an article in german, and 6 english spoken articles who mention her name. Wikipedia speaks about people who have been previously subject of books or studies, which is her case. Mothers, good in education, are not always warmfull. Education of today, principle of "love" (children's care) was not main stream at that time, I could add studies about that topic int this article, if the problem points there. Marion ( talk ) 06:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sourcing is sufficient to make Marie-Elisabeth independently notable from her sons, especially when taking German sources into account. Cortador ( talk ) 22:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are plenty of precedents of parents deeply and actively involved in their children's' education and starting their careers - call it the well accepted Mama Rose exception . Bearian ( talk ) 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ganj-e Qarun: UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . 2 sources on the page seem to show a certain notability, particularly the quote from Social History of Iranian Cinema . I fail to see any "promotional language" there nor what there is to promote. We are talking about a 1965 film by a very important filmmaker. The film is also mentioned in this 2020 article as "an influential cult film" (p. 67) that has "pioneered this brand of fatalist cinema" and became its "undisputed quintessence'" etc. (p. 64) — MY, OH, MY ! 23:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Mushy Yank . فرهنگ2016 ( talk ) 18:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I also found this , not mentioned before I think. An entire scholarly article focusing on this also generally indicates more sources should exist in Farsi. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 23:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The individual sources aren't particularly conclusive, but I believe that the sum total of them scrapes across the line to meet WP:NFILM . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 3 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

Muzaffar Aazim: Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Poetry , India , and Jammu and Kashmir . Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There is enough coverage about the subject in the sources. Greaterkashmir.com talks about his background, early life, and career. I find that it passes notability and warrants this subject to have a page of his own. RangersRus ( talk ) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep. This is tricky to evaluate without the ability to read Kashmiri, but this article mentions a close founding association with Adbi Markaz Kamraz , and the number of news organizations running obituaries describing him as a major poet seems suggestive. — Moriwen ( talk ) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No wp:rs , wp:sigcov QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:59, 16 March 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! 06:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sporadic mentions in Indian Literature over a few decades, which means that offline and/or Kashmiri language sources are likely to exist for someone who primarily wrote in Kashmiri. Mach61 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Muzaffar Aazim is a distinguished writer of the Kashmiri language. There are enough offline sources like The History of Kashmiri Language and Literature initially published by the Kashmiri Department of the University of Kashmir that can verify the notability of the writer. Munajikhan ( talk ) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Munajikhan ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] weak keep : Moriwen makes a good point, as does RangersRus . I think this squeaks by on GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 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

Embassy of the United States, Quito: Biruitorul Talk 18:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Ecuador–United States relations : specifically, the sentence about Heather Hodges. The rest is either non-notable or already covered by the target. Owen× ☎ 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Some coverage of the current and former buildings of the US embassy in Quito in La Hora , El Universo , El Universo again , and a few words about its design in the Foreign Service Journal . Given the role of the United States in the region, I'm sure some printed material of the architecture of the building must exist in books or printed publications of the pre-internet era, although these online sources should satisfy WP:GNG for now. Pilaz ( talk ) 23:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I normally vote delete on this series of US embassies but Pilaz's sources convince me that GNG is met. LibStar ( talk ) 05:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . This is at least mainly about the embassy (not just USA-Ecuador relations) and a great deal better than nearly all of these embassy articles. Athel cb ( talk ) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

David Rossi: Sources are either episodes (primary) or secondary sources that are interviews or more about the actor, and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N , it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#David Rossi . Spinixster (chat!) 14:32, 27 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 Television . Spinixster (chat!) 14:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of Criminal Minds characters#David Rossi . While there seems to be some coverage in sources [53] , [54] , [55] , the extent to which this is non-routine and significant is questionable. He is a recurring character, but most other recurring characters for this show don't have their own article and so I don't see a reason why he should either. Willbb234 16:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - article for a major character in a major TV show is expected and accepted on WP. There are numerous third party sources discussing the character (in fact, there are pages of Google News results, not all diamonds, but there is a lot, and there are many in RS). There is a lot of plot discussion in the article, but that is an inditement on the quality of the article, not whether it should be deleted. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide some examples please. Willbb234 19:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because something has a lot of sources does not mean that it is inherently notable. This would technically count as WP:SOURCESEARCH . Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are 10 different sources. I'm not saying this is going to be a featured article, but this should be more than sufficient to pass GNG. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but this seems like nothing more than trivial coverage for fans of the show; we need to look for something which provides some kind of examination of the character and demonstrates that he is something other than just another recurring character on the show. Some critical analysis would do the trick. Willbb234 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not aware of any guideline which tells us to disregard sources which are aimed at fans of a show. But you’re entitled to your view. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reviewing the sources... First source is both a plot summary and an interview. Second source is an interview. Third source is quoted from an interview. Fourth source is quoted from an interview. Fifth source is a plot summary. Sixth source is a sneak peek of the show. Seventh source is an interview about the character's comeback. Eighth source is an interview about the character's departure. Ninth source is a teaser about the character's romance. CinemaBlend is listed as unreliable in WP:VG/S either way so it shouldn't be used. Tenth source is a plot summary for the final episode. Overall, you will need non-trivial sources that talk extensively about the character. Interviews (which are primary) and plot summaries aren't going to cut it. Sources that prove the character's significance outside of the show will. Spinixster (chat!) 09:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I don't 'need' anything. And if you want to hold TV character pages to this high of a standard, I advise you to get started, because there are hundreds of pages you missed. Not to mention movie, book, and comic characters. I know "other stuff exists" but let's be real. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "This high of a standard" is wrong; Wikipedia has always had "high" standards for pages. This rule even applies to non-fictional elements, in fact, it's already listed in WP:GNG . It's just that only a few people check these pages and actively check if they are notable, and if I nominate the "hundreds of pages I missed" at the same time, AfD would be overwhelmed. Spinixster (chat!) 15:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Simons, Roxy (2022-11-24). "What happened to Rossi's wife? Joe Mantegna on 'Criminal Minds: Evolution' " . Newsweek . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ Longeretta, Emily (2022-11-24). " 'Criminal Minds: Evolution' Cast on David Rossi's Shocking Loss and Garcia's Romantic Future With Alvez" . Variety . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ Shomer, Jason (2023-03-11). "Criminal Minds: Evolution's Showrunner Never Seriously Considered Killing Rossi" . Looper . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2022-11-25). "Criminal Minds: Evolution Premiere's Rossi Reveal Explained By Showrunner" . ScreenRant . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ McCormack, Olivia (2022-11-25). " 'Criminal Minds' is back. Where are the characters now?" . Washington Post . ISSN 0190-8286 . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ "Rossi Gets His Groove Back in This Exclusive Criminal Minds: Evolution Sneak Peek" . TVGuide.com . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ Schaefer |, Stephen (2022-11-20). "Joe Mantegna reboots role for 'Criminal Minds: Evolution' " . Boston Herald . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ "Criminal Minds ' Joe Mantegna Films Final Episode After 12 Years: 'I'll Miss Playing David Rossi' " . Yahoo Entertainment . 2019-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ published, Britt Lawrence (2018-09-25). "Criminal Minds Is Giving Rossi Some Romance In Season 14" . CINEMABLEND . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray (2020-02-20). " 'Criminal Minds' Series Finale: The BAU Gang Hunts Down Its Final Psychopath Before Giving A Tearful Goodbye" . Deadline . Retrieved 2023-09-28 . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect due to no reception/analysis sections. Ping me if they are added and I'll reconsider, but for now I am AGFing criticism of the sources above. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources El cid, el campeador provided. The article needs work – mainly addition of reception, casting and development (real life info) – but this can be done without the article being deleted. If it is not kept, it should be merged into the character list. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already said what I said about the sources above. They do not talk extensively about the character. Spinixster (chat!) 02:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge/Redirect. A source analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per those above. There is sufficient coverage of this character to support a separate article. BD2412 T 01:23, 12 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

Appin (company): The subject of the article is in legal litigation with Reuters the publisher of the major source cited in the article. Reuters has taken down the report from its website in compliance with an Indian court order. See Reuters editor’s note here [ [55] ]. Other sources cited all quoted the Reuters report that is no longer in public domain. In this [ [56] ], SentinelLab quoted the Reuters report as its own source: “After an extensive review of this data, brought to our attention by Reuters investigative journalists”, then this [ [57] ] quoted SentinelLab as its own source all linking back to the Reuters report. These sources can no longer be relied upon as the original source of information has been taken down by a court order. The remaining sources in the article only reported the court order forcing Reuters to take down the article. Metroick ( talk ) 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This company is detailed in this earlier Reuters report [58] which was not taken down. Further, the court order and the impugned report are discussed here [59] and here [60] . The litigation is publicly acknowledged by Reuters. And, as noted in the 404 Media article the article is still on Internet Archive. That should be enough for notability. There may be some basis to say the facts in the impugned article aren't verifiable, because the article is no longer truly published pending court scrutiny, but that's a pretty slender reed. As to the issue of libel, although I can not find the Indian court order it was a preliminary order. That likely means substantive determinations on the Reuters article (again, only the one report which was taken down, not the still-live one linked above) are yet-to-come. So it's highly unlikely, and certainly not reported anywhere I can see, the report has been found to be libelous. If libel is found by the court at some later date, this article could be reconsidered on that basis. Oblivy ( talk ) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Companies , Computing , and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courts aren't arbiters of truth. However, since the company primarily seems to be notable for the article and the subsequent lawsuit, and 95% of the sources I can find online are about that, the article should be moved to Appin hacking allegation lawsuit . Or something more elegant than that. Cortador ( talk ) 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems there's still a fair amount of reports on the hacking. I'll change my vote to keep . Cortador ( talk ) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'll set aside arguments about GNG and NCORP (both are met) since they're not brought up in the nom. I don't think it can meet WP:LIBEL if it's verifiable and cited to reliable sources, and Reuters is a pretty top-tier RS, whose report is based not on one or two anonymous sources but on an investigation by three reporters who have a history of covering this subject area (one of whom has won an award for it). Reuters says it stands by its reporting, and RS that have covered the company after Reuters's removal (like 404media) do not treat the reporting as suspect, rather they blame lack of press freedom in India. It reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station , where we kept the article despite legal threats (against a Wikipedian, not just a news outlet). I would also oppose a move since the "main" story is the revelations, not the Reuters lawsuit about the revelations. DFlhb ( talk ) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The New Yorker reported on the issue, article is more than adequately sourced. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As author. Meets WP:GNG . My personal take on this is that India is trying to scrub a report into the darker side of its intelligence aparatus. I don't know why we'd want to help them with that. The irony here is that in trying to scrub the report, the company becomes more notable for trying to scrub the report. Streisand effect ? NickCT ( talk ) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable company. Article title change is not needed. Capitals00 ( talk ) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is libelous, the main source of the article has been deleted which was Reuters. Most of the publications from the websites were gotten from Reuters and since the reuters source is down, this should be considered no longer credible. Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have not evaluated notability as of yet, but as LIBEL is handled by WP:OFFICE , leaning speedy keep as AfD is not competent to decide on such an issue. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy/snow keep . I'm standing by my assessment that there is nothing for the community to do here. Offline sources are still sources. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the meantime pending the final determination of the lawsuit against Reuters article that has now been taken down. It can be recreated after the final verdict if it goes in favour of Reuters which is confident in its journalists and their reporting by stating that it stands by its reporting. The issue here is not about the notability of the company but the lawsuit. It will not be surprising if the company sue the other sources cited in the article as some of them quoted Reuters reporting as their source and if that happens it may lead to the taking down of such press articles thereby stripping this article of its major sources. Lagdo22 ( talk ) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The accusations were provided by Reuters, which is one of the highest regarded RS, and they continue to stand by their reporting. Since the article was pulled down by only a prima facie court order, Reuters has not had an opportunity to defend their reporting. If it turns out the content was falsified Reuters would retract the article and the article can be reconsidered then. The sources currently not being available due to court order is not an issue because WP:LINKROT is a known, very common, and already solved problem on Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This company is using bullying tactics to remove online mentions of its conduct ( https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul ). WP should be a repository for 'items of encyclopedic note,' not 'items of encyclopedic note unless wealthy, powerful firms credibly accused of criminal acts would prefer not to have mentioned.' -- Doctorow ( talk ) 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have added four additional citations, two extensively discussing the company and two about the controversy. If (a big if) there was any serious question about whether the court-ordered suppression of the Reuters story somehow defeats notability, this should put an end to it. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: while the original Reuters story was taken down, the takedown is now itself subject to significant independent coverage in reliable sources [61] . MarioGom ( talk ) 19:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2016 in Kuwait: Aydoh8 ( talk ) 23:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It's rather odd to think that nothing happened in the country for the whole of the year. A Newspapers.com search for Kuwait in 2016 returns about 15,000 hits. BD2412 T 00:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added two events, and more could be added. Jfire ( talk ) 04:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added three more. BD2412 T 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article has been expanded and referenced. Good work! Tails Wx 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see "Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah dissolved the Kuwait government and set new elections." So yeah, something important in that country's history happened that year. D r e a m Focus 04:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article has been cleaned up and covers a valid subject. TheBritinator ( talk ) 11:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tonya Suzanne Holly: Per IMDb, only accomplishments are When I Find the Ocean (2006) and The Mirror (2003). Other stuff (since 2012) still "in development". Nirva20 ( talk ) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , Women , and Alabama . Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good Tuscaloosa News profile, and other smaller sources found on Newspapers.com ( [54] [55] [56] etc.) contribute to pass WP:NBASIC . (Side note: appears that the page should be moved to Tonya S. Holly .) Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 04:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article should be improved by incorporating the Tuscaloosa News reference. rspεεr ( talk ) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883): Dazzling4 ( talk ) 16:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A very quick initial look makes me think that this is either a keep, based on NEXIST, or a redirect to the List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players - which is the long established consensus for dealing with articles where we can find so little biographical information to create an article and have little chance of doing so. In this case we have dates and the era in which he played. Playing for Yorkshire Second XI plenty of times between 1911 and 1913 suggests to me that there's a likelihood that sources exist in regional newspapers - presumably the Yorkshire Post and others. Put that alongside the offline Yorkshire book source already offered and I wonder how much detail there is on the bloke. He got a very short Wisden obituary, which is unusual for single appearance players, and my gut feeling is that there may be other offline sources there that I have no hope of being able to access. If he were a New Zealander we'd know easily - in this case we'd need someone with access to suitable newspaper archives in the UK. Given that we can verify who he was and that he existed from multiple sources, I have no reason to think that delete is an option here - this is either a redirect, which I wouldn't be opposed to, or a keep Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 06:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep My position remains the same as the previous AfD. Given his 1 FC appearance, and Second XI appearances for Yorkshire, probably the most covered county in the country at the time, there will be significant offline coverage of the subject. At worst should be a redirect to List of Yorkshire County Cricket Club players . Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 19:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not opposed to redirect, but I don't think leaving the article limping on in this sad state for another 5 years is a good solution. Dazzling4 ( talk ) 16:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Rugbyfan22. An infobox would be a nice addition. StickyWicket aka AA ( talk ) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added more on his brief career. Johnlp ( talk ) 01:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To consider Johnlp's addition and the suggested potential redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (see above for initial comments) - I'm happier to keep after Johnlp's additions Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per additions and above arguments. St Anselm ( talk ) 17:20, 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

The Baumoff Explosive: Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt ( talk ) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While it is correct that the article is lacking sources, I believe the topic is notable: The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction , p. 514, and Science-fiction, the Early Years , p. 367, each have a paragraph dealing with the story. This PhD thesis has more, distributed throughout. Icons of Horror and the Supernatural , p. 79, also has commentary, but I cannot see the extent. Together that's enough to support a reasonable article. Daranios ( talk ) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Äther - Ein Medium der Moderne , pp. 213-215, has two full pages discussing the story, but focussing on Hodgson's use of the titular Äther = ether in it. Daranios ( talk ) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , (note this was an edit-conflict with the above opinion, but I'm posting it unchanged): this is an awkward one. (1) the bar for notability of fiction is a very lopsided one; modern fiction can be assessed on the basis of independent reviews, but there wasn't so much reviewing back in 1919, and anything that got written about it back then will be hard to find. This problem is noted at WP:OLDBOOK . There, we're urged to use common sense, and consider the number of times the book has been reprinted. Since this 1919 story is still readily available more than a century later, I'd say there's a reasonable case that it has contributed to the history of literature and is notable in wikipedia terms. But (2) Hodgson's work is covered here in a weird way. We also have List of stories by William Hope Hodgson , which presumably exists to avoid William Hope Hodgson becoming too long. Many of the related series that he wrote have their own separate lists. (3) Overall, I'm in favour of keeping plot-summaries of his short stories somewhere , but I don't care whether this article, which is basically a plot summary, is kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of stories by William Hope Hodgson , which already contains plot-summaries of similar length for some other stories. My main worry about the merge option is that someone will then find the list-of-stories, be horrified by its length, and nominate it for deletion based on its lack of secondary sourcing. But the plot summaries themselves are fundamentally useful to readers, and verifiable. Elemimele ( talk ) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the sources given above and the comment explaining, is likely ok. No issues if we merge either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to List of stories by William Hope Hodgson . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or weak keep per Daranios. This is borderline when it comes to WP:SIGCOV , but I am confident this can be preserved somewhere. I am open to an appropriate merge target if that's the compromise. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources highlighted above show that this story should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Further discussion can be held after the AFD closes if needed to decide whether it should be merged anywhere or not, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am fine with it being kept until then. Rorshacma ( talk ) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Saroj Rana Praja: Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It passes WP:GNG and have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources like Online Khabar, Republica, Ratopati, etc. Thank you. Manalbare ( talk ) 12:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG . Fade258 ( talk ) 04:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as one of the Keeps is from a sockpuppet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to qualify on notability and sourcing. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:43, 11 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

Teodoro Vidal: Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Visual arts , and Puerto Rico . Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib. ) 13:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Teodoro Vidal and his collection of art has been covered by many sources ranging from academic and journalistic backgrounds. There are three academic articles cited on the page, one journalistic, as well as various shorter pieces from sources like the Smithsonian American Art Museum. An argument could be made that Vidal is understudied, especially in English, but the range of sources covering his impact on the cultural heritage of Puerto Rico and his impact on a major American museum should establish sufficient notability. Coffeycp ( talk ) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Easily passes artist notability with the Smithsonian collection [21] , and is featured in this book [22] . Many peer-reviewed articles about him in Gscholar as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , yes, easily passes GNG and has many reputable sources. And per Oaktree. Maybe not only do a "before" but a "present" as well. Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the Smithsonian collection gives him WP:SIGCOV . Contributor892z ( talk ) 04:35, 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

Kenneth Tse: Sources 4-7 are the author’s personal website, sources 2-3 are the website of the university where the author works, and source 1 is Yamaha’s website. The reliability is unknown. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 06:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . 日期20220626 ( talk ) 06:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , China , and United States of America . — Karnataka talk 07:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . He is a professor at UIowa (see here ) but doesn't amount to WP:NACADEMIC . Doesn't have a lot of reliable sources on the subject. Also, the tone of this article clearly violates WP:NOTLINKEDIN , and I am open to TNT. Speaking of promotion, this article was created by User:Meltse . One could argue the user name has "Tse" and looks related to the subject. Potential undisclosed COI? -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After I read the substantial evidence provided by Cunard , I am not inclined to !vote delete. However, this article has some room for improvement. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk ) 10:46, 31 July 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 Grames, Ronald E. (March–April 2011). "Kenneth Tse Discusses Modern Music and the Golden Tone". Fanfare . Vol.  34, no. 4. pp. 193–198. ProQuest 847856348 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse (pronounced cheh), professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa, is certainly one of the instrument's outstanding proponents on any saxophone aficionado's short list. He burst onto the scene in 1996 as the winner of the prestigious New York Artists International Award, which resulted in an acclaimed debut recital at Carnegie Hall. The Alex Award from the National Alliance for Excellence led to another Carnegie Hall recital. And these are but two of the multitude of awards that Tse has garnered in less than a decade and a half. Now at 38, he is vice-president of the Comité International de Saxophone, the organizing agency of the triennial World Saxophone Congress, and the premier advocate organization for the saxophone. He is well known as an outstanding teacher of his instrument, attracting some of the most talented students in the world to the University of Iowa saxophone studio, to the many clinics and master classes that he leads, and to the international saxophone symposium that he has established in his native Hong Kong." Breeding, Lucinda (2005-10-06). "Piano Concert Symphony Dinner Saxophone Concert Memorial to Robert Ottman" . Denton Record-Chronicle . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse will perform in concert Tuesday night. Hong Kong-born Tse has ap peared as a soloist with the Des Moines Symphony, Hong Kong Sinfonietta and the Baylor University Wind Ensemble, and has also recorded four solo albums. He is a doctoral student at the Univesity of Illinois, as well as a faculty member. Tse has caught the attention of The New York Times, and his peers have lauded his lyricism with the saxophone." Holland, Bernard (1996-06-23). "Classical View; Allowed to Wear Its Vulgarity Proudly, an Instrument Thrives" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, a young virtuoso from Hong Kong, took up the cause at Weill Recital Hall. ... Mr. Tse found interesting pieces by Pierre Max Dubois and Heitor Villa-Lobos. ... Indeed, the more skillfully the classical saxophone is played -- and Mr. Tse does very well -- the more irrepressible its "American" habits seem to be. ... One element well known to all of us is the sweet New Year's Eve vibrato as caricatured by Guy Lombardo. Mr. Tse valiantly fought it back in a transcription of a Bach sonata; still, Bach, usually instrument-proof, sounded exceedingly strange. ... Mr. Tse's shiny saxophone, for example, sounded lovely on its own terms; he looked elegant in his tail coat and red bow tie." "A musical evening with local talents" . South China Morning Post . 1994-07-20. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Tse began saxophone study at the age of 12 and won the first prize in the saxophone solo of the Hong Kong Schools Music Festival for three consecutive years. As founder of the Hong Kong Saxophone Quartet, he also won the first prize in ensemble performance of the Hong Kong Young Musicians' Award in 1989." Fey, Shari (2002-10-11). "Standing ovations standard at Lamarissimo!" . The Beaumont Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, a saxophone player of international reputation and a professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa, starred as the guest artist and earned a well deserved standing ovation, performing the virtuosic piece ""Fantasia for Alto Saxophone." Tse, who shares the University of Indiana as an alma mater with Weiss, was a true crowd pleaser. Tse's appearance was a bit out of the ordinary for a Lamarissimo! concert, because generally, these concerts feature Lamar personalities only, but as Weiss said, he had no hesitation because an international artist of Tse's reputation is a sure-fire crowd pleaser. Weiss was right. Not only was Tse's performance piece a hit, but when the alto saxophonist played the first few bars of ""Stardust" as the concert encore, the audience went wild with applause and stood for ovation No. 4." Kerns, William (2005-09-30). "Entertainment Briefs: Tse performs sax recital at Hemmle Hall" . Lubbock Avalanche-Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse will perform a recital at 8 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Texas Tech School of Music's Hemmle Recital Hall. ... After his 1996 Carnegie Hall debut, the New York Times called Tse "a young virtuoso." Fanfare magazine wrote, "Hong kong-born Tse is of the caliber of instrumentalists whose very sound is captivating." Tse is professor of saxophone at the University of Iowa and holds degrees from Indiana University and Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. He currently is completing his doctor of musical arts degree at the University of Illinois. " "New UI faculty member to give debut recital" . The Gazette . 2002-10-13. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Saxophonist Kenneth Tse, who joined the faculty of the University of Iowa School of Music in August, will perform two works written for him as part of his UI faculty debut recital program, at 8 p.m. Thursday at Clapp Recital Hall. ... The pieces written for Tse are both sonatas for alto saxophone and piano, one each by American composers John Cheetham and David DeBoor Canfield. ... Tse is an international performer and clinician. " Anderson, Maggie (2006-02-15). "Saxophone Alliance conference to be held at U. Iowa" . UWIRE . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse's office is a mess of yellow plastic bags, cardboard boxes, stacks of CDs, and music-festival programs. His grand piano has become just another shelf in the room, and only traces of worn wood suggest a desk underneath the pile. ... Tse, the membership director for saxophone alliance for the past five years and an assistant professor in the UI music school, applied to host the conference in 2004, and he has been planning for the event throughout the 10 months since learning the university would house the symposium. " Sullivan, Kenneth (January–February 1999). "Kenneth Tse, saxophone". American Record Guide . Vol. 62, no. 1. pp. 229–230. ProQuest 223389422 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse plays the saxophone with seductive tonal beauty. In this recital of international contemporary music based on Tse's 1996 Carnegie Hall debut, ... Even when he plays with the earthy abandon the instrument is renowned for, as in the abrasive Sonata for Alto Saxophone by Czech composer Jindrich Feld, Tse manages a supremely elegant tone. ... The repertory is fresh, the recording vibrant. A seductive collection. " Erdmann, Thomas (July 2007). "Kenneth Tse". Saxophone Journal . Vol. 31, no. 6. pp. 28–33. ISSN 0276-4768 . ProQuest 1336762 . The abstract notes: "In an interview, classical saxophonist and saxophone educator Kenneth Tse discusses various aspects of his career and his art. He describes his early musical background and training, which included eight years of self-taught practice before his entry into the Hong Kong Academy for the Performing Arts; discusses his bachelor's and master's study at Indiana University; comments on his teaching position at the University of Iowa; describes the types of skills he focuses on when doing music clinics; explains what he finds instructive about playing Johann Sebastian Bach's music on the saxophone; offers advice to saxophone students on playing multiple types of saxophones; discusses some of his recordings; explains his practice methods; and explores various other related topics. A selected discography and a list of compositions that have been dedicated to Tse are provided, and an inset details Tse's preferred instruments and accessories. " Wagner, Paul (May 2002). "Recommended Recordings: Kenneth Tse - "In Memory" ". Saxophone Journal . Vol. 26, no. 5. p. 42. ISSN 0276-4768 . ProQuest 1338983 . The abstract notes: "A recording of music by J.S. Bach, Eugene Bozza, Samuel Barber, Joseph Canteloube, Alfred Reed, Karel Husa, and Jerome Naulis performed by alto and soprano saxophonist Kenneth Tse is reviewed (no label given). " Banaszak, Greg (January 2004). "A Lesson with Kenneth Tse". Saxophone Journal . Vol. 28, no. 3. pp. 33–35, 68. ISSN 0276-4768 . ProQuest 1338263 . The abstract notes: "An interview with saxophonist virtuoso and music teacher Kenneth Tse is presented. Tse discusses teaching, with a focus on practice methods, such as what should be practiced, prioritizing, resting, and suggested exercises. He also highlighted building a saxophone repertoire and career. " "Bach and Bassoon / Trombone Classics / Kenneth Tse". The Instrumentalist . Vol. 53, no. 2. September 1998. pp. 8, 98. ProQuest 204878190 . The abstract notes: ""Bach and Bassoon" by Arthur Weisberg, "Trombone Classics" by John Kitzman and Janice Kay Hodges and "Kenneth Tse" by Kenneth Tse are reviewed. " Less significant coverage: "UI faculty recital will feature saxophone" . The Gazette . 2003-04-13. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Kenneth Tse, saxophone professor at the University of Iowa School of Music, will present a free recital with other UI faculty and guest artists, performing a wide spectrum of 20th-century works for saxophone at 8 p.m. Monday in Clapp Recital Hall on the UI campus. ... The program will present the saxophone in a variety of different contexts, from a duet for saxophone and clarinet, written expressly for Tse and his wife, to songs for voice with saxophone and piano, and larger chamber combinations that include the saxophone. " Blair, Brian (2010-09-18). "Top sax player to launch philharmonic season today" (pages 1 and 2 ). The Republic . Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 ) on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31. The article notes: "Kenneth Tse laughed at the question as if it were sheer silliness. But he acknowledged he's heard the query before the one about whether he is the world's top classical sax player. His measured response from a phone conversation at his office at the University of Iowa begged its own question: Even today, as he kicks off the new season for the Columbus Indiana Philharmonic, does such status really matter?" "Harmonies from saxophone and piano" . China Daily . 2005-07-16. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "Hong Kong-based saxophonist Kenneth Tse will join with pianist Amy Sze, also from Hong Kong, to give performance at a concert in Guangzhou. Tse is currently the professor of saxophone studies at the University of Iowa, also serving as the membership director of the North American Saxophone Alliance. " Lynch, Andrew (1994-07-12). "Prize performers" . South China Morning Post . ProQuest 1542925558 . Archived from the original on 2023-07-31 . Retrieved 2023-07-31 . The article notes: "On July 23, violinist Kwan Lap-hok, a co-founder of the Sinfonietta, and saxophonist Kenneth Tse, a founder of the Hong Kong Saxophone Quartet, will perform at the City Hall. While Kwan will perform Sarasate's Gypsy Airs and Tse plays Tomasi's Concerto for Saxophone and Orchestra, the concert also includes . ." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kenneth Tse ( traditional Chinese : 謝德驥 ; simplified Chinese : 谢德骥 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by Cunard. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Felipe Chamorro: Star Mississippi 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Chile . Star Mississippi 20:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - has had a national team call-up since last AFD and there is more coverage as a result, see e.g. this . Giant Snowman 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG with significant coverage on page. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Young player wiht ongoing pro vcareer who ahs already been called up to national team and has sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( 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

Nintendo DS Lite: Kpg jhp jm 06:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . The nominator has not made an argument for deleting this article, and links to a different nomination. What they say there suggests that they're attempting to open a merge request (mistakenly doing so at AfD), saying in their nomination that they suggest merging with Game Boy Advance . Apart from that, the idea that "few would care about" a topic is very much not an admissible argument at AfD. jp × g 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep clearly meets GNG — siro χ o 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously notable, and not even bothering to type a separate rationale for one of the most major selling handhelds ever is not a good look. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:19, 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

Warm (The Lettermen album): Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Album by a famous band and important influence (listen to the Beach Boys). Such articles are commonly kept, or if not, should be. Explain how deleting the article would improve the experience of readers searching on this term. Herostratus ( talk ) 01:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - Per WP:V , "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 14:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point, but that applies to material we adding to the article . When discussing the content or fate of articles among ourselves, we have a lot more leeway to offer opinions and claims without having to necessarily provide sources. For instance, we should absolutely not put in their article that they influenced the Beach Boys (until we have a good source saying that), but it's very likely true IMO, and that matters when deciding how important they are. Herostratus ( talk ) 00:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep major and historical band, hope that no other Letterman albums have been blanked or deleted on the basis similar to this nom. We don't expect albums of this vintage to have the same amount of current sources as 2023 releasses. In ictu oculi ( talk ) 09:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply - I think their compilation album was redirected. -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 14:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jax 0677 I assume you're using this as an argument to delete this album. Not a strong argument. If in doubt, consider restoring it and bring it to AfD and see what happens. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep adequate coverage in music trade magazines. A bit more work and referencing required and it should easily meet the requirements. Karl Twist ( talk ) 08:10, 13 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

Klefki: Both of the Kotaku articles are written in a heavily blog-style way, which WP:VG/S warns about: "editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance". (One example of the tone: "Meanwhile, you look back at, like, the original 3 starters and they're just a bunch of turtles. Turtles! Dude. C'mon.") It borders on the nonsensical. Therefore I think the previous discussion result still applies 3 years later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I find the argument of "the tone is too unserious" (strong paraphrasing) very rarely applied to this degree, and I would argue that it most definitely does not apply here. The example used at WP:VG/S is this: [23] Specifically, the discussion here is where the consensus came from, where a user argues "My only concern is that Kotaku will also still run geek'ed out articles (eg, anything tagged "fanart" for example)". Rather than this article being an attempt to ignore the previous AfD, I feel that this AfD's argument is an attempt to ignore the context behind the discussion in order to get an article deleted that you personally feel does not suit GNG. From an article that was AfD'd in the past, Deathclaw , is this source, which you used and defended : [24] I would contend that this runs afoul of the consensus on Kotaku's use, where the author is just reposting stuff about a mod, as opposed to the source you take issue with, where the author gives their own opinion on the subject. As an aside, you have been around enough that you should understand that it is appropriate to notify all editors that would reasonably expect to be notified as part of this AfD. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While I'm not going to vote on this particular article as of yet, I am going to comment on the nominator's particularly aggressive tone as being a bit much, and while I'm assuming good faith I feel saying stuff like "this feels like an attempt to ignore the previous deletion discussion in 2021" is not. Additionally I feel that bringing up the previous AfD is a bit unfair, as comparing the two articles there has been significant improvement, while the heavy focus on the previous AfD in the nomination gives the indication "it's just the same article". -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment Expanding on this, the primary argument in the above, that this article by Patricia Hernandez is a "geeky blog post", it provides three things to the subject in question: an examination of the character, a statement regarding it's popularity and her reaction to that, and an examination of it in a broader real world sense both compared to other designs in the series and folklore. While there's definitely a "tongue in cheek" element of some of the commentary, nonetheless she is making a comparison, and Zx you yourself have argued for outright significantly tongue in cheek sources from this publication in other AfD discussions. A consistent mindset given the frequency of your nominations would be nice.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly, I'd say this is a more concerning example of gaming the system . I would agree that the Sigma source is fine, but the fact that Zx regards it as acceptable despite being significantly more tongue in cheek makes me feel that he is arbitrarily applying consensus on Kotaku in this case depending on whether he opposes or supports deletion, which is an extremely serious issue with an AfD nomination. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's pretty clear there is nothing arbitrary about my deletion nominations, which is a big insinuation. In Sigma's case, the article isn't dependent on that source to prove notability. In the case of Klefki, those are arguably the only reliable sources mentioning Klefki in a significant way that could count towards notability. NME is a simple announcement; TheGamer is about object Pokemon in general, a discrete subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zx you used one half joking comment about turtles in the light of simplistic design to discredit a whole article but somehow argument an article built around "these two characters are named Sigma, let's compare them" as an article you argued for as a valid source. Can you reasonably not see a problem there? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that claiming that an editor ignored a prior AfD is a big insinuation. Additionally, if this was the only example, maybe you would have a point, but as has been shown, you do have a pattern of defending geeky blog posts from Kotaku. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the massive amount of pop-culture references in Overwatch, including retro video games, comparing Sigma to Sigma is not necessarily as goofy as it appears, despite your arguments it is essentially the same and I am a hypocrite. And my problem was not just that the turtles comment was humorous, it's just outright ludicrous. Charmander is a lizard; you have to squint really, really hard to even see Bulbasaur as somewhat being similar to a turtle. It doesn't bode well for the author who wrote it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I had a long write-up about the fact that you're impugning the writer based on a factual inaccuracy (I can't imagine how few sources would be usable if we held all authors to this standard), but I think I'll save it, because the fact that you're honestly framing the Overwatch article as not being very tongue-in-cheek is absolutely shocking. The author literally frames it as an investigation of if they're the same person, a framing that is patently absurd if you were presenting it seriously. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There seems a lot of comment here on the nom. , but what is important is the sources. Looking at these sources, many are clearly primary, so could someone suggest the WP:THREE best sources you would like me to take a look at. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are what I would consider the strongest sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also this source , where the interviewer asks about its creation, with the implication being that the question came about as a result of the negative reception. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep On top of what was there before, there have been several more sources added to the article since. I'd say that it's more than enough to justify Klefki's existence. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon#Klefki - Asked for WP:THREE and got five. Let's look at them. [29] is Kotaku , a gamer news site although also described as a blog. Despite being a blog, it appears to have editorial oversight and can be given a pass on reliability. But the review opens with "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?" This then is a WP:PRIMARY source and primary sources do not count towards notability. Per WP:GNG , sources should be secondary. The fact that some new thing is written about in specialist review sites that write on the subject when it is new tells us nothing about notability, and neither can this be considered sustained coverage. So that one won't do. [30] is also Kotaku. The writer is different and not an editor, but the same comments apply. Primary sourcing. So what of the others? [31] has "Fans have discovered that ‘Pokémon Klefki’ is available in multiple regions". This is also primary, in a generally reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources . Then we have [32] . This one is, at least, speaking about a subject and concept. It is talking about "Object Pokemon". Klefki is not the subject of the article but mentioned as an example of Object Pokemon. This article might be some evidence for an article on the class of Pokemon that are objects, and Klefki would be a valid redirect there, but it does not contain significant coverage of Klefki itself. Finally [33] starts off with "The latest core entry in the Pokémon franchise is the biggest step forward the series has taken in many years." This sounds good, but actually it is not talking about Klefki. Klefki just gets passing mention as part of a discussion of improvements. Additionally this is another primary source. So, in short, there is nothing here that speaks to an enduring notability of Klefki as a subject in itself. Pokemon is notable but notability is not inherited. Nothing in these sources shows why Klefki as a concept or character is independently notable of Pokemon. I would happily consider an alternative redirect if there were a notable object pokemon subject page. I can't find one though, so the original redirect as an outcome of the first AFD appears correct. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not in agreement that Kotaku is a primary source. Neither of their articles are written by or hosted on sources directly involved or close to an event. The policy says "insider," and the examples are a scientist's comments of their own results and a first-hand eye witness comment, neither of which could be comparable to critic commentary on a subject. What part of this section of policy are you arguing Kotaku fits under? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you may be confusing independence with primary sourcing. If someone writes about some new thing when it is new and because it is new, it is a primary source. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY and also WP:PRIMARYNEWS . Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews. That is why I gave more weight to [34] - but as I pointed out, the secondary coverage there was on the concept of object pokemon, and not Klefki. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, the argument that it was written about because it was new does not apply to the second Kotaku article, which was written six years after the release of its game of origin. Secondly, I would contend that the first Kotaku citation is an example of a "book review." It may have been written as a response to X and Y's newness, but it's also in-depth commentary by the author of an aspect of the game. Looking at WP:SECONDARY , the article fits this much better: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In the example, it suggests a military historian's talk about the life experiences of their own experiences as an example where a secondary source may be a primary source. In this case, the author is providing "analysis, evaluation, interpretation" and "synthesis of the facts," rather than being used to recount anything about herself. I strongly disagree with this interpretation of primary and secondary sourcing. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are we talking about the same article? The Kotaku article is primary. Ask yourself, what is it in that article that suggests Klefki is an independently notable thing? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the author elected to go into significant detail about it. Or, more on the nose, the fact that the author describes Klefki as a notable Pokemon, and says so in such a way that makes clear that it stands out from most other Pokemon. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It says it is notable for being ridiculous. But that is not WP:N that is the opinion of the author writing in a primary source as to why, at the time of introduction, this was getting attention. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at what you selected as the five best sources, and I think I have said all that needs saying on these. My view above stands. I'll leave it there, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No strong opinion on whether this article should be spun out, but I don't think this (Sirfurboy's interpretation) is the standard interpretation of WP:PRIMARY as it applies to notability-conferring sources. Reviews contain primary information on the opinions of the reviewer, but secondary information on the thing under review. See the footnote in the cited guideline, saying that reviews are evidence of notability: Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. ~ A412 talk! 19:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I both linked to PRIMARYNEWS and signalled what it said about how a book review can be secondary, and by analogy, why one of the above can be understood to be secondary. I also pointed out why the others are primary. An article starting "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?" is primary. Books can be deemed notable provided they have suitable reviews, yes. But this is not a comparable particular. We are not talking about a game (analagous to a book) but to a specific character, and thus comparable to a book character. The notability guideline for books (NBOOKS) is not analagous. We are looking at WP:GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not drawing the analogies to book reviews because I think NBOOKS is analogous to video game characters, I'm citing them because I don't think your position reflects consensus on whether review pieces on newly released things are primary, which by my reading, they are not. This time from PRIMARYNEWS: "Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents". Perhaps we disagree whether the Kotaku source does "provide information beyond a basic description", but I think it clearly does. ~ A412 talk! 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is exactly what I highlighted when I said Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews. That is why I gave more weight to [12] . So yes, if you think a review of whats new Pokemon designs that describes one called Klefki, with a basic description of what Klefki is is a secondary source, then we are very much in disagreement about what constitutes a secondary source. The review is this one [35] . It is all description and no analysis. This is someone describing a new character in a game. No analysis. It is reporting. It is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The author analyzed its possible origins. The concept that Klefki is a tsukumogami is an original concept proposed by her, as a response to the discourse over whether Klefki was an unoriginal design. Hernandez does not report, for example, that Klefki is a more interesting design than the original starters. This is all clearly analysis. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just another editor chiming in that, while I can see varying arguments on whether or not its significant coverage, the claim that Kotaku is somehow a primary source for a Pokemon is way, way off. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The piece is literally reporting on the latest Pokemon characters and describing what has been released. Please take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS . In what way is that secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question was answered previously, I do not know why you have not responded. Once again, the notion that Klefki is a tsukumogami is NOT "describing what has been released," it is an original analysis of the subject. I have no earthly idea why you are holding this position, but I worry that you are drastically misunderstanding what the source says. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read this whole discussion? Your assertion is widely (unanimously even?) being rejected as incorrect. This is not a news event, it's a fictional character. If Nintendo or Pokemon Company -the subject's creator - were writing the article on their website, it would be primary coverage. Or if Kotaku were just reposting a Nintendo press release, it would be primary. But Kotaku's own writing on Pokemon is not primary, as they have no actual connection with the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a news event, it's a fictional character. And this is why I pointed to what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews, reviews of works of fiction. Book reviews are secondary when they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents. Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material . We don't seem to provide an academic discussion of sourcing of Pokemon characters, but this is making the exact and comparable point about fictional characters. And for the level of review that one expects to find to show the notability of a fictional character, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savely Govorkov . As the review in question about the new pokemon character is just a description of the pokemon a report that people are talking about it, more description of its battle prowess, and sandwiched in all that, 4 words that might pass for analysis: "it's kind of ridiculous," this is a primary source. I am not saying all reviews are primary. I specifically said the opposite from the start. I am saying this one, based on its content and its proximity to the release, contains no secondary analysis (unless you want to credit "its kind of ridiculous"). It is reporting of something that is new. It is a primary source. I am entirely unconcerned that people may be disagreeing with my view here. The simple fact of the matter is there is no secondary analysis in that article. It is not a secondary source. Further, the lack of connection with the subject you mention is a red herring here. That makes this independent and sources also have to be independent, but see, for instance, WP:Secondary does not mean independent . It must be secondary and independent. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but I don't believe your application, or the bar you've set is consistent with common community interpretation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Sergecross wholeheartedly here. Judging by unanimous opinion that the argument is very strange, I'm encouraging you to consider that your own interpretation of what a primary source is may be incorrect. You also seem to have completely misunderstood the contents of the article, given that, once again, the article at multiple points discusses the character in terms and ideas not inherent or official to the character. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to point out that all of this back-and-forth is going to make it harder for the closer to make a determination. Everybody has made their point by now, and in my opinion, it's best if we let other people consider what's here, look at the article, and make their own judgment. Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we're still okay, as we're still trending pretty strongly towards "keep" at the moment, but I don't plan on commenting further regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I largely agree with Cukie Gherkin that this is not the same article that was merged three years ago, and that these are not primary sources. The "strongest sources" that Cukie provided in here (particularly, both Kotaku sources and the Game Informer source) show that Klefki has enough notability for a standalone article, as does the Screen Rant source cited in the article, and possibly more. MoonJet ( talk ) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Kotaku review that's under discussion ( [36] ) seems reasonably strong to me. It is clearly commentary and not just description. I am not convinced by Sirfurboy's argument that apparently everything in the world is primary, and I am not convinced by the nominator's argument that the review should be discounted because it contains a silly sentence. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm going to be honest, I was surprised this got made at first because I had tried to make an article for either of the well loathed object mons of gen 5, but there wasn't anything as biting. But I was even more surprised when I did check the sources and I feel this article is more than justified due to the commentary for Klefki. I think what would set this article apart from other "object pokemon" is that whilst yes it features in listicles here, it also has the articles about this pokemon specifically, which I can't really say for a pokemon like Vanillish. Especially the Kotaku source, which as Touchpigs has mentioned above, seems quite in-depth in terms of commentary, even if slightly blog like. These sources I do not believe to be primary at all, that's not how I would ever view an article like this before at all. That is all, Captain Galaxy 00:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While there is a lot of commentary on the "object" Pokemon from this generation of Pokemon games, particularity stuff like the ice cream or garbage bag and whatnot, I feel Klefki stands out a bit for how much commentary there was, but also because the criticism reached so much it resulted in a question directed towards Sugimori. I feel that shows some degree of real world impact, albeit how light, and Klefki works as an example of contrasting the later generations of Pokemon to their earlier counterparts, even if it is a "Death by 1000 cuts" situation. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't think it's a "home run" for notability, but per my and others comments above, I think it's it enough to clear the minimum bar of the GNG, and like others, reject the notion of some of the third party sourcing like Kotaku being a primary source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I didn't record a bolded vote earlier, but per my rationale in my threaded comment that Kotaku, and other sources, represent independent secondary sources (even if I'm not thrilled with the quality of said sources). ~ A412 talk! 07:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources presented makes Klefki meet WP:GNG . The Kotaku source is obviously secondary and independent. Skyshifter talk 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Michael O'Brien (New Hampshire politician): X ( talk ) 08:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep gets a freebie per NPOL. Djflem ( talk ) 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable." from WP:NPOL and there is information that he is from reliable sources , [44] [45] [46] (although I have to say they were far too hard to find and if he wasn't in the NH house it would be an easy delete) Shaws username . talk . 14:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Clearcut case per NPOL. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NPOL . He is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives . MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk ) 19:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hold our horses - NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. New Hampshire has one legislator for every 3,300 people, which is one of the lowest if not the lowest in the entire world. Are we sure he has coverage as a result? There's nothing in the article apart from his legislative profile and the sources found here aren't about him. SportingFlyer T · C 10:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It can't be true that NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. If there were coverage the GNG would suffice. NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway. The presumption of notability in NPOL is not a rebuttable presumption . It's a guarantee of notability. That this is the case is clear from the discussion of local officials and unelected candidates at the bottom of the guideline, where it states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability If elected state level officials weren't guaranteed notability by NPOL it wouldn't be necessary to explicitly state that local officials were not. Central and Adams ( talk ) 13:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not what "presumed" means - the dictionary definition is literally "to take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary." We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here. SportingFlyer T · C 21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It literally is what one sense of the word "presume" is. I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the OED notes what you quoted as only one of two meanings, the other being "To assume; to take for granted; to presuppose; to anticipate, count upon, or expect". Which sense is intended is, as with all polysemous words, determined by context, which is why I argued from the context that the meaning here is as I stated. You're talking about the definition of a rebuttable presumption. My argument is that the sense meant here is an irrebuttable presumption. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Central and Adams Greetings. You said, NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway . -If a person is indeed notable, then why won't they get proper coverage? To my understanding, notability is vehemently based on coverage. How can a person be notable and not have coverage? What is notability based on if not on coverage? We give people freebies if they've won some reputable awards or an academic or a notable politician, but I don't think you'd find many person not having coverage meeting any of these criteria properly. I'd like your take on that. (PS: Agreeing with @ SportingFlyer on this) We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here. . X ( talk ) 08:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If notability is based solely on coverage then why would we need any notability guidelines other than the GNG? The very fact that NPOL contains a presumption of notability shows that it must apply in the absence of coverage. If there were coverage it wouldn't be necessary to have a presumption of notability. If all NPOL meant were that politicians are notable unless there's no coverage it would say the same thing as the GNG, so why would it exist? Central and Adams ( talk ) 09:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We really only do have the GNG. We have presumptions because it makes it easier to figure out what can and can't be covered, but in the past few years we have generally tied the presumptions very close to the GNG. The NPOL presumption exists because if you're a member of a state legislature, it is almost certain you will have been written about in reliable secondary sources, which is helpful for say someone who was a member of a historical legislature who we can't access sources for. In O'Brien's case, he's an active legislator, but one source is just the state website, the other source in the article just shows he's an alderman (the only thing on him on that website is his address) and a ballotpedia page, which is a wiki. Because of the fact there's no secondary information we can use to build this page out, and also due to WP:BLP concerns, it's probably best if this were redirected somewhere, and the information in the article merged there until we can write a stand-alone article. Also, I think this would be pretty close to being New Hampshire-specific, considering how few people vote on state legislators there. Most other MPs have much larger constituencies and as such have much more written about them. SportingFlyer T · C 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure why you say there's no secondary information. It took me about ten minutes to find a ton of it, which I added to the article. But I still maintain that even if this weren't possible to do the dude would still pass NPOL. Also, it's not true that we really only do have the GNG. WP:N says explicitly that a subject is notable if it passes either the GNG or a subject specific guideline. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how it's been interpreted recently for most guidelines anymore, but there are a few exceptions. The new coverage removes any objections I've had, though. SportingFlyer T · C 17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As a member of New Hampshire House of Representatives , meets WP:NPOL . As long as it is verifiable the individual holds the office, state legislators are worthy of a stand alone article. There will be information about the subject in the official pages of the NH legislature - including votes taken and bills introduced and sponsored. There are records of election results. All of this is good, verifiable information that can build a strong article, even if there is limited newspaper coverage now. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets WP:NPOL , as others have mentioned. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL . If some believe GNG isn't met, then NPOL's validity must be challenged to the community as a whole like WP:NSPORTS was. Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 19:12, 21 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

Cemal Akçin: ManILoveEatingChess57 ( talk ) 20:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL as he was elected four times to the Turkish Parliament. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NPOL . His status as MP can be verified with machine translation. Needs the attention of a native speaker. Jfire ( talk ) 03:12, 11 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

Arabesque (rapper): Shellwood ( talk ) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: While the article certainly needs improvement and more sources, news outlets reporting that they were Juno nominated does hold some notability. It seems like an article that could be salvaged with additional sources. LemonberryPie ( talk ) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Believe does meet requirements of notability stated in WP:MUSICBIO . duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article does need some improvement, but he has a Juno Award nomination under his belt — please see WP:NMUSIC #8, in which the Junos are explicitly listed as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes that criterion — and there are already sources in the article from the likes of the Toronto Star and Now and Exclaim! , which are solid and GNG-worthy sources. Yes, improvement would be helpful, but what's already here isn't inadequate at all. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bearcat has provided evidence of notability. Lightburst ( talk ) 18:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets notability with nomination for a major music award and coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk ) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:SINGER per Juno nom. Resonant Dis tor tion 21:43, 3 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

Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani: Moreover, a sockpuppet account accepted the article at the Articles for Creation stage. CGGCA201 ( talk ) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics , and India . CGGCA201 ( talk ) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CGGCA201 : Welcome to Wikipedia! I see this is the first time you have nominated an article for deletion. A few minutes before this nomination, you nominated Neeru Yadav (which I'm yet to look at), so these are your first entries. A pre-requisite before nominating is to do some checks as part of WP:BEFORE . Dhanraj Nathwani is the President, and not vice president as your nomination states. I understand that the Career section states vice president, while the lead states president, and the references are from 2019, but he was elected president few months back. See [1] or the GCA page which should have been part of your WP:BEFORE . Jay 💬 17:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay WP:BEFORE check is a must, noted. However, I am currently having some difficulty comprehending how to modify the nomination statement. CGGCA201 ( talk ) 00:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If all you want is to change one word, you can use the strike out (... as the vice president of the ...), so participants know what the wordings were earlier. If you want to change the rationale of the nomination, you may strike out the entire nomination, and write your new reasoning under it. If you wish to withdraw, you can add a line under your nomination saying you wish to withdraw and a closer will close the AfD before the scheduled 7 days. Jay 💬 05:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is an industrialist and administrator. How does WP:NPOL matter? Jay 💬 08:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay cricket associations in India are political hotbeds . Regarding Nathwani, how can someone who doesn't have a cricketing background ascend to the presidency of a state cricket administrative body? If he doesn't satisfy the NPOL criteria, he appears to fall short of other Wikipedia standards as well, including the WP:GNG , WP:BIO , and WP:SNG . CGGCA201 ( talk ) 17:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't have the answer to your question on the criteria for presidency of GCA. The point here is does NPOL matter. The article does not call him a politician. Do others, including himself, project him as a policitian? I didn't understand the second part of your sentence. Are you saying that GNG, BIO, SNG are dependent on NPOL? Jay 💬 17:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do others, including himself, project him as a policitian? The Answer is Yes. Scroll article excerpt : "Dhanraj Nathwani, son of Parimal Nathwani , the Reliance Industries’ Group President overseeing Corporate Affairs and Projects, is vice-president of the committee managing the Dwarkadhish temple in Gujarat. Why would corporate bosses want to be managing temples? According to the sociologist, this adds to the company’s security in relation to the state government. “If they can control the Vaishnav sampradaya, it gives them a political advantage,” he explained." His social media posts, specifically the thread, mostly revolve around political pleasantries rather than his actual role in Reliance corporate affairs. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate his portrayal of political ambitions. Facebook post : depicts political inclination Another Facebook post : depicts political inclination Now, turning to the second portion of my statement. From my understanding of the notability guidelines, WP:NPOL is an extremely specific category that is considered a final option when we are unable to assess someone's notability according to WP:GNG / WP:BIO at the initial stage, or WP:SNG at an intermediate stage. CGGCA201 ( talk ) 04:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for responding on the "projecting" part. I was looking for something more explicit. An analyst in his commentary talks about political advantage, and social media posts indicate his ideological leanings. If he had claimed he is a politician, or others had said so, and if the presence of his article on Wikipedia was as a result of the claim of his notability as a policitian, NPOL would have been applicable, however what we have now is a subject who is an industrialist and administrator. What you have said regarding NPOL is one of the usages of NPOL, but the way you had worded it in your previous post was misleading. If a subject who is a politician satisifies GNG, it is not necessary that he satisfy NPOL, and vice versa. So considered on their own, they are not dependent. See the WP:BIO #Additional criteria on how the basic and additional criteria work. Jay 💬 05:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have fixed the Career section to be consistent with the lead, and replaced the 2019 references with the 2022 one. Jay 💬 14:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator may have erroneously linked the Gujarat Cricket Association with a political party. NPOL only applies to politicians and judges. Since the subject in question is not the president of a political party, NPOL is irrelevant and inapplicable in this case. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 13:37, 24 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! 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think. This article was previously nominated for deletion and speedily kept after the nominator learned that offline sources are acceptable for Wikipedia. I cannot evaluate the offline Gujarati-language sources cited in the article, but I think the English-language sources are likely sufficient to meet the GNG, in that they demonstrate nontrivial coverage of the article subject in independent reliable sources. Based on the outcome of the previous AFD, which doesn't appear to be disputed here, I would have to assume that the Gujarati sources would eliminate any remaining doubt on the subject. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Like many other AFDs, this discussion would benefit from more participation from our experienced editor corps. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NPOL doesn’t apply to being president of cricket associations. Appears to meet WP:GNG per the sources. Robo Cric Let's chat 04:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are many other reliable sources in the article to satisfy WP:GNG . Some are [2] , offline coverage from Divya Bhaskar, Gujarat Today etc. These all discuss the life and career of the subject other than his involvement in GCA. Giksongeorge ( talk ) 05:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It clearly passes the WP:GNG and have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to the subject like DeshGujarat, Times of India, Indian express, etc. Thank you! Fade258 ( talk ) 05:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and close now per Wikipedia:Relist . Okoslavia ( talk ) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okoslavia , you've been editing for 2 1/2 months. I'm glad you are learning about Wikipedia policies. But don't try to tell discussion closers what to do. I've seen you do this twice now, order a discussion closed. You don't have the editing experience to lecture others. Collegiality and getting along with other editors can be as important as knowing Wikipedia code words. L iz Read! Talk! 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Citations Analysis Citation No: 1 Yuva Bharat: The Heroes of Today By Devir Singh Bhandari (Source date: 26 Jan 2021) - The portion of the book that discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani predominantly consists of his own quotes, with minimal input from the author. રિલાયન્સના ધનરાજ નથવાણી મુશ્કેલ અર્થવ્યવસ્થામાં સકારાત્મક રહેવા પર Citation No:2 (Offline Source date:17 July 2020) - English Translation of the Title: Reliance's Dhanraj Nathwani on staying positive in a tough economy . It is evident from the title itself that this printed article solely presents his perspective on the Indian economy. WP:INTERVIEWS Citation No: 3 Top RIL executive succeeds Amit Shah as Gujarat cricket body chief (Source date: 20 Nov 2022) - A citation from a reliable source, as added by Jay, in accordance with WP:RS. Citation No: 4 The Political Fix: What does the 'Narendra Modi Cricket stadium' tell us about his politics? (Source date: 1 May 2021) - There is only a minimal mention that briefly discusses Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's presence on a stage alongside his father. It lacks substantial coverage on him, but it clearly indicates that his appointment as GCA president is a political decision. ધનરાજ નથવાણી જીસીએના નવા પ્રમુખ છે Citation No:5 (Offline Source date:29 Sep 2019) - English Translation of the Title: Dhanraj Nathwani is the new president of GCA . WP:CHURN Citation No: 6 Find out who is Dhanraj Nathani, the new chairman of the GCA. (Source date:28 Sep 2019) - Merely a profile of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani found on a generic media portal that does not meet the criteria of being considered a reliable source according to WP:RS . Citation No: 7 Dhanraj Nathwani unanimously elected president of GSFA (Source date: 7 Aug 2017) - It is merely an announcement of his election as the head of the state football association. I question whether it even qualifies as WP:FOOTY Citation No: 8 GCA elects all officials, except Amit Shah’s successor (Source date: 29 Sep 2017) - There is a brief mention of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani being appointed as a vice president of GCA (Gujarat Cricket Association). However, it lacks significant coverage or in-depth information. WP:SIGCOV . Citation No: 9 Dhanraj Nathwani takes over as Vice Chairman of Dwarka Devasthan Samiti (Source date: 11 Aug 2016) - The text simply serves as an announcement of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani's election as the leader of a religious organization. Interestingly, it also highlights a pattern in his career advancement. It appears that positions previously held by his father, whether in Reliance Industries, Gujarat Cricket Association, or Dwarka Devasthan Samiti, have been directly transferred to him without any opposition. It is quite evident that when his father resigns from Rajya Sabha, it is highly likely that Dhanraj will pursue that position without facing any opposition. Perhaps during that time, he might meet the criteria for being considered under WP:NPOL . ધનરાજ નથવાણી સાથે મુલાકાત Citation No:10 (Offline Source date:29 Sep 2019) - English Translation of the Title: Interview with Dhanraj Nathwani . WP:INTERVIEWS and WP:CHURN In addition to the aforementioned citations, the other offline citations in the local language are essentially WP:INTERVIEWS and WP:CHURN . They fail to meet the criteria for Wikipedia Notability in every aspect. If anyone requests it, I can compile a list of few of these citations and share it here for others to consider. Charlie ( talk ) 13:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to respond to new source analysis by those advocating Keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CGGCA201 : Which other offline citations are you referring to? Are they newspapers/magazines without an internet presence? Which Notability criteria for citations are you referring to? Here, since the discussion is about notability of Dhanraj Parimal Nathwani, are you saying that there are no credible sources, not only in the article, but otherwise, that have substantive coverage of the person? Jay 💬 09:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jay The offline citations I mentioned earlier can be found at Nathwani's official website , where they were listed. As an Indian, I can easily recognize that a significant portion of the news articles, due to the strong similarities between Hindi and Gujarati texts, are predominantly WP:CHURN and WP:INTERVIEWS . Charlie ( talk ) 03:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The media coverage snippets at his official website are not relevant to this AfD. It is not clear if you are suggesting if the subject does not satisfy GNG. Jay 💬 06:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologise for any lack of clarity in my previous communication. The reason for nominating this page is primarily due to the subject's inability to meet the necessary GNG criteria, both in terms of online citations and offline references. Charlie ( talk ) 11:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Leaning towards keeping this article because of the availability of offline sources because of his administrative positions. He holds the administrator positions of two important sports associations. Because of this there must be offline sources available other than the ones already in the article. I'm adding some other online sources giving him good coverage to meet GNG. [3] , [4] . Also it is only the assumption of the nominator that some of the offline sources are WP:CHURN by just looking at the title. It is true that many of the articles will be in the form of interviews. But most of them are not completely interviews; indeed gives in-depth coverage about who the person is what is their career about etc. Moreover the offline sources are from some of the most reputed publications in the country. 117.254.34.1 ( talk ) 05:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I Looked at all the refs and it passes basic. Desertarun ( talk ) 09:37, 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

Detachments (British band): Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:10, 10 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! 08:57, 17 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! 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I made a major overhaul of the article and added several references. There are plenty of reliable sources about the band out there, and more work can be done, but I have made a start. Deleting the article seems extreme. If people really don't think the band itself is notable, then what about renaming the article to "Bastian Marshal" (the vocalist and seemingly "leader" of the band)? And then making it about his work in general with this band and his other work as well, as it seems he has had a lot of involvement with music apart from just this specific band. Vontheri ( talk ) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, if it wasn't obvious, my vote is for keep . Vontheri ( talk ) 16:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just about sufficient independent coverage and reviews have been added to the article from sources such as BBC , The Guardian and Resident Advisor to get over the line and meet WP:NBAND . Resonant Dis tor tion 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sabine Wren: Propose revert to previous redirect MicrobiologyMarcus ( petri dish • cultures ) 19:27, 12 October 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 . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sabine Wren is a major character with notability extending beyond the in-universe plotline. The article should be marked as a stub with much potential for expansion, as it does not consider most of her storyline in Ahsoka. Also, Comment : Draft:Sabine Wren still exists, so it appears that something has messed up in the conversion of the draft to mainspace. TNstingray ( talk ) 20:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ TNstingray The current content in the article was directly copied from the draft article by IP user 81.34.93.251 (without attribution), who then proceeded to blank out the draft (although its content has been restored later). I think a history merge might be applicable here if the current content in the article was to be kept. (Side note: Should the AFC submission template on the draft be removed? The "review in progress" one was added by the IP user mentioned above.) Jolly1253 ( talk ) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) (Update: The template has been reverted back to "review waiting". Jolly1253 ( talk ) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep . secondary SIGCOV in Karen M. Walsh's Geek Heroines: An Encyclopedia of Female Heroes in Popular Culture [46] Ken Napzok's Why We Love Star Wars: The Great Moments That Built a Galaxy Far, Far Away [47] Derek R. Sweet and Dominic J. Nardi's The Transmedia Franchise of Star Wars TV [48] Jason T. Eberl, Kevin S. Decker and William Irwin's Star Wars and Philosophy Strikes Back: This Is the Way [49] Agree with need for history merge. — siro χ o 21:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Siroxo's booklist, an abundance of online references (a few of which I've added), as well as the fact that this character returned the Mandalorian Darksaber to royalty and created the artwork (Wren phoenix crest) that was the basis for the Rebel Alliance logo that is used all over Star Wars movies and spinoffs, she is significant enough to have her own page. LovelyLillith ( talk ) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sabine Wren is a major character with huge notability in many Star Wars productions. Merlyn26 ( talk ) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Sabine Wren is yet another character in Star Wars. She has not been a main protagonist of any project yet, and has not gained a cult following or have been of significant importance to Star Wars universe to be notable. F.Alexsandr ( talk ) 13:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Each of these points is demonstrably false. She is a main protagonist of Rebels and Ahsoka , has a significant following, and is of significant importance within the Star Wars universe to be considered notable. TNstingray ( talk ) 20:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

StoneToss: (Previous discussions: [5] , [6] ) As observed in WP:BEFORE , the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV . Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST . All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media. The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [7] [8] WP:NPOV Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [9] [10] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming [11] per WP:RS , sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] WP:SIGCOV , and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [18] [19] WP:RS . One notable source [20] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [21] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Webcomics , Politics , and Internet . GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm divided, because, on one hand, I'd like to see Wikipedia have far fewer articles about random internet personalities. Unfortunately the extent of this specific personality's involvement in far-right radicalization within the United States likely makes him somewhat notable. Ultimately I would say that the references at the SPLC and the ADL indicate more notability than simply showing up on Wired and, on that basis, I'd argue for Weak Keep Simonm223 ( talk ) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose . Both articles contain only a single sentence in reference to the subject [22] [23] An obvious example of a WP:SIGCOV problem. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Delete – While StoneToss has become somewhat more notable recently, it is going to be near impossible to keep within the guidelines of WP:NPOV for WP:BLP for this article given the number of detractors he has. GranCavallo ( talk ) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete . Outside of the doxxing incident, he has received little significant coverage. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Alt-right pipeline or a similar article? Estreyeria ( talk ) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per WP:RS , WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns by nom. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs ) 18:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. trainrobber >be me 19:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is POV about it? 208.87.236.202 ( talk ) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing POV about the article. The article reflects WP:RS . Tar nis hed Path talk 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Include - Is notable and influential in the far-right scene. I'm surprised this matter is even contentious. Roadtruck ( talk ) 19:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE SWinxy ( talk ) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Concerns about adhering to WP:NPOV are not by themselves sufficient to justify deleting an article, since editors have navigated this on similar WP:BLP topics like the articles for Ben Shapiro and Thomas Robb. Stonetoss having many detractors is not a major issue since most of his detractors are not Wikipedia editors and some of his most vocal supporters are likely to be editors as well (generalizing based on the wider population). I would be willing to take on the task of rewriting this article in a neutral POV. The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/ ]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist". As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic ( talk ) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist". When those reblogs are from the creator themself , it most certainly does. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In support of @ Brusquedandelion 's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to , and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case ( talk ) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They're likely only notable now because of the "incident". I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose , there's no need for a split . When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone. Tar nis hed Path talk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - In agreement with replies from @ PARAKANYAA , the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df ( talk ) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event ( WP:BLP1E ), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception ? — Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking at the sources in this section, ADL - passing mention GNET report - passing mention GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about ECPS - this one is good CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022). "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes" . Global Studies Quarterly . 2 (2). doi : 10.1093/isagsq/ksac002 . ISSN 2634-3797 . Archived from the original on March 21, 2024 . Retrieved March 17, 2024 . (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) — Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics." They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason. Elspea756 ( talk ) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked. A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail". Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong. — Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep they are very well known online and on social media, and very controversial as well. rename perhaps? 108.49.72.125 ( talk ) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to what? PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] something like "2024 Stonetoss controversy" like another user suggested or something along those lines 108.49.72.125 ( talk ) 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 1 and 8 talk about the individual and the Twitter accounts that got banned, and the events around this decision. Likely somewhat more notability now than when I ! voted last time, given what's happened. Should be ok for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I started out editing Wikipedia by successfully deleting dozens of vanity webcomics. This is more notable than all of those combined, backed up with many reliable sources, even before his recent outing. And it's fine to mention the author's name after it has been covered by reliable sources, it's those sources we base our judgement by. The media have a history of unmasking pseudonyms , I think we're overdue a new Banksy or Satoshi Nakamoto outing. - hahnch e n 02:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - We're not here to right great wrongs or to virtue signal, we're here to determine whether a subject meets our standards for inclusion based upon the General Notability Guideline or some focused Special Notability Guideline. This subject in the wake of widespread current coverage in addition to past coverage, clearly does. Fuck the alt right, but that's neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk ) 05:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject clearly has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG . We're not here to WP:RGW . We're here to reflect what WP:RS have to say. Tar nis hed Path talk 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It seems to me, judging by the sources, this comic clearly passes GNG. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not cleanup, and whether to describe him as "neo-Nazi" in Wikivoice is something that should be discussed, rather than used as an argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:GNG , so whether he passes WP:ARTIST or not shouldn't be a relevant factor. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : By the way, I want to point out that the arguments regarding StoneToss being unimportant to people who aren't "extremely online" or that the article is only about social media usage are unconvincing in my opinion. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , but still, if dril can be a Good Article I don't see why we would need to delete an article on the basis of somebody being a pseudonymous Twitter user. Di (they-them) ( talk ) 10:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly passes GNG. Schierbecker ( talk ) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article may need to be reworked but StoneToss as a comic is notable, and there is a lot of news coverage on it. RPI2026F1 ( talk ) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's worth noting that the page [24] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10 , gross abuse of WP:BLP . As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE . Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG , but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) , which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied. ( WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case). Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else. A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user. MiniMayor98 ( talk ) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG , and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied. Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. , and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability . (emphasis not mine) Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral? If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation. Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG . -- K.e.coffman ( talk ) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS -based coverage to pass WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up . Justarandomamerican ( talk ) Have a good day! 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part. On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic. Candent shlimazel ( talk ) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic? — Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size. Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect. Tar nis hed Path talk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all". Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs ) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close. Tar nis hed Path talk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia , doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%. Not half, but close. Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable. Candent shlimazel ( talk ) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with @ Candent shlimazel , as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays. Alexschmidt711 ( talk ) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG , as noted above. Isi96 ( talk ) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are plenty of good sources here. The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename. There is no distinct second topic here. The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article. DanielRigal ( talk ) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject. Dympies ( talk ) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources. Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns). The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality). More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate. DFlhb ( talk ) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Well said. In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures. Simonm223 ( talk ) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose . Statements in your comment are simply incorrect. You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false. Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS . This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over). The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP , by the way) . While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN , they are just one of the issues listed by the nom. It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions. Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media. GoggleGoose ( talk ) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GoggleGoose , not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source. To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate. Tar nis hed Path talk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't mention it as a statement against a source. I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP . GoggleGoose ( talk ) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per DFlhb. A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered. — Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's it? At WP:ANI you had written ( diff ): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10,

keep

Furze World Wonders: Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2019. PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. Donald D23 talk to me 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Canada , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 01:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : After a before search, topic appears to fail WP:NTV . –– Formal Dude (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . I added these sources to the article: Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-26). "Furze World Wonders TV review by Melissa Camacho, Common Sense Media" . Common Sense Media . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The review notes: "This energetic, kid-friendly series features Colin Furze figuring out how to create larger-than-life builds for activities like BMX competitions and music concerts. With the help of a team of expert makers, he's able to build and test prototypes in an effort to produce a result that's both functional and impressive. ... Nonetheless, tweens may still be drawn to Furze World Wonders thanks to his high energy, sense of humor, and edgy inventions. As a result, kids may not realize that what they are watching are practical applications of science and engineering principles to DIY projects. It's more entertaining than educational, but there's still something to be learned from it." Thompson, Avery (2017-09-28). "Colin Furze's New Show Is Great DIY Fun" . Popular Mechanics . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: "Furze World Wonders premiered Thursday, September 28, and features Furze touring the world, visiting fans in need. Each episode has a fan with a problem, and Furze solves that problem with lots of welding, hammering, and pyrotechnics. The show is a welcome change of pace for Furze, and not just because he's building things for others. Each episode is longer, around 21 minutes, which means more time to feature Furze's thought process surrounding his builds. Furze also works with a crew of builders, which ends up shaping each build in a different way and increasing the scale his absurd machines can grow to. ... While this show is great fun with excellent pacing, it might leave something to be desired for fans of DIY builds. While there's lots of focus on planning and delivering the builds, the actual build process happens mostly behind the scenes. The best thing you'll get is a few timelapse welding shots and Furze explaining how the finished product works." " "Furze World Wonders": la serie de YouTube protagonizada por un inventor extremo" ["Furze World Wonders": the YouTube series starring an extreme inventor]. El Comercio (in Spanish). 2017-09-27. Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes from Google Translate: "On Thursday, YouTube Red will launch a new series called "Furze World Wonders" starring Colin Furze, extreme inventor and YouTube superstar who has more than 5 million subscribers on his channel. ... The 37-year-old YouTube star will give life to this new production that will have 10 episodes and will premiere on September 28. Colin will put his invention skills to the test in order to help other people." Matthews, Kayla (2017-11-13). "10 YouTube series that are just as good as real TV shows" . Deseret News . Archived from the original on 2023-04-10 . Retrieved 2023-04-10 . The article notes: "Colin Furze is an inventor with quite a lot of brainpower to spare. As such, he bestows fans with his smarts to help them achieve their goals, whether they’re traditionally inventive or not. For example, in one episode, he helps a group of indie musicians try to become “rock gods."" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Furze World Wonders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Colin Furze . Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- at least two of the references provided by Cunard are specific and relevant to meet the GNG. matt91486 ( talk ) 13:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

TwoTiime: No discography or chart activity, and no third-party independent coverage. Sources are all primary, consisting of promotional interviews, press releases, and subject's hometown publication ( Ottawa Citizen ). 💥 Casualty • Hop along. • 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC . There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ( [20] [21] ) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ( [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] ) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ( [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S . This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥 Casualty • Hop along. • 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion , though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Clearfrienda that together shows significant coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A little promo in an article is not a criteria for deletion except of blatant ones. I am sure of the articles presented per se from Complex . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 22:06, 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

Russell Henderson (disambiguation): The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Leaning oppose for now (I removed the PROD), but this may be a technicality that can be resolved. The problem is, that WP:ONEOTHER says: " If there is a primary topic located at the base name,... " and bases everything that follows on that condition. However, that condition is not satisfied, since the primary topic is currently not located at the base name, and so I presume that ONEOTHER does not apply here for the time being. The primary topic is clearly the convict (who has the PARENDIS, at

keep

Ghastly Ones: That song placement is only discussed in esoteric cartoon discussion boards, while the band has no reliable coverage and is only visible at typical streaming and retail services, with occasional fan-written reviews. The article is currently dependent on Discogs.com entries and a dead streaming link, and I was unable to find anything better. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - See also the deletion discussion for one of the members of the band: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrett Immel . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California . --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (just). Via the Wikipedia Library, some review articles in mainstream print newspapers from the 90s: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . The SpongeBob connection is confirmed here: [5] . On the whole I think this passes GNG. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 16:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kudos for tracking down those obscure sources. I'm not the combative type of nominator because I don't have to look at the article ever again, so I will merely submit a counterpoint: Three of those newspaper articles are actually brief album reviews that have little to no biographical info on the band (which should be the point of the band article here), and mostly admit to noticing the album because it was on Rob Zombie's label. That may run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED . The fourth newspaper (Orange County) only mentions this band briefly in a general article about their genre. Meanwhile, I submit that the SpongeBob placement runs afoul of WP:ONEVENT . With this additional info, the band could be deemed just barely by the thinnest possible shave not non-notable, which could be stretched into "notable", but that's not particularly inspiring. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems entirely combative. Re oneevent, 1, we don't have an individual here, 2, you can't say because the spongebob placement is one event we'll ignore everything else, doesn't work like that, we don't say because "Bruce Springsteen has taken a nasty fall on stage" is oneevent we'll delete the whole article on him. Re only being album reviews, You can't really seperate coverage of the bands work from coverage of the band. Write an article about what the band has done. Re the Rob Zombie connection, yes the got noticed in part because of their record label (and that's why we have criteria like WP:BAND#5) but it is still coverage of them and their work. re notinherited, there has been no argument of the type they worked with Rob Zombie so they are notable, your dismissal is closer to a notinherited argument than anything else duffbeerforme ( talk ) 08:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why I said "may" or "merely" multiple times in my comment, and conceded that I don't have to look at the article ever again. Your statement "Seems entirely combative" is unintentionally ironic. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Weakest of ! keeps. The newspapers cited above seem ok, not substantial but they look good enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . In addition to the sources identified by Barnards.tar.gz, I'd note that there is some substantial coverage in industry periodicals in the context of the band's role in Rob Zombie's decision to set up Zombie-A-Go-Go Records , e.g. CMJ New Music Monthly and Billboard . (The CMJ article specifically credits Zombie's experience watching the band with his decision to set up the label.) So that's two mildly significant events that have occasioned independent coverage in reliable sources that yields a decent amount of content for an article (which, to be clear, is just a more straightforward way of saying that this appears to meet WP:GNG .) I don't feel like losing this article would be a terrible loss for the project but it seems like there's enough to work with here that deletion is not justified. I don't believe the WP:NOTINHERITED essay has much bearing here -- it seems directed to an argument like "there's lots of sigcov of Rob Zombie, therefore this band that he interacted with is also notable", which isn't what's going on here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 17:30, 25 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

Hebraization of Portuguese: Fram ( talk ) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal . Fram ( talk ) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm leaning Keep - but I'm wondering whether this is better merged with Judaeo-Portuguese which is an extinct Jewish language. There appear to be academic sources discussing Judaeo-Portuguese and I'm not now sure if they also support this page or not. JMWt ( talk ) 09:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is the Judaeo-Portuguese alphabet. Mario The PS2 Guy ( talk ) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a useful article on an obscure topic and one for which references undoubtedly exist. it is worth keeping and improving. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nigerian Chrislam: Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . If 'embarrassing the subject' was legitimate grounds for deleting articles, we'd have a great many fewer. Since it isn't, we'll have to go by normal Wikipedia practice, and look at notability instead. The article seems adequately cited, and Google Scholar turns up a considerable number of sources, so deletion seems inappropriate, and this AfD seems misconceived. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 02:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Invalid deletion rationale. Finding good sourcing on this subject. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 02:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per AndyTheGrump. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 05:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep even if it doesn't occur anymore it is a notable historic phenomenon. Add to the article that it does not happen anymore instead Immanuel le ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing should be added to the article without a source. AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 01:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the edit history of this article shows that IPV6 editor @ 2A00:23C8:941E:CD01:B8E2:BD4D:1349:ACD3 repeatedly blanked information on this page including adding a "does not occur anymore" comment (possible 3RR violation). Several minutes after the last revert, account @ Taku234 was created. Neither has edited anywhere else in Wikipedia. Agree with other editors there appears to be no valid deletion rationale. If this moves anywhere close to delete, I'll review further and vote. Oblivy ( talk ) 01:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Pbritti as this an invalid nomination Kaizenify ( talk ) 01:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Batons (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Batons (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of wands . Batons (suit) / Suit of batons is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of wands is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge . These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So Batons (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of wands is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of cups and goblets, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the names need sorting out and perhaps they could be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

European route E404: Seems to be a joke on HTML error 404. Sourceless since creation in 2012. The Wasp [my nest] 10:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Belgium . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: What seals the deal for me is this sentence: [[The route exists, but]] it is not signposted or on any maps. . This is clearly some kind of joke or hoax. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I learned below (with some help), this is not a hoax. But GNG still indicates that this is an unsuitable article subject. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I changed my opinion to keep. See reasoning far below. Delete . Not a hoax. It was supposed to be a road that has been planned and was designated an E number, yet it hasn't been built. gidonb ( talk ) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, the map linked in the article does show a road in that location, but it doesn't even label it. Even if it's not a hoax, WP:GNG , WP:V , etc. Not a suitable article subject. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why I propose to delete. Just for the historic record, it was a plan and the number had been designated. [16] It's labeled on said map (you need to zoom in). [17] Some bridges for the road had even been built and were lately removed. gidonb ( talk ) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like I‘m losing my mind a little with that map: I can‘t find E404 to save my life. E403 is there, but E404 between the two named cities just isn‘t. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are probably looking at the main map instead of at the top-left inset. gidonb ( talk ) 22:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aaaah, there it is. Thanks. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 07:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Error 404 , road not found. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 23:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Redirect to Error 404 as the road really cannot be found. Perfectly sensible redirect :) [ Humor ] (Sadly 1st April's long gone - I guess I have to be serious and say Delete for being a non notable road, Fails SIGCOV and GNG) . – Davey 2010 Talk 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you can prove that it is an actual E-road, then WP:GEOROAD does apply. However, its existence is in question. -- Rs chen 7754 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I understand it, the road was planned but never built. And how rigidly should we adhere to a guideline that says "typically" when we haven't been able to identify any good sources? I understand that SNGs are intended to supplement GNG, but an NEXIST argument for a road that never existed seems to be a stretch, and I don't think we should keep an article with no appropriate reliable sourcing, even if it technically falls into an SNG. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 21:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article would have to be completely rewritten, because this article about a fake road is, as far as I can tell, about a 100% real road . Such roads are "typically notable" but I'm not seeing GNG, only mentions and primary sources. It is worth noting that almost the entirety of Category:International E-road network is stubs - do we need to have some wider review, here? casualdejekyll 21:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Surely you cannot be serious about the last part. For example, European route E75 exists in 37 language Wikipedias. Are we the English Wikipedia so arrogant that we think we should delete an article that 37 other Wikipedias have? Rs chen 7754 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why should I care how many WIkipedias it's in - the English Wikipedia is the English Wikipedia. Anyway, there appears to be usable sourcing in the Italian and Russian versions of the E75 article for improvement of ours. But that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. casualdejekyll 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : If I'm interpreting WP:NROAD correctly, this kind of road is not inherently notable. International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable (my emphasis). It's the networks that are notable, not every single road that belongs to the E-road network. At least that's how I'd interpret that sentence. What do you think User:Rschen7754 ? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is clearly not the intent of the sentence. It would be like saying that states, provinces, cities, and counties are inherently notable... but countries are not. Rs chen 7754 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If this truly is a hoax, then of course it should be deleted. If not, keep per WP:DINC . – Fredddie ™ 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] gidonb 's comment above includes supporting documents that confirm this was a serious proposal, at least for a brief moment of time. This one [18] appears to be the minutes of some city/regional council meeting where members debated the merits of rebuilding and expanding the existing road N348 (which OSM confirms does exist in this area) for E404. However, if this is the only other source that can be found, it implies to me that this proposal was short lived and fizzled, as the portion of it I read (via Google Translate of course) sounded like nobody was enthusiastic about it. Dave ( talk ) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as you imply, there sure are reasons it never got off the ground. I removed my delete because the ghost bridges and a tiny 404 road section on them actually received sufficient coverage. At nlwiki this is a second article next to the 404 article but we should combine. I don't have the bandwidth to redo the article or even to argue a lot about this. Sorry. The topic is notable. gidonb ( talk ) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey Liz, I donno if the below refers to my message above but I had already corrected my ! vote. Sorry for putting you on the wrong foot, if I did. gidonb ( talk ) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is confusing because in the discussion, it looks like some editors think this article should be deleted but are not coming out saying the word, "Delete". I understand that AFD is NOTAVOTE but the closer should not have to interpret your intent by reading between the lines of comments. Right now, we just have a nomination statement askinf for Deletion, two editors advocating Keep and a misguided Redirect request. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:GEOROAD is a thing, and it explicitly mentions the International E-road network as types of routes that are typically notable. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : GEOROAD doesn‘t indicate that planned roads are also notable. Given that this was never built, I think coverage would be much more limited than in the cases GEOROAD was intended to refer to, so I don’t think this is notable under that guideline. We also have very little to go on to make, say, an NEXIST argument. I don‘t see it. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 06:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete GEOROAD does not apply to roads that were not actually built. Reywas92 Talk 13:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep International E-roads are notable per WP:GEOROAD . Roads are notable even if they were never built and gotten past the planning stage since there was at least a proposal for a road to exist, and usually there are interesting reasons why a road never got built. Unless this is a hoax, which does not appear to be the case, then this should have an article. Dough 4872 16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't make things up. There is no precedent whatsoever that a nonexistent highway is automatically notable – significant coverage be damned – merely because a number has been assigned were it to be built. International e-roads might be notable, but this is not a road . There must be better sources to establish notability. Reywas92 Talk 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Genuinely not sure. Looking at other pages, we could create a start-class article for this, but only using sources from the EU, which may not be secondary, and even then it's not much of an article. I think deleting this would make the encyclopedia worse, but it also fails WP:GNG , and WP:GEOROAD doesn't provide clear guidance. SportingFlyer T · C 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note also different languages have different sources and the Dutch language version even includes a bit about ghost bridges which were constructed and then deconstructed (and the ghost bridges have their own article too!) If kept, this article should be revised to look like the Dutch one. SportingFlyer T · C 21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The more recent delete comments are based on the idea that this road was never built. I'm. . not actually sure that that's true? It appears on File:International E Road Network green.png , for some reason. Clearly, it wasn't built as originally intended. I think it might be the otherwise inexplicable disconnected segment of A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle, Belgium , which doesn't otherwise appear to have anything to do with the rest of the highway. . or any other highway, for that matter. casualdejekyll 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FWIW, it doesn‘t appear on Google Maps, nor Apple Maps, nor satellite imagery. What piece of highway are you referring to? The A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle looks relatively normal to me. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It wasn't built, it was a cancelled freeway dating back from 1977 according to the Dutch article. Stub ramps were built over the railroad tracks, that was the extent of it. Cancelled freeways can indeed be notable as well, so whether it was built shouldn't determine the outcome. SportingFlyer T · C 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I started a discussion about this over at the talk page of WP:GEOROAD. I think there is some agreement that unbuilt roads need to meet GNG, or at least are not automatically notable the way a comparable road that was completed is. This is really a question of how we read GEOROAD, so that discussion may be helpful for this AfD. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 06:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least there should be a redirect to list of unbuilt European motorways - if this would be the only item in the list I think it's fine keeping it as a stand-alone page. It's very minor information but I don't want to lose it, especially considering it could be expanded. SportingFlyer T · C 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or it can redirect to International_E-road_network#B_Class_roads where it is listed as "road never built". Reywas92 Talk 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Google Maps doesn't show E numbers at all in Belgium, and that's the only mapping service I checked. I'm generally unsure - that was just a guess. Note how I haven't ! voted any which way, because I really have no clue. casualdejekyll 20:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think if we have no clue (because there seems to be no verifiable info on this whatsoever), that supports a deletion more than anything else. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's absolutely wrong that there's no verifiable information on this. There's available sources in the Catalan wiki including potentially [19] (the other two don't mention the road, not sure if this one does but the Catalan wiki translates to that the works are available there) and in two Dutch wiki pages, and continues to appear on maps for some reason. Also considering this was cancelled in 1977 there may be more information in historical newspapers, and nobody has undertaken that search yet. SportingFlyer T · C 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What I meant was that we haven‘t actually identified verifiable information beyond „It exists. “ in the discussion. Re-reading my comment, it’s clear that this was not expressed well. My bad! Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's also not true. If you search for the right road, there's plenty on the cancellation for a stub, as per my previous comment. The problem is the information's potentially duplicative, as the E-routes combine a number of local routes, and this E-route would have been potentially concurrent with a single stretch of road. SportingFlyer T · C 21:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An additional problem may be we might be looking for the wrong thing. The E404 was going to be attached as a European number to a motorway which was unbuilt as part of either the A17, A301, or A11 per several different sources: [20] [21] for the A11 extension, and then the A17/A301 through some Dutch wiki-sleuthing and List of motorways in Belgium . So this really should be concurrent with either the A11 article or more likely the A301 article. SportingFlyer T · C 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 00:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Keep per foreign language coverage found by @ Gidonb : Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 23:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment following are just a few sources on the subject. The difficulty is that the national newspaper archive of Belgium blocks access to the more recent articles. That said, there is much more, also in other newspaper on the destruction of the road. [22] [23] [24] ] [25] [26] [27] gidonb ( talk ) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable after sources have been found on it. There's an editorial question as to whether this should be a stand-alone page or a redirect to a new page on a local Belgian road, considering most sources talk about the road and not the European designation for said road, but considering that page doesn't exist yet, this is currently the "correct" place for it. SportingFlyer T · C 13:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in some form since there are clearly sources on it. -- Rs chen 7754 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. The most recent commenters (who've looked at the recently mentioned sources) are advocating Keeping this article or at least leaving this page title as a Redirect. So, my question is if there is more support for a Redirect than Keeping this article and, if so, what would the target article be? I'd especially like to hear the opinions of editors who in the early stage of this discussion were advocating for Delete as this discussion has clearly evolved since it was started 3 weeks ago. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per everything above. I feel vindicated for never bolding a ! vote until now casualdejekyll 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Conjugal love: GnocchiFan ( talk ) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's undersourced, but it's been around 12+ years and clearly more than a dictdef. But this makes me wonder if there's another article on the same topic somewhere that this should be combined into. Jclemens ( talk ) 03:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jclemens : The closest I can think of is Romantic love . BuySomeApples ( talk ) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, but that's a very distinct concept. Conjugal == of or relating to marriage; romantic love is pretty orthogonal. We don't have spousal love either. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh yeah, that makes sense. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep imo, although it clearly badly needs improvement. Google scholar is giving me a plethora of articles discussing this as a philosophical topic. — Moriwen ( talk ) 23:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Not unsourced. Yes it is brief, but it is more than a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jack Teixeira: This is the suspect in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks , from which his notability entirely derives. Most of the article describes him in the context of these leaks, and his biography is otherwise unremarkable. It is possible that during and after his likely trial, enough will be written about him as a person to warrant a separate article, but we are not yet at that stage. For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large. Sandstein 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify for now, until the story has some time to be looked at and reported on in the media. This is still ongoing and it's probalby TOOSOON. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Military , and United States of America . Sandstein 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: "3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. " There is already significant coverage, and his role was clearly substantial. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: WP:BLPCRIME is worth considering. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLPCRIME includes "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law", so that aspect seems to undermine the suggestion that "his role was clearly substantial" in the event; the content of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article also does not appear to describe a clearly substantial role. Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLPCRIME stipulates that a BLP subject cannot be asserted in the article as having committed a crime before being convicted by a court. That does not remotely enjoin us, as editors, from coming to a consensus that a subject had a documented role in an event. Be he ever so innocent, no one can credibly assert that Teixeira and this event have no connection. Ravenswing 07:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLPCRIME does not imply no connection, and BLP1E#3 discusses either a substantial or well-documented role. From my view, we are currently limited by BLPCRIME and other parts of BLP policy, such as the prohibition on sensationalism and BLPGOSSIP, from showing a 'substantial or well-documented' role. After material is pruned from the article to comply with BLP policy, what appears to remain is a pseudobiography with an undue focus on the event, which supports a merge per WP:BLP1E #2. Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep — The continuous coverage of Teixeira, with articles on who he is, just barely passes this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify He will be notable upon conviction most likely, but currently being formally a suspect may not be enough for an article. I suspect he will be convicted eventually, so I'd say draftify rather than delete. Brandmeister talk 14:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MERGE into 2023 Pentagon document leaks . conman33 ( . . .talk ) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per Brandmeister . Mooonswimmer 15:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Esowteric. Thriley ( talk ) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per other comments. I'd rather see this parked until the justice system runs its course. Right now there's too much white noise around the whole thing. Intothat darkness 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, we will find out a lot more about the subject, along with his involvement and the extent of this leak and crime. As others have said above, Teixeira's role was significant, and was both substantial and well documented. — That Coptic Guy ( let's talk? ) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Esowteric . His role has received significant coverage. I would also like to add the detail regarding his life before then and I suspect that more is to come. - Knightsoftheswords281 ( Talk - Contribs ) 15:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a BLP nightmare that falls under both WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME . We have no idea what the outcome will be and we have people already saying he will be notable upon conviction . This can be covered in the article on the leaks. You simply cannot say his role was substantial unless he is found guilty. This should be redirected to the article on the leaks now and potentially deleted if the case falls apart. nableezy - 15:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And for what makes this a BLP nightmare, consider the sentence currently in the article: Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that Teixeira had violated the Espionage Act. The Attorney General does not determine if somebody violated the law. Their office may charge somebody and they may say that they believe that somebody violated the law. We already have unambiguous BLP violations in this article, and that is what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to prevent. nableezy - 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : Coverage suffers from WP:RECENTISM and this would fit nicely within the leak article itself without also being a walking BLP disaster. Curbon7 ( talk ) 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Teixeira’s alleged leaks were notable, and continued over a significant period of time. His alleged actions were also unique, in that he is charged with sharing them casually with friends while playing Minecraft and other games. In short, he was an ANG member with significant access to classified intel who allegedly shared secret intelligence. The damage he is alleged to have done is only now being analyzed. He is notable, as charged. Should he be found not guilty, we can revisit this later. (Edited) Juneau Mike ( talk ) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This entire comment is a BLP violation. nableezy - 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. My entire comment represents charges filed in federal court. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 16:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you are claiming they are true. Please read WP:BLPCRIME , particularly the bit A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. nableezy - 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article will stand the test of time. I stand by my original ! vote. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And it should be removed as a BLP violation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that since this comment the above ! vote was modified in this diff. nableezy - 19:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:BLPBALANCE , The idea expressed in Eventualism —that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times , so revisiting this article after the criminal court process concludes does not appear supported. What appears to be fair to the subject at this time is to include relevant and WP:BLP policy-compliant content in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article, and as noted in the AfD nomination, later consider a split per WP:SS as needed. Beccaynr ( talk ) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unsure . I would say it is a case of WP:BLP1E , he is only notable for the leaks. (i normally don't read the "Wikipedia:____" pages regarding biographies as i don't usually work on them). At the same time, I would probably vouch to merge this page, albeit reduced to a few sections or so, due to the notability of the leaks. However I would also keep it because of the wide media coverage the trial might have, a similar reason to Nicola Bulley 's case because of the media coverage regarding her disappearance. Otherwise I'm unsure. e ( talk ) 16:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, you know what? Since a lot of people (80-90% of voters) are vouching to keep this article I might just as well join in the crowd and vote to Keep this article. Since the leaks began, he has made it into nearly every major media outlet and thus has a lot of media attention due to the severity of the leaks. e ( talk ) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the keeps are closer to 60% right now, not 80-90%. Don't forget, draftify/merge/redirect affect the discussion. Also your !vote may be downweighted or ignored by the closer if you don't provide an argument stronger than WP:MAJORITY . Arguments should be grounded in Wikipedia policy. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep. Agree fully with potential "BLP nightmare" concerns, and fully support the pushback against editor statements here that presume guilt, such as that of @ Juneau Mike . The former, and manifestations in-article of the latter, can be addressed by careful editing (ensuring termes like "accused" and "alleged" are used throughout). But it is simply a matter of fact that, in the modern era, guilty or not, an individual accused of such a high-profile crime, and taken into custody in such a public and dramatic fashion—they become notable, and remain notable, even if eventually absolved. As a point of comparison, see the history of the article on Richard Jewell ; as long as this individual has to be in the public spotlight, WP does a potential service, in fully applying its policies and guidelines, in the presentation of the best independent, verifiable, source-derived information on the title subject. Absent that, the web-browsing public, at best, only has access to individual reports (and so will often lack the breadth and scope that an encyclopedic presentation can provide). And at worst, they are subject to the whims of recommendation engines and click-baiting/biasing practices that do not necessarily elevate the most reliable reporting in general search results. No, there is a service to be provided here, and it can be done without violating WP standards. [a former university faculty member] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 ( talk ) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: my comments have been limited to the talk page. I haven’t edited the article. When I do in the future, my edits will take into account BLP. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 17:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] BLP applies everywhere, including the talk page and this AFD. nableezy - 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. You are allowed opinions in talk, so long as they are not presented as fact. My only error was not making it clear that these were my opinions. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read all of WP:BLP , or at least the first paragraph. nableezy - 18:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This person has been in the top story of the front page of the New York Times for several days, so I think this fails #3 of WP:BLP1E . Agreed with the BLP concerns, though those can be handled within the article itself; they do not require deletion. The article already contains enough sourced material (and clear scope) to justify its existence separate from 2023 Pentagon document leaks . — brighterorange ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as WP:BLP1E has an exception for those with a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Whereas 2023 Pentagon document leaks will focus on the content of the information and its foreign policy implications, this article highlights the unique political motivations of this suspect amid significant news coverage of right-wing extremism in the military presenting a national security risk. [1] [2] [3] This article does not violate WP:BLPCRIME in describing anecdotes about the subject attributed to specific classmates and online users. However, the Espionage in the United States category needs to be removed until a potential conviction. I removed it a few hours back but it has returned, so noting the issue here to seek consensus. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ The Editorial Board (2022-11-13). "Extremists in Uniform Put the Nation at Risk" . The New York Times . ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-04-14 . ^ Ware, Jacob. "The Violent Far-Right Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Military" . Council on Foreign Relations . Retrieved 2023-04-14 . ^ Goldwasser, Rachel. "Extremism Among Active-Duty Military and Veterans Remains a Clear and Present Danger" . Southern Poverty Law Center . Retrieved 2023-04-14 . Keep : Per Brighterorange and Esowteric. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME . — scs ( talk ) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep As NPP for this article so might be seen as involved, but I am baffled we are spending time questioning the notability of an individual accused of causing a major international diplomatic crisis and whose actions have made global headlines, usually accompanied by a detailed biographical profile. He has already been compared to Snowden in the political impact of his actions (even though the way information was leaked here was different). He will remain notable on his own whether he is convicted or not. This, to me, is a completely misguided attempt to assign WP:RECENTISM and is not doing encyclopedia any good. We could be spending this time ensuring the quality of article is high, so that people who will inevitably be searching his name online get the most reliable information. This whole thread is a timesink. Ppt91 talk 16:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks . Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME , I don't believe there are currently grounds to establish a standalone article for this person. It may well be the case that he ultimately proves to be independently notable, but as things stand now, keeping his article on those grounds would be WP:CRYSTALBALL . ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs ) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see the "Strong keep" reply above referencing Richard Jewell . 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 ( talk ) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BLP1E requires "each of three conditions [to be] met". Please clarify that you understand that all three need to be met, and that you still find this to be the case. Cf. argument of @ User:Brighterorange in their vote to “Keep”. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 ( talk ) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I believe all three conditions have been met. While Teixeira has been charged in relation to the leaks, in the absence of a conviction it's not Wikipedia's place to state that he was responsible for them. Thus, it's not conclusively established whether Teixeira had any role in the event, let alone a substantial or well-documented one. It's plausible that he will ultimately become notable even if he is ruled to be uninvolved - your example of Richard Jewell demonstrates how even inaccurate allegations can become notable if they're sufficiently prominent - but, again, WP:CRYSTAL advises us not to write articles based on presumed future notability. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs ) 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Weak Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks , the subject has achieved a somewhat significant level of notability through his actions, however this level of notability is (in my opinion), just barely enough to warrant an individual article, however I am split on the manner so I personally believe either keeping the article or merging it with 2023 Pentagon document leaks would suffice. Dellwood546 ( talk ) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Draftify into article on leaks. Subject is not notable enough by himself to need a whole article until further developments. Frzzl ( talk ) 18:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment An article for Faisal Shahzad was created on May 10, 2010. He wasn’t convicted until almost six weeks later. I don’t believe a conviction is necessary to establish notability. One can be a notable defendant. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 18:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This individual was arrested by a large military contingent including helicopters, armored vehicles, and manned by heavily armed soldiers with full military gear. It makes sense to conclude from this that the United States military considers this individual to be an extreme threat that must be intercepted in a manner that sends a strong message. Such a massive show of force by the US military against a specific individual makes this person worthy of public documentation such as a Wikipedia page summarizing important known facts. There should be a distinction between this individual and the larger issue of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks which is an issue touching on all aspects of production and control of the documents in question. M0llusk ( talk ) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is a controversial article. CastJared ( talk ) 19:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : In accordance with WP:BLPCRIME . If he is proven guilty, an article can be made, until then he is considered innocent. There is no hurry. Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 19:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per what Brighterorange said. Seekallknowledge ( talk ) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I think WP:GS/RUSUKR applies and non-EC comments should be struck. I've also requested page protection at WP:RFPP . RAN1 ( talk ) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly passed significant-coverage test . Neutrality talk 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And what about the last line of WP:NSUSTAINED ? nableezy - 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Teixeira is clearly not "a low-profile individual." Neutrality talk 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You might have a point if that is what it says. But, unsurprisingly because it would render moot the entire BLP1E policy, that is not what it says. What it says if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual . Otherwise remains , meaning outside of this event, that we already have an article on, is the person expected to have some profile. nableezy - 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a single event situation. The subject of the article is accused of disclosing classified documents over a series of months. And there are multiple events here: (1) the alleged conduct; (2) the investigation; (3) the indictment; (4) the arraignment; (5) whatever happens next. Each event generates global press coverage, expert analysis, etc. In any case, "1E" is a guideline ("generally avoid"), not Holy Writ. The subject is at the center of a globally significant maelstrom involving multiple overlapping events (international affairs, national security, a high-profile criminal prosecution, congressional/DoJ/DoD investigations, etc.) Neutrality talk 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seriously dont see a problem on an article on Wikipedia about a 21 year old in which nothing but allegations and accusations are included? And since the subject is presumed innocent of disclosing classified documents over a series of months , that rationale simply does not stand scrutiny. The "event" here is the WP:NEVENT subject, that is 2023 Pentagon document leaks . nableezy - 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument seems to boil down to "a previously obscure person is per se not notable unless they have been criminally convicted." That is not, and never has been, policy on the English Wikipedia. The article on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , for example, was created shortly after his arrest. The subject's age also has little (if any) bearing on notability here. Whether a subject meets the general notability guideline depends on significant coverage (in reliable sources independent of the subject), not age. In any event, he is an adult. From a notability perceptive, it matters not whether he is 21 or 41 or 81. Neutrality talk 20:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, my argument is you cannot use playing a central role in a criminal act as evidence that they meet the criteria for an article until they are found guilty, because as we already established the person is presumed innocent until found guilty. So your argument that they played a central role in any of the supposed multiple events cannot stand because we cannot assume he played a central role in it. Do you seriously not see a problem with an article on a living person with nothing but allegations and accusations? Do you think that could possibly be a NPOV biography of a living person? As far as your caricature of my argument, no, I am saying that BLP1E and NSUSTAINED provide for guidance beyond the GNG, and that "notability" for a living person is not the sole criteria for an article. In fact, for a person involved in a single event, it is not the controlling criteria for an article. That remains WP:BLP . nableezy - 03:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm not sure I understand any of the rationales not to keep; they are outdated, at any rate. Moncrief ( talk ) 22:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or delete together with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden . Consistency is important.-- Maxaxa ( talk ) 23:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak keep , for now. WP:BLP1E states that "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain , a low-profile individual." Based on others who have leaked information at this scale -- Reality Winner comes to mind -- I find it highly unlikely that he will remain a low-profile individual. Condition #3 most likely is not met as well given the sheer international scope of the fallout. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 23:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- This also seems to be a place where WP:BLP1E and WP:NSUSTAINED set different thresholds, though one links to the other. My comment above is based on the three conditions in BLP1E. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 00:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to weak merge , after looking into BLP1E there is some fuzziness about where this three-criteria test came from and how literally it should be taken. Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:BLP1E . There may not be much to merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks , because sensational coverage about Teixeira should generally be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, and I removed anonymously-attributed content per WP:BLPGOSSIP . Per WP:BLP1E #1, all of the coverage is in the context of this single event. Per WP:BLP1E #2, Teixeira does not appear to meet the criteria outlined for a high-profile person in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, which includes, A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event ; a merge is favored at this time to avoid giving undue weight to the event. And per WP:BLP1E #3, the role of this individual is "not well documented" because these are currently allegations. Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks . This person doesn't appear to be notable outside of this one event. The article can be split again if notability is established, not before . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the 3 conditions brought up by Esowteric. Abstrakt ( talk ) 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This person is going to have continued notability as with Snowden and Manning. This was the Biggest security leak in ten years, and during a War. Ryoung 122 04:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks per WP:BLP1E (and WP:BLPCRIME & WP:RECENTISM ). I found Beccaynr's analysis of the 3 aspects of WP:BLP1E to be convincing. He was not a whistle blower like Snowden, Manning, etc., and I don't see him being turned into one. Most arguments for keeping seem to be based on baseless assumptions about the future, which seem like weak arguments and slippery slopes. If the future bears it out, we can reevaluate then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh ( talk • contribs ) 05:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - while I do not believe WP:BLP1E will be an issue if the subject of the article is convicted of a crime per the third requirement, this article is exactly what WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME are supposed to prevent the existence of. He is not a public figure (and I don't think that's in dispute), so the article is plainly covered under these policies - since the subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than untested allegations against him, seems a clear delete to me. Tollens ( talk ) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (I'd be interested to see at least some suggestion of why WP:BLPCRIME would not apply by the !keep voters - seems to have been almost entirely ignored so far. I am completely willing to change my vote should there be a good point made to that effect.) Tollens ( talk ) 09:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My general thinking right now is something along the lines of "Suppose that right this very moment, he is proven, without a doubt, to be completely innocent (because that's exactly what 'presume innocence' means). Would he still be notable?". I would think that the answer to that question would be a very unambiguous no. Tollens ( talk ) 09:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable enough and will be even more notable. Elserbio00 ( talk ) 09:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It is notable and will continue so, just as other leakers! Teixant ( talk ) 10:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - The alleged crime is very serious and has made headline news around the world. The "single crime"/"not a public figure" objections don't apply here. That said, BLP violations will need to be regularly pruned from this article. Kylesenior ( talk ) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Wikipedia should not delete this article in the middle of all the media attention for this person. Having information sourced for reliable sources helps. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 13:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . No consensus to delete it whatsoever. RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I may be crystal balling, but if this person is found innocent then lawsuits usually follow. Jack Teixeira is now a worldwide recognized name given the WP:DEPTH of the coverage involved. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks . He is not notable outside of this one event. Some1 ( talk ) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - A useful article that is likely to grow in size as developments continue in his legal case. The article clearly contains material too detailed for the proposed merger to 2023 Pentagon document leaks . Looks to me like consensus has clearly emerged to keep this article, so let's move on and close this proposal. Jusdafax ( talk ) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Public enemy number 1 in half a dozen countries, at least. There should be one artilce fpr the leak and another one for the prosecution. Which for the time being is the Jack Teixeira artile, I guess. -- Matthiasb ( talk ) 18:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We're at the "had a large role within a well-documented historic event" threshold here. Zaathras ( talk ) 22:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively, but probably just Redirect - Might be at the point of needing a separate article down the road, but at this point, in addition to BLP1E and BLPCRIME, there is absolutely nothing of importance in this article that isn't in (or couldn't easily be added) to the main article. The main article just does a much better job of presenting this information. Per WP:NOPAGE , passing a notability guideline isn't enough. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge , although agreed with Rhododendrites that there is very little material transferable to the primary topic, which already details his involvement. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : The subject itself—the individual—is not the sole cause of the coverage in mass media. The primary subject is the underlying crime he committed. For instance, if you take away the element of crime, the individual could not have been the subject of mass media attention or its own page in this encyclopedia. Merge with 2023 Pentagon document leaks for now. Perhaps in the future, if the individual becomes a wider public figure (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.), it would be useful for the subject to have an article similar to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden . Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like arguing that Pele is not so notable, it's Pele's footballing that is. Or that Taylor Swift isn't that notable, it's Taylor Swift's singing that is notable. We tend to write articles about people who do really notable things. CT55555 ( talk ) 03:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no rational way to compare low-profile civilians and high-profile entertainers with fan bases. Multi7001 ( talk ) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is accused of being the leader of an online group with thirty members. If the accusations re true, it seems he tried to impress the members by showing off. (S ource ) Of course, I gave the obvious examples above to emphasize my point. His publicity seeking is much less effective. But it is possible to compare, rationally, actions that have similar characteristics, even if the outcomes are vastly different. Therefore, I am pushing back on the characterisation of him as "low profile". WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't help a lot with my argument, I think it was written for more traditional ways of seeking publicity, but still I quote: Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question and HIGH PROFILE ...May have produced publications...at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention. does mildly seem to support my stance. CT55555 ( talk ) 18:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Allegedly posting information and images to a Discord chat group, and/or being sensationalized as an alleged "leader" does not seem alleged as intended to "attract favorable public attention", although speculating on speculation seems to lead us nowhere encyclopedic. I think Multi7001's identification of clear examples of high-profile activity (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.) is helpful to consider. From my view, it does not seem fair to a BLP subject to speculate on how they might be high-profile based on allegations of criminal conduct and further speculation on reliable sources that may exist in the future to support sensational and extraordinary claims about them. Beccaynr ( talk ) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some news on his alleged role just out in the past 2 hours. https://abcnews.go.com/US/discord-user-group-secret-documents-surfaced-details-members/story? id=98661438 I think the high/low profile thing is up for debate. But I don't think I've said anything "extraordinary". I think saying he is a key person in this event (even if he is falsely accused or not found guilty of a crime) is a reasonable conclusion. Consider this: who are the more significant people associated with the 2023 Pentagon document leaks ? I don't think there are any. From WP:BLP1E We generally should avoid having an article.... If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented . BLP1E's guidance to not also have this article is the crux of what we are debating here. All three criterion need to be met. You don't need to agree with me on the low/high profile thing, to refute this, you'd need to think he's low profile and also that he did not have a significant role in this event. CT55555 ( talk ) 19:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unverified claims and speculation by the "internet user claiming to be a member of the small online community" have been discussed on the article talk page , and from my view, continue to not appear appropriate to include per applicable policies and therefore not appropriate to consider as support for a standalone article. I also don't agree that WP:BLP1E is necessarily the crux - we have a variety of core content policies to consider when trying to determine what seems best for the encyclopedia at this time. However, WP:BLP1E #3 says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented , so the event can be significant (and have its own article), but our core content policies, including WP:BLP , WP:NPOV , and WP:CRYSTAL , seem to warn against establishing a 'substantial or well-documented role' based on sensationalism, speculation, and allegations. BLP policy appears to encourage us to consider whether this article gives undue weight to what we can write about the event, i.e. the documents leak, which includes Teixeira's alleged role, along with an individual identified in the criminal complaint as someone who "reposted that image elsewhere on the internet" (see e.g. WaPo , Apr. 14, 2023), and the related criminal justice process for which we currently only have speculation about how it may proceed. Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm reluctant to reply further in case I bludgeon, but the first sentence of the justification to delete in its entirety is " WP:BLP1E ." So that did seem like the crux of the argument to me. Regarding sensationalism, I assure you that my arguments are informed only by reading reliable sources, primarily WaPo, NYT, BBC and to a lesser extent CNN. Going to try to semi- WP:COAL it from here, I fear I'm already dominating the convo. Peace. CT55555 ( talk ) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination also states, "For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large." And with regard to sensationalism, even respected media are not immune from producing WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:BLP1E needs all three criteria to me met. I have doubts that any of them are met. On Criterion 1, there are multiple events: alleged leaking, arrest, court appearance. The guidance is about events, not themes of events, not connected events. On Criterion 2, allegedly sharing classified information online to a group of people is not a low-profile act, it is a publicity-seeking act. WP:LOWKEY gives more details. And the examples are all about wide publicity in mainstream media, rather than an small online group. So this is the weakest part of my argument, and is up for debate, but that doesn't really matter if you accept my C1 and C3 assertions. On Criterion 3, his alleged role was significant in the events he is associated with. He is the main and primary participant in the events. To delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E would require all three of my assertions above to be false. I think the guidance in WP:BLP1E can only direct us towards keep. CT55555 ( talk ) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like many keep ! voters, you are assuming the subject is guilty of a crime when that has not been confirmed. Your reading of BLP1E is also incorrect. #1 says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All the coverage is in the context of the alleged document leak, which is what the event is; court cases stemming from it do not somehow have a different context. For #2, sharing info with a small group anonymously is obviously not high-profile; even if it was not anonymous, merely talking to people in a Discord server/image board is not high-profile either. And for #3, his role has not been established , that's the entire point of BLPCRIME. Saying "he is the main and primary participant" is a BLPVIO, full stop. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a subtle but important difference between me saying he is involved (which reliable sources state) and saying if he did a crime. The New York Times has stated that he was an administrator of the group where the documents first appeared. That makes him unavoidably a key part of this. I also disagree about this being one event. Media noted him for being suspected of the leak. Then they noted him when he was arrested. Then they noted him again in court. Almost every notable person on the encyclopedia is notable for one theme of linked events. I think all of Neil Armstrong 's notability stemmed from one event. I have seen AFD discussions where editors delete biographies citing BLP1E with the explanation that if it had reached court, that would be a second event, so I think my view is logical and a way of analysing that is common at AFD. On point 2, indeed it's up for debate. I said it was the weakest part of my argument and I think you make a good point. I am now undecided on criterion 2. But I this his role has been established. It's just the criminality or lack thereof that is not established. If the justice system drops all charges tomorrow, I will still say he is notable. Notability is not temporary and it does not hinge on criminality. I think it is fair to say he is a participant in events the reliable sources have identified him as participating in, I have made no assertions about criminality and I think that distinction is important. CT55555 ( talk ) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per CT55555’s excellent analysis. Good or bad this person will go down in history as being charged as the source of one of the most ridiculous and damaging leaks of classified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade ( talk • contribs ) 07:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, BLP violation. nableezy - 09:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, no BLP violation. Oakshade ( talk ) 21:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you are assuming his guilt, and yes that is a BLP violation, and yes it should be removed, and yes it probably wont be because BLP enforcement is broken when the sensitivities of Wikipedia editors are somehow aggrieved by a living person. nableezy - 21:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is looking pedantic, but just to placate your specific point, I added "charged as." That really happened. Oakshade ( talk ) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is not pedantic lol, saying somebody did something and saying somebody is accused of doing something is very different, and if one does not realize that then they lack the competence to edit BLPs. nableezy - 19:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I concur. I’m looking at all of his comments throughout this thread, and I can’t help but wonder if he sleeps! He means well/assuming good faith. But he’s putting an incredible amount of time and energy into this. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Someone is trying to participate via the talk page and clearly struggling with the tech/protection. CT55555 ( talk ) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh well. There's no reason for ip editors to be weighing in here, anyways. Whoever preemptively protected this afd, thumbs-up. Zaathras ( talk ) 23:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I support on keeping the article. Any content that is in violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP should be removed. It doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. Cwater1 ( talk ) 04:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - It seems only fair to note that the article, as of this posting, has been substantially cut by an editor who has !Voted to merge the article. I have asked for discussion of these many cuts on the article Talk page. Jusdafax ( talk ) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly passes GNG and BIO per CT55555’s analysis; the alleged crime is international news, it has already had an international impact on the largest war in Europe since World War II, and is certain to have LASTING coverage. The BLP1E objections are absurd in this context, simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context. // Timothy :: talk 09:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes our notability policy for BLP subjects. His notability will never go away given the transcendent importance of the leaks. Being known for one thing which is also covered as a topic on Wikipedia is not a justification for deleting. I came to the article to find info about him, not the leaks, and I am certain I am not alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per the cleaning of sources by other editors. Plus, th circumstances of the leaks are interesting. From a Discord group out of all places. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Texeira is a WP:BASIC pass at this point. WP:BLP1E concerns are understandable but reporting extends beyond simply the leaks and it is very likely that a trial will also provide more coverage - deleting at this point would be a WP:BURO exercise. It should be strongly emphasised to Sandstein and others that 1E has never, by itself, been a pure DELREASON - it is a reason to merge/redirect/rename and delete only when the content is all already at an already-existing article covering the event. In this case, where would the content fit in the leaks article except in an extensive subsection labelled "Jack Teixeira" that would practically be an article by itself? FOARP ( talk ) 07:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Even if he's notable, per WP:NOPAGE a separate article from the leaks is not needed. Reywas92 Talk 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Based on this multi-day news story, involving a serious crimes, with significant political fallout and other terrible consequences, he is no E*** E**. Bearian ( talk ) 15:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all available information about him is either directly about his involvement in the leak, or it's background provided only in the context of articles about the leak. This is textbook WP:BLP1E . If there had been enough reliable sources from before April 2023 about other aspects of his life, or if in the future additional writing about him unrelated to the document leak materialized, we'd have enough for a stand-alone article. Given that we only have source material in the context of one event, that seems like clear WP:BLP1E stuff. Most of the material in this article related to the leak is already covered in that article, and any additional relevant background information can be added to the narrative of the article about the leak without too much hassle. -- Jayron 32 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Request for close Seven going on eight days of discussion. Appears time for a close. “Keep” appears to lead, although the pro-delete side makes a few valid points, Al beit mostly before the article was expanded. It does not appear much will be gained by further discussion. Juneau Mike ( talk ) 02:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTADEMOCRACY . elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hubert Klyne Headley: No suitable WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 08:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I was able to find news coverage pretty easily. It's mostly local coverage, but it demonstrates that Headley's music was performed by notable orchestras and notable conductors. And some of it has been issued on a major label since his death. His California Suite seems to have been widely performed in the 1940's. So I think he meets the first criterion for notability by composers, and that's all that's needed for the article to survive AfD. I'll try to add some of the news coverage I found to document the various facts of his life and career. P Aculeius ( talk ) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Afd proposal quotes the WP:MUSICBIO , which redirects to Criteria for musicians and ensembles , but as the subject of this article is a composer, it seems to me that we should refer to WP:COMPOSER for the criteria. In this context, this composer fulfills at least one criterion, for instance : Has credit for writing (...) music for a notable composition. as he wrote several compositions that are of high personal and skilled levels and that are published or listed as interesting on their subjet (this is how I interpret notable ), and apparently one of the most notable one is the California Suite published by Naxos on the performance of Dmitry Yablonsky and that has several reviews on specialized websites for classical music, like Classics Today or Music Web International ; this suite is listed in this this article from a specialized site on music of Hong-Kong (!) as containing a notable mouvement about the Golden gate, which "provides an impressionist depiction of the sights and sounds of San Francisco". In this page of the Canadian Music Centre, we can see that such a public institution celebrated recently (2017) this composer, by playing other pieces (chamber music in this case). Moreover, a second criterion may be mentioned, Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria. , as it is mentioned on the netherlands version of wikipedia article for this composer that he was the teacher of Robert (Bob) Buckley , who apparently specialized on music for large scaled events like Olympic games, and arrangements for pop music artists like Brian Adams, and this student composer matches several criteria (despite he does not have a wiki page). The problem with this composer is that he was forgotten for some time (a few decades) and he just started to be rediscovered (the CMC Canada explains here how he was rediscovered in Canada), but this problem is very frequent for classical music composers and also happened to very important composers like Bach (completely forgotten after his death, until Mendelssohn played his music again almost one century later), or for a similar period of time than for Headley, to Mieczysław Weinberg . In conclusion, this article clearly needs improvements, but certainly not deletion. Galanga ( talk ) 21:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I spent most of the day gathering news articles about Headley, and incorporating their contents into the article. However, I was taking notes, and may have left out useful details. Some sources I had hoped would provide more information about concert performances either didn't, or weren't available (I wasn't able to determine which). I found a program, but wasn't sure how to cite it. There were also non-musical radio (and television?) appearances that I didn't cite, as I wasn't sure they were important enough to mention. I also know that Headley had a son, but not sure whether he had other children. I'm sure that the list of compositions could be more thorough and perhaps improved; I hesitated about where to place some things, and how best to cite them. Would be glad of any help in that regard. However, I think the article is now clearly sufficient to demonstrate notability and verifiability, and should easily survive AfD. P Aculeius ( talk ) 02:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with all the keep reasons presented. ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 18:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Liuyang fireworks: Cold Season ( talk ) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Liuyang fireworks are a significant cultural tradition from China, with a history dating back to the Tang dynasty. It has been selected as one of the intangible cultural heritages of the People's Republic of China . When searching for [浏阳花炮] in the Chinese language, there are numerous significant sources in books and media coverage. Here are some examples: [25] and [26] . Please conduct research before considering it for AfD. 1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The results of the Google Books and Scholar searches linked in the nomination statement show significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and that's just in English. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 11:54, 3 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

Ihor Lachenkov: Кронас ( talk ) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . Кронас ( talk ) 10:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How is he “non-notable”? Слава Україні 10:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:39, 10 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! 08:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a close one. The best sources I could find are probably [25] and [26] which are pretty basic. Most other sources are interviews or passing mentions. On the other hand, even a passing mention in The New York Times is pretty impressive for a Ukrainian blogger. He is also the most popular news blogger for young Ukrainians according to a UN sponsored study . Having an article on him improves Wikipedia. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Next time, please include a more substantial deletion rationale. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments and question : the Uk article looks substantial. Can the text and cites be translated and added? Bearian ( talk ) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : lots of sourcing is written in ukrainian, but per Eluchil404 there is sufficient sourcing that relatively meets notability. She was a fairy 09:22, 2 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

Ghosts (Pac-Man): Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally pinging @ Kung Fu Man , who previously BLAR'd the article, and @ Grapesoda22 , who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements , but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG / WP:WHYN . Additionally , while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless , the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149 . Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own , again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy ? Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @ Namcokid47 , Eddie891 , Jhenderson777 , Balle010 , TTN , Rtkat3 , Toughpigs , Captain Galaxy , Piotrus , Dream Focus , Shooterwalker , and Ret.Prof : . Daranios ( talk ) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Source analysis Let's break this down: This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title. Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate. This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article. the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref. Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for ! keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [67] , although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning. ..... Captain Galaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. D r e a m Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [68] D r e a m Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A better approach would probably be bullet points and using the Nihongo template to be honest, but that can be done when the dev section is rewritten. Tables in the middle of character articles unless you're doing a list tend to be pretty rough on the reader. (I also feel some consideration should be done that most of the later added ghosts may not have the same level of notability, especially given those citation needed tags, but I digress as that's another matter).-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources provided above. MKsLifeInANutshell ( talk ) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , characters are well known and article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 04:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above Cos ( X + Z ) 19:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as this discussion has demonstrated there is coverage in games media journalism and peer-reviewed academic research. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I have some concerns about the level of independence from the original game, but I think that there is something to be said about the AfD result of Koopa Troopa essentially boiling down to Koopa Troopa being iconic enough, as demonstrated from sources, that it should be kept even if the reception was a little light. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good faith re-statement from last AFD. Consensus can change, but I believe this is settled. Even as thinly characterized sprites, they have received more than enough discussion in reliable sources. The sources explain their importance to gaming history. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 18:47, 19 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

Gimme Love (Sia song): WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG . Draft was rejected by me at AFC, but user moved it into main article space regardless. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia . UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't submit the draft at AfC. The single's being released in hours, this is a waste of time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know you didn't. You requested it be moved to main article space via WP:RM/TR . I chose to hold it back in draft by submitting it for review and declining it as failing NSONG. You then chose to ignore that and moved it into main article space. It should have stayed in draft until ready. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, whatever, "punish" me, but this is still a waste of time as the entry will just be recreated in a couple hours... Take care, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Officially casting my keep vote --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It's dropping tomorrow, maybe we should pause a moment on the deletion discussion. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 16:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bri Care to take another look and perhaps change your vote? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Sia discography#Singles for now. Will be a lot more coverage soon enough given the fact it's releasing tomorrow (13/9). Don't delete. Peterpie123rww ( talk ) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Peterpie123rww Care to take another look at the article, and perhaps change your vote to keep? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My decision is of course now Keep as the song is out and has received notable coverage. Thanks for pinging. I'd have assumed this was closed down by now!! — Peterpie123rww ( talk ) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mean, it's coming out tomorrow, let's see what the press says about it. TOOSOON for one day I suppose. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Kinda agree this is a waster of time. I would prefer it hadn't been created, but now it has, maybe just wait a little. Doctorhawkes ( talk ) 02:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doctorhawkes Care to take another look and possible change your vote? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As others have said, its going to be released very soon. MarkiPoli ( talk ) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here we go! Spin magazine , Official Charts Company , Consequence of Sound, NME, Rolling Stone, etc. @ UtherSRG : Can you please withdraw your nomination? This is silly.--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems like a keep, notability is fine now with the reviews. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the single is charting and has been making the news for some time now, it is getting enough credit for leading the singer's first solo album in 8 years and for the singer releasing new music after a year of silence. ihateneo ( talk ) 18:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Charting song, obvious WP:NSONG notability multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label . I thought the nom would have been withdrawn by now. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 21:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of restaurants in Rotterdam: Also doesn’t follow GNG. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Netherlands . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists . Shellwood ( talk ) 13:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Could this content be something that could be transwikified to the Wikivoyage sister project? It's also important to state that the list doesn't satisfy WP:LISTN . – The Grid ( talk ) 14:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all but one with articles were from the same user and are also at List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands . Reywas92 Talk 19:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 8 valid links to other articles, making this a valid link, just like all the others at Category:Lists of restaurants by city and many other Category:Lists of restaurants . I removed all red links and the lists of chains. This is a perfectly valid information and navigational list. This same debate has happened multiple times before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Wales , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in New Jersey , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Cincinnati , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Baltimore , always ending in keep. D r e a m Focus 11:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think Dream Focus summed it up very well. Rotterdam is the second largest city in the Netherlands and has a lot of notable restaurants, so this article can even be expanded including different qualitative sources. Coldbolt ( talk ) 18:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. NOTGUIDE is more on excessive details or subjective listing regardless of notability (i.e. listing every restaurant). This is merely a list of restaurants deemed notable by their existing articles and that are in Rotterdam. It is not an indicator of guidance suggesting the best restaurants nor an elongated list of every single restaurant in Rotterdam, including non-notable ones, it is limited to deemed notable restaurants. All other similar list articles should ideally be considered together if using this reasoning, in light of similar past AfDs. Dank Jae 00:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Brenna D'Amico: References are passing mentions of having acting roles, not signifiant coverage. Doesn't have multiple significant roles. Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna D'Amico indicated TOOSOON and result was to move to draft space. This should be done for this version too. Geraldo Perez ( talk ) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Television , and Illinois . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an obvious delete – this is far worse than the earlier Draft:Brenna D'Amico that never went anywhere and was WP:G13 'ed. Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC , and that is still true 3+ years later. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : She played Jane, which seems like one of the main characters in Descendants (2015 film) , Descendants 2 , and Descendants 3 (see Descendants_(franchise) ) then that seems like a WP:NACTOR pass. What am I missing? CT55555 ( talk ) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not in the principal cast in any of those films per their articles. Not significant roles, just supporting roles. Geraldo Perez ( talk ) 19:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see your point. I also notice her role was perceived as significant enough by who ever wrote the article for the franchise to list it. And yet they didn't link to her, so that utterly wasn't a promotional attempt by anyway. So it seems like the significance is borderline. Considering all the other roles she has had, how certain do you feel that she isn't meeting WP:NACTOR . To me it seems arguable either way, depending how significant we see her roles. CT55555 ( talk ) 19:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She has star billing including poster credits on various new movies including The Never List , Night Night. These movies didn't even exist yet when the last AfC happened. Definitely feels like it passes WP:NACTOR at this point. Was the article a WP:STUB when created, yes, but with the additional refs from WP:RS now, it is clear it passes the actor notability and just needs a moment to flesh out, either in the article, or moved into draft. Raladic ( talk ) 19:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She has to have a major role, the films must be themselves notable (a Tubi original almost certainly isn't that), and she still needs to have significant independent coverage herself, as per WP:BASIC . None of those conditions are met right now – none of the sources at the article currently get the subject past WP:BASIC . I still think this is "delete", but if someone wants to "draftify" it's not unreasonable. But she is not notable enough for an article right now . -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 21:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . I think her role in the works mentioned above are significant enough, and sufficient in number, for her to pass WP:NACTOR . I recognise this is point on which there is legitimate disagreement, and the counter arguments above are reasonable, hence my "weak" ! vote CT55555 ( talk ) 11:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify leaning very weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON , but getting there. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 01:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep alternatively draftify In view of the sources added by Raladic I change my vote from Draftify leaning very weak keep . -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 06:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draft . My main problem is that the Deadline source is listing almost every role. If she was notable enough, there would be sources stating the fact. If only one source is capable of listing her credits, then she isn't notable yet. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great point. And she certainly doesn't appear to get past the "passing mentions" guidance either. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just spent some time doing the actual research and found a whole bunch of magazine coverage including a print magazine cover article in 2021 featuring her, so she definitely passes WP:SIGCOV based on the amount of featured articles and interviews, including a live TV interview on ABC 7 Chicago, and magazines from outside the US that I have now added to the article . It is also clearer now that in the two feature films " The Never List " and "Night Night" she had poster credit and main and leading roles, not just supporting roles and her upcoming roles in two announced movies, I believe it supports WP:NACTOR well beyond just her roles in the Descendants franchise. It was just that the article was nominated practically instantaneously after being put up (as a poorly sourced stub, that is). So per WP:BEFORE , the article could have been given a chance to develop using cleanup tags instead of immediate AfD nomination. Pinging @ Callmemirela @ Random person no 362478479 @ CT55555 to please reassess with the new sources in the article. Raladic ( talk ) 06:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed my vote from draftify leaning very weak keep to weak keep alternatively draftify . The main reason why I did not go all the way to keep is that the sources you added are almost all interviews. Interviews are routinely discounted in deletion discussions, because they are not (fully) independent (see WP:INTERVIEWS ). I do not agree with this policy and think that the number of interviews demonstrates notability, alas it is not up to me. The second reason is that I am not convinced that the movies in which she has main roles are notable enough to confer notability on the actors involved. So while I believe that someone like D'Amico should qualify for Wikipedia, I am not entirely convinced that she does given current criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 ( talk ) 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to change my vote to draft instead of delete. Per Random person no 36247879, the sources are repeated. I feel as if this doesn't notability yet, especially if one of the sources to list her credits is an interview. For example, I google Jennifer Lawrence's credits, and I'll have platoon of sources from Variety, Deadline, People, Forbes, NY Times, and Vogue to name a few. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Perhaps there wasn't enough coverage of her in 2018 for the first AFD, but there seems to be enough now to show the subject is notable. -- Milowent • has spoken 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Roles in Descendants movies and sufficient sources, as discussed above. -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She is not a "lead" in the Descendants film series – her role was secondary. She is arguably a "lead" in Crushed , but that's a "Tubi original film" which is hardly a mainline "notable" role (IOW, it's the kind of TV movie that is going to be completely ignored in other media). When you take out passing mentions, teen gossip mags and interviews (which many feel, for better or worse, do not contribute to notability), you are left with a single profile in the Chicago Sun Times . I could see "draftify" as a vote here. But the subject does not credibly pass WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC still. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk ) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This discussion did not appear on any daily log page; I have listed it for the current day. -- Finngall talk 16:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep She's in the tubi thing and the Descendants movies, seems like a decent enough case for GNG. She isn't "woman on bench in background" or "Woman #3 at coffee shop", like most of these ACTOR ones we see at GNG, she has a named role in at least 3 movies. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:51, 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

List of Pioneer League team rosters: I don't know if there was a discussion that led to this major change. – Jonesey95 ( talk ) 17:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I really got rid of the templates and just made them a part of the team’s actual pages. While also making two rosters for Northern Colorado Owlz and Glacier Range Riders. It seemed like the right thing to do since all the other independent leagues seem to do their rosters that way. I was just trying to help and I accept any ban or block I may get ParkerLyme ( talk ) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should have used the edit summaries and that is my bad and I need to be better about it! ParkerLyme ( talk ) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball , Lists , and United States of America . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Jonesey95 , ParkerLyme's edit was already reverted. Is there a reason you are nominating this page for deletion? RecycledPixels ( talk ) 18:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ParkerLyme 's edits to the roster templates blanked the roster templates, as in this edit (which also went against WP:BRD ), causing this article to have no content. It also has no references. Why would we keep an empty page? I would be fine with restoring the contents, but when I attempted to do so, I was reverted. – Jonesey95 ( talk ) 00:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jonesey95 : You should be able to transclude the rosters on the team pages to this page instead of nominating for deletion? The football project does that a lot, if I remember properly. SportingFlyer T · C 23:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is an option, but since there was no discussion about doing so, and the editor who blanked all of the templates did not do so, we are currently left with a blank article. – Jonesey95 ( talk ) 00:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The rosters are on the team’s Wikipedia pages instead of having their own template. I just was trying to make things easier. The template design itself still exists in each teams wiki page ParkerLyme ( talk ) 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ParkerLyme : @ Jonesey95 : I've fixed the page using transclusions, as is common elsewhere in the sports project. SportingFlyer T · C 08:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is perfect man!! I did make rosters for the Glacier Range Riders and Northern Colorado Owlz if you don’t mind adding those in there too. ParkerLyme ( talk ) 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Done. SportingFlyer T · C 12:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay I would say this discussion is over because we could delete the templates if they still exist and just leave the list of pioneer rosters page ParkerLyme ( talk ) 04:50, 25 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! 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the original reason for deletion has been overcome - the rosters are now transcluded. SportingFlyer T · C 21:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SportingFlyer and the above discussion. There does not appear to be a basis for deletion here. -- Visviva ( talk ) 23:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

We Are Not Numbers: Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I have serious doubts that a WP:BEFORE check was performed before this AfD nomination was made. This internationally sponsored program has been running since 2005 and has dozens of mentions on Google Scholar . Bad nom. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] first: the project started in 2015 not 2005, second: please don't make it personal or dispraise the discussion and please focus on the main points. -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have rechecked the new sources added; refs (2 - 4 - 5 - 6) written by persons belong to The project and #11 from "Euro-Med Monitor" which the parent organization. so all this refs aren't independent, the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it, the Google Scholar search the result is too few (not dozens of mentions as Iskandar323 said) also the results don't give us real or verifiable results and maybe it are Trivial mentions , I really wonder; if this project is known or notable since 2015, why there is no independent or reliable sources about it? I found only 2 results in google search in Arabic and it's old news from 2015. that is mean article's subject is WP:BLP1E and this is another reason to delete it. -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That it has scholarly mentions at all is significant; plenty of subjects (least of all organizations) do not even garner a whisper in academia - to do so requires a degree of notability. WP:BLP1E is a BLP guideline and not applicable here. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 13:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect , independent SIGCOV meeting the requirements of NCORP has not been found. Sources from people affiliated with the org obviously do not count as independent. JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, see Google Scholar - there are around a dozen scholarly mentions. Regardless of the significance of coverage in each individual instance, that is a significant depth of coverage and penetration into secondary academic literature. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per user JoelleJay . JunitaWorker ( talk ) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Deletion discussions should be based on what information is out there, not just what is present on page. Even so, already on page, there are articles featured in Spectator Magazine , +972 magazine and Wafa , as well as scholarly articles with mentions in further reading (of at least a dozen scholarly mentions ). The scholarly mentions alone are ample indication of WP:GNG , and we already have good example of independent, secondary coverage. I've now also added the links to Nonviolence International and Mondoweiss coverage that were already present and available on the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor page - all in all there's a good amount of sourcing present. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 20:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Spectator source is a letter to the editor and contains only a passing mention, it's SPS and trivial N . The second +972 article is an interview about We Beyond the Fence, it doesn't have SIGCOV of WANN N . Nonviolence International is a partner with WANN N . The second Mondoweiss piece has 2 sentences introducing WANN, then the rest is repeating what WANN/its writers say, so is not independent N . I couldn't find a Wafa link. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also a Haaretz article which is devoted to it. Zero talk 06:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Look, there are a dozen mentions in books and academic papers. That is quite unusual and for obvious reasons: this is a notable literacy programme that has been covered in secondary sources on literacy programmes. I can't access most of the books and papers, because they are behind paywall, but I'm guessing neither can you. Perhaps you should reserve judgment until someone turns up who can actually access those sources. Even if you dispute the notability, surely a redirect would be appropriate? Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Haaretz article gives me a 403. I can access most academic sources. If you have any in particular you would like me to look at let me know. And sure, a redirect would be fine. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : The Haaretz article link definitely works for me. It's behind paywall, but you can typically open it the first time around on any given IP, and I think you can do the same trick again with Chrome Incognito mode. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : Regarding checking out the academic sources, I would prioritize any of the three sources in the further reading. Google scholar suggests they have substantive passages on the subject. There's incidentally also a book mention now that I've added (in addition to the German work). Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The requirement for sufficient coverage in published secondary sources is comfortably met. The OP's claim "the publications are completely against WP:VERIFY because we can't access or read it" indicates lack of understanding of policy . Zero talk 11:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this dissertation containing a 5-page chapter and more mentions of WANN. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 11:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure dissertations can count towards notability. They are typically not peer-reviewed and are generally primary. Has the author published about them in academic journals? JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay : WP:SCHOLARSHIP says they can be used with caution. In this case, it is quite niche topic, so one shouldn't expect the stars. PhD dissertation coverage is significantly better than what a lot of organizations get. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources that must be used with caution are generally not considered adequate for counting toward notability. Many non-profits get coverage in academic sources, appearing in scholarship is not at all unusual in human rights fields especially. JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Or Merge any salvageable content, less clearly several biased news reports, to Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor . Clear Propaganda , biassed, and missing any neutrality . See comments below. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a misunderstanding of policy. Neutral means with respect to sources. To assert that this material is biased or non-neutral, you need to provide the reliable sources that contrast/are at variance with the sources already present. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : A major problem I have, lacking any ostensible reason, is the article versus sources appear to be political smoke and mirrors. The article is titled: We Are Not Numbers , apparently about an organization doing supposedly good things, providing a vehicle allowing Palestinian youth to write "articles, poems, and personal essays about life in Gaza". A goal supposedly is to get "writers to focus on the everyday lives of people rather than the narratives of war and conflict ". A not-so-subtle point can be found in the sources. "Where Is Justice For the Children Who Drowned in the Mediterranean", "To try to save his neighbors, he had to demolish his own house", "The Jabaliya Massacre: Heaven Embraces Five Angels", "Living among the dead in Gaza", written by a young Palestinian man that says "he aspires to become “a voice for Palestine", and published in +972 Magazine. Read a little further towards the bottom, We are in an unprecedented and dangerous era in Israel-Palestine. The Israeli extreme right government has made its plans crystal clear. It wants carte blanche to shoot-to-kill Palestinians . Another source, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". How about "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza", written by Pam Bailey, co-founder of the organization? Bailey is the international secretary of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and director of We Are Not Number. The Human Rights Monitor article, which has coverage on this organization , states they have "workshops to train students on several techniques to modify Wikipedia articles in both Arabic and English". Another source "Palestinians in Gaza are bringing their stories of siege to Israelis". If Wikipedia is still operating under the auspice of neutrality , one of the five fundamental principles, care should be taken to ensure organizations are not high-jacking certain areas. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Otr500 : You seem to have an issue with the stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets. None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization, and I almost removed them before: the confusion here has provided the impetus to do so. Please can you re-assess the page based solely on the actually supporting sources used. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JunitaWorker , @ JoelleJay , @ Ibrahim.ID : Please can you all check out the latest version. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Iskandar323 My issue is two-fold. #1)- The items listed as references or sources, as you stated, "None of those sources were used to support factual statements about the organization". 2)- That is not only an issue with notability it is an issue I see as subversive literature. NPOV becomes a serious issue when an article is not balanced. This article should be about the organization not a tool for advancement of any cause of Pam Bailey or the Human Rights Monitor. I am not sure what is meant by "stories that are mere example of content being featured in outlets". I looked at one of the "sources" still in the article (Katz, Y) and see mention of a WhatsApp group and Border Gone. I can't tie the three together so the source has no importance to the article that I can see. I struggle with the thought that new writers are schooled on how to manipulate (modify) Wikipedia. I can see some of the content of this article being covered in Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (as it is) but no evidence it deserves a stand-alone article . This is why I suggest a merge as an ATD . -- Otr500 ( talk ) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Otr500 : I'm sorry, but if you cannot see the references to the subject in Katz, that simply means you are just skimming the abstract but haven't actually clicked on the link to the dissertation itself. There are five pages on the subject there. On the subject of balance, you keep making claims about this, but you have not actually produced any sources countering statements on the page to suggest that there are balance issues. Balance issues aren't something that you can simply suppose: you need to demonstrate them. The stories I mentioned were the news outlets that hosted We Are Not Numbers content. You complained about those links, so I obligingly removed them here . It would be polite if you could acknowledge this and the that this particular issue which you raised has been resolved. If you can't acknowledge the resolution of issues raised, you are not acting very collegiately. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG met, here's another feature. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/4/20/writers-aim-to-challenge-stereotypes-about-gaza Selfstudier ( talk ) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A great deal of work has gone into improving this article since its nomination and I encourage editors who examined it when it was first nominated to give it another look. I think some additional work could be done to improve the tone so that it is more NPOV but I think there is enough sources now to retain it on the project. I think we have to consider this writing project apolitically, would we keep it if the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict? L iz Read! Talk! 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of the later proposed sources, and the article in its current state, would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Enough SIGCOV has been found. As said above, whether the sources are biased or not immediately accessible is not a notability issue. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY and per Liz's comment. C avarrone 09:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments : I agree some improvements have been made. I thought about changing to "Weak keep", however, Iskandar323 , an Admin has echoed my concerns about NPOV mentioning the tone of the article so apparently I am not as far off as you seem to think. NPOV is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles that includes Advocacy , and that is what I see. It would not matter if "the young writers were Ukrainian or from the Sudan or from another area of conflict". I don't have a pony in the race. I rarely edit any contentious topics and when I do it is usually minor edits. The subject is a split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor , so has coverage on Wikipedia, and I do not see the justification for a stand-alone article, especially just to be apolitical, since it is less neutral than the parent article with questionable sources. Some of the advocacy can be seen in the sourcing. The Middle East Eye source states, "Deported: Israel's war against Palestine solidarity activists". The author, Pam Bailey, is the person claiming to have been banned. Another: "Israel bans right activist from entering Gaza". These are sources that may be acceptable in the parent article but what is the need for being in an article about an organization and young writers? I consider that the Katz "Thesis" is just that and does not advance notability. The Mondoweiss source is a blog. The article would likely be considered among the Contentious topics . I changed the link to Ben Norton (who does not have an article) to reflect the redirect to "The Grayzone" which is considered a "far-left news website and blog". At any rate, it does indicate what type of "training" young writers are getting direction from when they are schooled on how to modify Wikipedia. I may end up in the minority but I guess that is alright now and again. -- Otr500 ( talk ) 07:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPOV has nothing to do with notability. If you think it is POV, and have sources that prove it by contradicting the information already on the page, you should balance the material by adding those sources. What you should be considering here is the best anchoring sources, not the insufficiencies that you find in just a few of them. There is now a book source, a full length Haaretz article, a PhD dissertation, a +972 magazine article and an Aljazeera article. That's a pretty broad range of coverage without even getting on to the scholarly mentions, which only haven't been expounded because I lack access. NB: Incidentally, while it's irrelevant, this article was in no way split from Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor ; it was actually created before it, in 2016, while the latter was only created in 2019. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Philip Shelby: Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. Possible redir to Covert-One series . - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Confusingly organized list of work, needs cleanup, article needs expansion. But, seems to meet WP:CREATIVE both through authorship of notable books from the 1990s that are missing articles including This Far from Paradise and Days of Drums , and Last Rights (book) , not to mention the book with Robert Ludlum; as well as more recently as a screenwriter of Mechanic: Resurrection and Survivor (film) . Might also meet WP:BASIC we have an in-depth profile, [2] , plus many book reviews, many of which have smaller amounts of SIGCOV about the subject. — siro χ o 19:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are lots of book reviews coming up in the Ebsco search, sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is poorly formatted and in need of serious cleanup but the article meets GNG guidelines and should not be deleted. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 10:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands: The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN . Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , and Netherlands . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment Per advice by Conyo14 , I wish to close this nomination to repackage them into a single nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia to make it convient for editors. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Lunar Society Moonstones: A WP:Before search wasn't very helpful to find GNG-level sources. There were a couple of attempts to convert this to a redirect, but they were reverted. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 03:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A copyright problem? The Lunar Society page on the Moonstones seems a word-for-word copy, although I have no idea which is the chicken and which is the egg. - struck, it seems they copied Wikipedia and not the other way around. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham ; emphasis on the lack of encyclopedia-worthy sources, copyvio issue, and gallery-like format/structure , looks like a page more fit for something like TripAdvisor or a travel blog. Spiritual Transcendence ( talk ) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vote changed to keep per the recently-added sources Spiritual Transcendence ( talk ) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is no copyvio - the article predates the alleged source, which plagiarizes us. This is a significant public artwork and landmark by a significant sculptor. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , have added a good source and, per Pigsonthewing, the artwork's and sculptor's significance are apparent. Glad there is no copyright, although the website giving credit to Wikipedia writers for its textual presentation would be nice. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have today written to them asking that they do this, as required by the CC licence used. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 13:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Their article is now correctly attributed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as it is now. What's the actual policy-based argument for deletion? Btw, a simple "redirect" is wrong here, if there is nothing at the target article. Johnbod ( talk ) 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought it was implicit, but maybe I should have been clearer. The article didn't meet WP:GNG (since it was unsourced), and in my opinion, still doesn't meet the GNG criteria of having multiple independent RS . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 06:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or if deemed appropriate Redirect as nominator suggests. The article references are 'interesting'. The Lunar Society one is a circular reference to this Wikipedia article. The Public Sculpture of Birmingham book was published in 1998, yet the article states the sculpture wasn't unveiled until 1999. No page number has been placed in the citation. The reference seems to me 'suspect'. I've gone through the book and found nothing on these stones. In fact, the Introduction to the book begins with "Birmingham in 1996 has over 370 works of sculpture in the public domain" and adds that "the pieces date from 1709 to 1996", suggesting the material included only went up to 1996. I've checked for later editions of the book but haven't come across any. Until appropriate sourcing is added to the article or put up for consideration in this AfD, the policy based ground for deletion is that the article doesn't pass any notability guideline. Rupples ( talk ) 00:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep / Comment The related 2005 book Public Sculpture of Staffordshire and the Black Country does mention them as "the Lunar Society Monument designed by Steve Field in Great Barr, Birmingham (1998)" as part of the entry on Michael Scheuermann (p. 284). I agree that I don't find a mention of them in Public Sculpture of Birmingham (at least the version available via Internet Archive). There is by the same author a Birmingham Sculpture Trails book (2008), which may discuss them, but I can't locate a copy to review. I did turn up two local newsclippings [23] [24] from when sculptures were unveiled. There were other 2011/2012 stories about development in the area that mention the stones in passing. Beyond that, I do see mention of them in the context of the people memorialized on them (for example, in Secret Black Country , no page numbers, but with a photo of the Keir stone), they're included in local heritage tours , and they have been mentioned by the Birmingham Conservation Trust . These are clearly verifiable and appear to be at least locally notable, even if gold-standard sources aren't readily turning up. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 21:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tanglewood Music Festival: Suggest to redirect/merge to Tanglewood . Yinglong999 ( talk ) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:02, 12 June 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 June 12 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events , and Massachusetts . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is fine. I can't find much for this listing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It would take work, but the Tanglewood facility and the music festival are indeed different concepts and there would be benefits to having them separate. We already have Tanglewood Music Center as a separte article, which covers the summer academy as an event. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Addendum – the article for the music festival exists for five other languages: es, fr, ja, pt, ru. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep a Google book search shows a great amount of Un-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 20:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Libreboot: I'm not sure which criteria to apply, because the core article topic is not really clear or agreed upon - is it a software, a hardware, a company, a movement, within a movement? There are a few more or less reliable sources, but it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of WP:OR . This becomes apparent, to me at least, in the most recent Talk:Libreboot discussions. If you eliminate the less reliable sources (as identified by another editor), it is even more difficult. The few better sources consistently talk about Respects Your Freedom certifications as supported by the Free Software Foundation , in context of reviews of computer hardware sold by "several international companies". Some editors want to twist this into a billboard for one particular vendor of hardware and continue making the article a WP:SPAMPAGE , i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. I conclude it is best to delete and redirect. Reasonable targets include, in alphabetical order: Free_Software_Foundation , GNU , GNU_Project , and List_of_GNU_packages . Why there? As I understand it, not really based on great sources, an incarnation of "Libreboot" was once supported and within the FSF/GNU umbrella, as a GNU project. Then it wasn't. Maybe since 2016 or 2017, but it's not clear when it was in and when it was out, or how many times. There may have been a number of years, perhaps 5'ish, without software releases. One company the article "advertised as an article" for years may have been near bankruptcy and not doing business for some time. Now, as of around March 2023 there is a new "Libreboot" project within the FSF/GNU support umbrella. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Yae4 ( talk ) 05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and revert the article to its state from this version . I do not consider that to be an WP:SPAMPAGE , it's a just a stub stating a few facts in WP:NPOV language. I have changed quite a few articles that needed translation from promotional to Wikipedia language, this article is not one of those. I'd be fine with adding some sentence about the Libreboot.at project. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 Hackaday cites and a WP:TECHCRUNCH , 3 Linux Journal detailed flashing HowTo's and 4 mailing list posts or similar. You can't be serious. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TechCrunch does not seem wrong per se, using a tutorial as a source is not a problem either if the content on Wikipedia itself is not written as a tutorial. Primary mailinglist sources are fine for verification of trivial things like the latest released version or the full name of the project. I agree about Hackaday, I missed that. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's laughable using Vaughan-Nichols ZDNet source, which is all about The Free Software Foundation, "Libiquity's Tarinux X200", Respects Your Freedom, "FSF-endorsed Trisquel GNU/Linux", quotes from Joshua Gay (FSF) and Patrick McDermott (Libiquity), with only passing mention of Libreboot, to cherry pick the statement: "On some devices, Libreboot developers have reverse engineered the firmware from Intel and created a utility to create a free firmware that meets the specifications from Intel." Why do you want a billboard for Libreboot.ORG so badly you would so obviously mis-use this source? This is not applying WP:DUE or WP:NPOV , or basic honesty, frankly. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Huh? Yes, that reference has a broader scope indeed. But the subject of this article is "Libreboot", so it is fine to use references that also include information about different things. If there would be an article about Libiquity, then we could use more information from the ZDNet article I suppose. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you agree the Libreboot content is only passing mention, which means the source does not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY . -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I agree for that ZDNet article, but not for other articles. I still think it meets the WP:GNG , albeit not by a large margin. That's also why I think a stub is the most appropriate lenght for this article. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] James Gray LinuxJournal.com looks like a copy of a brief product announcement, not significant coverage of Libreboot, and no link to or mention of "Libreboot.org". Bärwaldt linux-magazine.com has coverage of a lot of things, including Rowe the person, Purism_(company) , "Several small international companies ... around free BIOS implementations," the "Respects Your Freedom" program, the Free Software Foundation. Whose link is listed first among 7 at the conclusion? FSF. Libreboot.ORG is 3rd of 7. You used it to say "Libreboot is established as a distribution of coreboot, but with some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot." Cherry picking again. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - and make libreboot.org the main link, with libreboot.at as a footnode. For reasoning, see discussions on the talk page. Basically, other editors here have asserted that since all the cited sources reference libreboot.org, not libreboot.at, then the article is primary about Libreboot as hosted on libreboot.org. I should note that there is currently a report against Yae4 about the nature of his editing on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Username_Yae4_engaging_in_persistent_disruptive_editing_of_the_Libreboot_article As of this time, the Wikipedia admins have not yet responded, but the assertion there is that Yae4 is acting out of bias, in bad faith and that he has attempted to hijack the Libreboot article. The timing of this AfD is curious since the talk page seems to now weigh in favour of libreboot.org, especially since the article now seems to be much better sourced than it was before (and many of those sources were added by Yae4 himself!) Libreleah ( talk ) 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Libreleah has declared COI for Libreboot.ORG, and after making efforts to appear otherwise in the last day or so, after 5 years inactive, still has few or no edits outside this topic. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and I've engaged trying to be as neutral as possible, on the project talk page. Regardless of my connection, my arguments against your disruptive and seemingly equally biased edits are valid. It's no coincidence that as soon as the talk page starts weighing in favour of libreboot.org again, as per the wishes of the other editors, you create a new AfD. The timing is too perfect, so it can't be a coincidence; you are losing the argument, and acting out of desperation. Contrary to your assertion, I have every intention of continuing my activity on wikipedia editing other articles, once this Libreboot business is finished. For example I improved Peter Assmann yesterday by translating some text from the German page which is better sourced. Libreleah ( talk ) 09:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She's sugessting changes on the talk page, instead of trying to edit the article directly. So she's following the COI policies. Rlink2 ( talk ) 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruption at Talk:Libreboot , and not following WP:EDITREQ in the slightest. A declared WP:COI editor voting at AfD is amazing. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yae4 I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruptin Maddy also thought your SPI filing was disruptive and incoherent. Point being its all an opinion, you may think theres no merit to what shes saying when she thinks she has a fair point. We have to be respectful of all viewpoints. Regarding no WP:EDITREQ. She doesn't have all the ropes yet as a new editor, so i think we can give her some leeway. Besides, she didn't need to do an EDITREQ because she didn't want to edit the article. Why didn't you suggest this to her in your first reply? Note that the article as it was before was agreed upon by everyone before you changed it. WP:COI and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide say nothing about COI people voting in AfDs. But even if you don't count her vote, the consensus here and on the talk page is to still use libreboot.org. Rlink2 ( talk ) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was "frivolous accusations" not "disruptive and incoherent". We'll see. Maybe we'll get some objective opinions from uninvolved editors. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 12:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Yae4 I would say the only editors that are truly involved is you and PhotographyEdits, since you two were editing the article for some time. Libreleah is also involved due to her connection. Me, Maddy, and DFhib only came after the inital accusations so we were all technically uninvolved. Rlink2 ( talk ) 12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PhotographyEdits has edited Libreboot for at least a couple years+/-? Me, a couple weeks+? Yes, the near coincident arrivals of new accounts all supporting re-activated Libreleah, after IPs were blocked, plus behavioral similarities. led me to suspect puppetry, meat or sock. Involved: See WP:INVOLVED for admins, and WP:NACINV for editors. Aren't those talking about involvement in discussions? No mention of whether an article has been edited. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 14:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For accuracy, other than the passing mention in a book, "Embedded Firmware Solutions", and Carikli's presentation on abandoning Libreboot.ORG and starting Libreboot.AT, I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before, then were deleted during stubification to a billboard. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As discussed by other editors in the talk page, the current sources (many of which you added yourself) are more than sufficient to support notability of libreboot at libreboot.org; indeed those some editors assert that libreboot.at has weak sourcing, because of most of the current sources refer to libreboot.org, not libreboot.at. Thus, this 2nd AfD is ludicrous. Libreleah ( talk ) 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and revert to previous version per PhotographyEdits. Rlink2 ( talk ) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would really appreciate seeing even a half-good explanation of why stubifying an article with poor sourcing is beneficial for Wikipedia or readers. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this AfD seems to be a rather convoluted outcome of an ongoing content dispute on the article, rather than a genuine attempt to question the notability of the topic. jp × g 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the previous AfD close for this topic 9 days ago. Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Looking at the sources just within the article, there are multiple reliable sources cited like Linux Journal and LWN. I haven't assessed whether these are enough for GNG, but they certainly provide enough verifability that at the least a short summary of the topic could be merged to another article, such as coreboot or another appropriate merge target. Thus I think the closer of the first AfD was correct--outright deletion is unwarranted, but a merge to another article is a reasonable outcome. I'll also note that it is perfectly fine for a COI editor to provide recommendations at AfD. If they can provide evidence for a recommendation that that non-involved editors accept, that's good evidence toward an outcome. -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (Nominator) @ JPxG and Mark viking : > Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Really? _Fake_Surprise_Emoji. Lourdes an admin IIUC recently advised me in a similar context: "Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted." I agree with merging some of the material elsewhere. That seems implicit in my suggestion to redirect. It also seems implicit in other suggestions to stubify the article (with poor sources). No mention in a 2019 Open-source firmware review article: [98] The source was used by PhotographyEdits to support notability of a list of open-source firmware, including Libreboot. Other open-source firmware is covered. Libreboot is conspicuously absent. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 20:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yae, unless you're going to bring up something from WP:DELREASON , this is going to be a speedy keep from me, per WP:SK1 . I'm going to leave it to someone else to close this, but there is a material difference between a discussion for which people other than the nominator expressed an opinion in favour of deletion and one where nobody does. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep & revert to previous version, per PhotographyEdits. The later additions were almost entirely WP:COATRACK , and any good parts can be discussed individually before re-adding. If I was writing an article on apples, and used book sources that were about fruits in general, it should be obvious that it would be WP:COATRACK and a misuse of sources to spend half the article talking about these other fruits. Every source is clear that Libreboot is a software project; the rest is fluff. The premise behind this AfD is that (1) when the article reflected what secondary sources said, it was a WP:SPAMPAGE ; (2) now that it's a coatrack to off-topic commercial products, and promotes a fork that wasn't covered by any secondary sources, it is no longer a SPAMPAGE; (3) since preliminary consensus is turning against these dubious additions, the article should be deleted. These premises are absurd enough that they don't merit a counterargument, and bringing something to AfD due to (seemingly) losing a content dispute is disruptive. DFlhb ( talk ) 17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) edited, no need to revert since Maddy fixed it 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've edited the page to cut down on the WP:COATRACK and related issues. I'll make a source assesment table with the sources now in the article shortly. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0070-4_4 ✘ No https://fossforce.com/2017/01/gnu-officially-boots-libreboot/ Looks like a blog, no information on editorial practices. ✘ No https://fossforce.com/2016/09/libreboot-leaves-gnu-claiming-gender-identity-discrimination-fsf/ ✘ No https://www.pcworld.com/article/431637/the-free-software-foundation-loves-this-laptop-but-you-wont.html ✘ No https://www.pcworld.com/article/422917/why-linux-enthusiasts-are-arguing-over-purisms-sleek-idealistic-librem-laptops.html ✘ No https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-new-free-software-laptop-arrives/ ✘ No https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2017/203/Open-Hardware-Technoethical ✘ No http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2018/210/Free-Firmware-with-Libreboot ✔ Yes https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-i-setup ? There's some uncertainty what kind of editorial staff Linux Journal had when the article was published [99] . The author may also qualify as a WP:SPE . ? Unknown https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-ii-installation ? ? Unknown 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 }} . -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many thanks for this. The author of the last two was a columnist at the time of publication ( archive link ). I think for tech, "columnist" has a much lower connotation of opinionated bloviation, and a better mix of fact-to-opinion compared to politics or other subjects. To compare, I'd put other tech columnists like Walt Mossberg or David Pogue in a different league from all the typical silly op-ed writers. So, opinions may differ, but I'd count it towards GNG. edited 22:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC): wasn't sure how columnists usually get treated at AfD, so I looked around and found this smart 2013 DGG comment : his criteria are the degree of editorial control over the column, and the credibility of the columnist. I'll let others judge the first, but I think we can lean on WP:SPE to satisfy the second. DFlhb ( talk ) 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This AfD appears to be the culmination of a large content dispute between the nominator and multiple other people. Dawnbails ( talk ) 20:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I see no policy-based rationale for deleting this article, and agree that the AfD seems to be a tactical move as part of a content dispute. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmill30 ( talk • contribs ) Comment @ Maddy from Celeste Thanks for making the source assessment table! Note that there are also two articles by Hackaday that are currently not cited: - https://hackaday.com/2018/08/20/installing-libreboot-the-very-lazy-way/ - https://hackaday.com/2016/12/16/installing-libreboot/ Although per WP:RSN discussion some years ago, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Hackaday. In case it is established that it is reliable, they would count towards the WP:GNG imho. Personally, I'd say Linux Journal is a reliable source for technical content like this. PhotographyEdits ( talk ) 11:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm yeah, I'm unsure on Hackaday. The writers and editors seem to be amateurs, but there is some kind of editorial staff at least. It's also not the most controversial area or prone to disinformation. In terms of sigcov, both sources mostly document the process of installing libreboot. I'd say the second one is the stronger one for sigcov, since it addresses a "normal" installation rather than an intentionally hacky one, and it includes more general description of the firmware. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can anyone actually name 3 or 4 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of libreboot.org , which an RfC proposes as the subject of the article, to support WP:GNG ? Thanks for the source assessment, but one FossForce source called "significant" coverage is not. [100] The source literally says: " this entire story is summed up by the above headline. Until we know more, that’s all we know. " Regardless, the assessment only claims one source supports WP:GNG. -- Yae4 ( talk ) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Kyle Rankin Linux Journal two-part story is reliable significant, and explicitly mentions libreboot.org, if that matters. There's multiple stories about Libreboot (seemingly the .org version?) in this Linux Voice issue: [101] . Here's a PC World issue talking about libreboot (again .org, I think) significantly in the context of the X200: [102] . With passing references (maybe more! I haven't read them all) in multiple other issues and magazines from that mid/late 2010s era. I don't see any reason to delete this article and my vague feeling is it should focus on on the version that's how referred to as the libreboot.org version with a section mentioning forks/etc, at this time. Skynxnex ( talk ) 22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Your Time Is Gonna Come: Most of what I found in BEFORE were mere mentions. This article relies on interviews (not independent) and discogs ( WP:SPS ). Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Led Zeppelin (album) as failing notability guidelines, as well as recommending protection to that page. If deleted, also support salting the title. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 16:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Virtually every Led Zeppelin song is going to meet WP:GNG . This is no exception. Welch, Chris (2009). Led Zeppelin : the stories behind every Led Zeppelin song . London : Carlton. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-84732-286-9 . Credited to Page and John Paul Jones, this gave Jones a chance to show off his abilities on the church organ, while Page made use of a Fender pedal steel guitar. Played on the band's early dates in Scandinavia, the song was later dropped from the show. Jones uses bass pedals on the organ to fill out the sound, until Plant begins to protest at the woeful lack of courtesy shown by the modern girl. "Lying, cheating, hurting, that's all you ever seem to do," he grumbles. But although she drives him insane, one day her time is gonna come and she'll find him gone. The pedal steel that Page uses is slightly out of tune, which adds to the strangely plaintive air that persists until Bonham's sternly bashing drums bring a sense of direction to the final chorus. Part of this song was sometimes used on the band's 'Whole Lotta Love' medley. Somach, Denny (2012). Get the Led out : how Led Zeppelin became the biggest band in the world . New York : Sterling. ISBN 978-1-4027-8941-0 . Only "Your Time Is Gonna Come" is not known to have been performed live during that period, probably because it requires an organ, an instrument to which John Paul Jones did not have access during concerts until later. Jason Bonham has said that the song's bright and cathedral-like organ prelude- -which he heard on a record player at his house as a child was one of his earliest memories, and made him curious about music before he finally understood that it was his father's profession. Here, Plant croons a vengeful lyric over a pastoral riff played mainly on acoustic guitar with occasional add-ins from Page on electric lap steel, an instrument he might have been fiddling with for the very first time. Page was, after all, a guy who'd joined the Yardbirds not as a guitarist but as a bassist- and he'd never played bass before, either! No portion of the lyrics to "Your Time Is Gonna Come" has been traced to any previous sources, but if Plant was the lyricist, the writing credits don't reflect it. Led Zeppelin : you shook me . Blitz Books. 2017. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-9997050-7-7 . Segues from Dazed And Confused with a keyboard sound that although used sparingly by John Paul Jones was to become very much a Led Zeppelin sound. Nice gentle guitar from Jimmy gives this song a lovely feel. Along with Black Mountain side this track gives a nice respite from some rather exciting and heavy tracks now the album is on CD. In the days of vinyl of course this was a gentle (ish) start to side two. Shadwick, Keith (2005). Led Zeppelin : the story of a band and their music : 1968-1980 . San Francisco : Backbeat Books. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-87930-871-1 . On today's CD versions it segues into the following track, 'Your Time Is Gonna Come', as it had from 'You Shook Me'. Considering Page's close involvement in all things Zeppelin up to the present day, one can only assume that this unbroken movement of songs is intended. Certainly the César Franck-chorale-like organ intro to 'Your Time' (played by Jones) is in the same key in which 'Dazed' concludes, so it may well have been the original intention, thwarted by the time limitations of vinyl at the time. When Jones makes the transition into the riff of Your Time Is Gonna Come', the tune's roots are laid bare. The verse's structure is very close to 'Hey Joe', as performed by Jimi Hendrix, down to the detail of the cadential guitar tag. Plant's vocal follows a different route to 'Hey Joe', although the lyrics have a similar message about women paid back for alleged wrongdoings to long-suffering lovers. The song, another Page composition, is undistinguished, with a hackneyed chorus that even Page's arranging skills can't mask. He uses pedal-steel guitar for the first time in a studio, but by his own later admission it is out of tune. The song does however give Plant the opportunity to deliver an entire song without having to resort to screeching, and he does well. Jfire ( talk ) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Tons of notable coverage per above. Seacactus 13 ( talk ) 01:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article needs some work but good sources are plentiful InDimensional ( talk ) 14:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted, and the sources given by JFire above only scratch the surface. There is enough analysis by reliable authors out there to expand this article significantly. Here's another: Led Zeppelin All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track by Jean-Michel Guesdon and Philippe Margotin. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The Led Zeppelin band is exceptionally influential. The past AfD resulted in a merge but a lot more coverage has shown up in the past 20 years, some of which is noted by Jfire TLA tlak 03:22, 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

Ant Raid: Article failed a PROD in 2020, but has not been edited since. The game has been subject to Metacritic reviews [32] but the Touch Arcade review is the only reliable source. A light WP:BEFORE does not seem to yield anything patently reliable at first glance. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree with the above explanation, one good review, one iffy/short review. I can only find Raid (the bug spray to kill ants). Not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Gamezebo , TouchArcade and Slide to Play are all listed as reliable in WP:VG/S . 148Apps is situational. It would seem simply from an overview of Metacritic that the game is just barely notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The 8 reviews on Metacritic are surely sufficient to flesh this stub out. SnowFire ( talk ) 00:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Inclusion of sources on Metacritic are not in themselves signs of reliability such as under WP:VG/S , but as stated by @ Zxcvbnm above there are enough that do to satisfy GNG. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination at this point. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 05:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above; nomination has been withdrawn. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yasuj Chain Dam: Fails WP:NBUILD . Possible redirect to whatever body of water it connects to.... which isn't even noted in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , Technology , and Iran . UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . As one might expect, there is a longer article on this topic in the Persian Wikipedia at fa: نیروگاه‌های زنجیره‌ای یاسوج with lots of references. It should be possible to expand the article with text taken from the Persian article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't want to straight up ! vote keep since I haven't personally reviewed or searched for non-English sources, but power plants almost always will receive a level of coverage, and it seems probable it can be sourced using sources in the local language. SportingFlyer T · C 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think these are small plants but nevertheless interesting. Our article says this chain of run-of-river is near Sisakht . If you look at the Google Maps satellite view , this is a hilly, arid location with some big creeks (or small rivers) and small canals. On those streams, you'll see some of these structures. What's harder to find is the refs that I know should be out there. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Google translation of our Farsi (Persian) article Bostani, Fardin (August 1998). "Engineering Geological Investigations of the Master Plan of Pul Klu-Yasuj River Chain Power Plants" . Geological survey of Iran . Retrieved 13 July 2023 . Google translation from Farsi. This translated article gives details to expand our article with info on individual structures. (Archived Farsi version ) Meets notability requirements and has information for significant expansion. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per A. B. See also this in-depth study of the nine-station hydropower system . That said, it might be ideal to cover this in an article on the river (or move this to become an article on the river), a sub-sub-sub-tributary of the Kasun that doesn't seem to have a standard transliteration but is given in that article as Polkolo River . -- Visviva ( talk ) 04:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to admin: I'm happy with Visviva 's idea re: merging to an article on the river. As a general rule, instead of 6.5 million articles, I'd like to see all that information in fewer but bigger articles - easier to manage. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Regressive Left: No indication of encyclopedic relevance nor as an actual tendency within the left. Since it seems to have dropped off in usage by 2018 when all these guys started handwringing about "wokeness" instead I think it likely fails WP:10Y Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've sent a notification to every editor who worked on this article in 2023. Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hello, Simonm223 , this AFD is not transcluded correctly to the day's AFD log ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7 ). So, a lot of editors, and all editors and admins who close discussions will not see it listed. Please correct this error if you want to get the participation of other editors in this discussion. Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 01:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fixed now, closers may wish to take into account time of listing. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s very odd. I'm not sure how it happened. But I appreciate the assist. Simonm223 ( talk ) 10:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reason was case sensitivity (left vs Left), easy mistake to make, I'd probably do it all the time. I highly recommend Twinkle in order to not have to worry about these things, it really does make a lot of tasks much easier. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I completely forgot about the case sensitivity issue - have been inactive a while - but that makes sense. Simonm223 ( talk ) 12:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Maajid Nawaz . Although this term has a Wiktionary page which claims a slightly older origin [6] , with the more specific meaning in the article, it's primarily associated with Nawaz and hasn't got beyond him and a small circle of New Atheist personalities he chums around with. Flash in the pan: as the OP says it seems to have died as a buzzword. A lot of Google hits are for the band of the same name, but I don't think they're notable either. -- Colapeninsula ( talk ) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd be satisfied with Colapeninsula 's suggestion if that is the broader consensus. Simonm223 ( talk ) 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the term has received enough coverage in notable sources to establish notability. Redirecting to Maajid Nawaz and detailing there is not a better solution than a standalone article, because while Nawaz coined the term, much of the substance of the article concerns usage of the term by others. Per the nomination, it's also worth noting the none of the prominent New Atheists are conservatives. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Thanks for your help with the AFD listing, Alpha3031 . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Fulfills WP:SIGCOV for stand-alone article. Loksmythe ( talk ) 22:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage. Thriley ( talk ) 20:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes the WP:SIGCOV test. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 00:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily meets our WP:WORDISSUBJECT policy Lightburst ( talk ) 04:34, 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

Olympics on CBS commentators: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN . Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE . As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY , staff rosters and announcements, some being nothing more than a guide; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Olympics , and Lists . SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:LISTN appears to be met with the 4th source in the article, combined with [ [7] ] and [ [8] ] describing the commentators as a group. Let'srun ( talk ) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As of now, about 43 sources have just been added. The hosts section and the 1998 Winter Olympics section as for intents and purposes been extensively covered and referenced, as well as the 1960 Winter Games. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main CBS Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option. BornonJune8 ( talk ) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete per nom, I found the same sources as Let'sRun, but they mirror a WP:ROUTINE news source/press release than significant coverage, plus the rest of the list is just WP:OR anyways. Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on CBS on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sandro Goiano (footballer, born 1978): Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil . Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Hello, I created the article and honestly it doesn't see where its fail in WP:GNG , he was state champion for three different clubs in Brazilian football (all first division state leagues are completely professional), he scored goals in a very notable confrontation which was ASA vs. Palmeiras in 2002 Copa do Brasil, there is coverage from reliable sources such as GloboEsporte. I would like to understand the point of the article being deleted. Svartner ( talk ) 01:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The second source in the article clearly shows in-depth coverage, the other sources help. And going by the length of his career and how much he played, It seems that there is a lot of sources to hunt down and add to the article. There is plenty of room to expand the article. Govvy ( talk ) 11:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. One decent source is not enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - The article is not based on a single source. In any case, I added a few more to complement. Svartner ( talk ) 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Article about former footballer who had a single notable performance in a round of 64 Copa do Brasil match, and which appears to fail WP:GNG . The Globo Esporte article is useful, but leans heavily on quotes with the subject and the secondary coverage is almost entirely focused on that one match. I'd need to see better sources (in depth, secondary coverage in reliable sources, not match reports and previews) and I'm skeptical that this footballer is well-known in Brazil. Jogurney ( talk ) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - You completely ignored the part that the player was champion in three different first-tier state leagues, all at professional level in Brazilian football pyramid. The 2002 game gave a lot of visibility, but the athlete's career spans 18 years. There are sources on the titles won, several on the 2002 match, as well as statistics on Soccerway and ogol.com, in a variety of ways. Svartner ( talk ) 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's go through each of the references included in the article: Three (FdSP from 5/2013, 7S from 5/2015 and JA from 2/2020) are noting the 2002 Copa do Brasil round of 64 match where Goiano is just name-dropped for being in the squad and scoring the game-winner (not in-depth coverage); One (UOL from 2/2002) is an interview with Goiano about that 2002 match with a brief career update (mostly primary coverage, and not in-depth); Two (both GE from May 2013) are a match report (where his name is dropped as having been in the squad) and a post-match interview with Goiano about his club's '13 state championship (not in-depth or not secondary); One (ZC from 11/2023) is about his former manager (Paiva) and includes a name drop that he was in Paiva's state championship winning side (not in-depth/mostly not even about him); One (UD from 8/2014) is a match report where his name is mentioned in passing (not in-depth); One (GE from 11/2014) is a season preview which only indicates he is in the squad (not in-depth); One (BNA) is simply a note that he scored some goals in the '09 state championship (not in-depth); and One (GE from 5/2015) has a one paragraph career summary (not in-depth). So while, he has been in some sides that won state championships (mind you, these are not close to being high-profile championships like the Carioca or Paulista), there is no in-depth coverage of him as a footballer. The article fails WP:GNG . Jogurney ( talk ) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Each of the sources in question covers one of the topics involving the athlete. One part about the achievements, another about the 2002 game (which is historic), others about the final part of his career, with the second source providing more details about its origins (as the user @ Govvy rightly pointed out). The only gap that I was unable to resolve is regarding the beginning of the player's career in Portuguese football. About the state leagues not being Paulista or Carioca would make sense if it were the only relevant thing in the entire trajectory, but the sum of factors makes Goiano's career something relevant. Just look at other Brazilian players, most of whom have no achievements and/or no spells in relevant teams.Things add up. An athlete with titles in state leagues + protagonist of a historic match + long career by Brazilian football standards. And there is WP:SIGCOV in the Brazilian media as you yourself stated (GloboEsporte at various times, Folha de São Paulo, UOL Esporte, basically the main ones in the country). Svartner ( talk ) 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not state that there is SIGCOV of him; I see none at all. It doesn't matter that a newspaper like FdSP has an article that mentions his name a couple of times; we would need an article that provides in-depth secondary coverage of his career. The very best source identified so far (from GE) dedicates a single paragraph to recapping his career thus far (as it does to every other squad member). That's simply not good enough for the GNG. Jogurney ( talk ) 17:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Govvy and Svartner. Already has sources and deifitly has even more offline sources, having had extensive fully pro career in late 1990s to early 2000s. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per keeps above me. gidonb ( talk ) 03:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It has not been proved that the subject meets GNG; there is presently only one source which counts as WP:SIGCOV . More evidence is needed that there are offline sources. Otherwise, I suggest delete . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , significant coverage and passes GNG. Page needs improvement not deletion. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 07:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per Jogurney's excellent analysis. The Globo piece is written in a primary, narrative style, from the perspective of the subject, and is based on an interview. That's not enough independence to stand alone as the sole substantial source. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I found another interview of the athlete, in addition to a printed publication of Jornal Lance! (São Paulo) talking about the players celebration in Arapiraca, summarizing the athletes careers up to that point in 2002. The sources add up while the arguments for deletion are based only on the way the GloboEsporte interview was carried out. Svartner ( talk ) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG , Jogurney ! vote with supposedly "excellent analysis" is little more than cherry-picking at the sources and finding stuff to complain about. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources found. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep scrapes through WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:01, 27 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

Isle of Wight Garlic Festival: No WP:SIGCOV references, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Events , and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to have some coverage in the Isle of Wight press, [13] . Few other mentions here [14] and [15] and here [16] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Newchurch, Isle of Wight . Preliminary spinout from the community article. Per sources identified, the topic is notable, just creates excessive fragmentation. The rationale of this nomination defies WP:NEXIST . gidonb ( talk ) 07:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with Oaktree b. Many articles in the regional IoW press on this festival - and also coverage in national press, with further articles such as [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] . Resonant Dis tor tion 22:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources found above seem to demonstrate GNG. Not fundamentally opposed to a full merge as recommended above, if it can improve things for both subjects per WP:NOPAGE . — siro χ o 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable event with RS WP:NEXIST Lightburst ( talk ) 20:59, 25 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

Hanuman and the 5 Kamen Riders: Neocorelight ( Talk ) 04:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Thailand . Neocorelight ( Talk ) 04:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Martial arts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a source giving some context and plot. Maybe redirect to Sompote Sands#Filmography ? (I did not search very hard, neither in English nor Thaï or Japanese , so if this is judged notable and can be improved, not opposed to keep) . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) In light of the sources commented by Paul 012 below, Keep . Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. The article itself doesn't properly explain the importance/notability of the subject and is very poorly sourced—beyond the lack of credible, appropriate sources. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The article is misnamed as the result of an undiscussed move in 2023. It should be renamed back to the common English name, Hanuman and the Five Riders . -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 07:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep. Has some English-language book coverage. [23] [24] Several reviews, mostly personal blogs, [25] [26] [27] [28] but there's also an entry in The World Wide Celluloid Massacre (thelastexit.net), which appears to be quite an established website. [29] Thai coverage exists, but much less than that for its predecessor The 6 Ultra Brothers vs. the Monster Army . Several paragraphs on its production in this master's thesis. [30] Was discussed in a 2021 conference talk hosted by the Thai Film Archive , though no full proceedings were published. [31] Recently appears in the news mostly as brief mentions in discussions of Sompote Sands 's filmography following his death in 2021. [32] Such a level of coverage isn't itself a clear indication of notability, but for a film released almost 50 years ago, it hints at a lasting significance. For a project of this size, it must have received a significant amount of contemporary coverage that is no longer accessible online. If not kept, redirect to Sompote Sands . -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 07:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Those are some good finds. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 07:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think the Spinegrinder book mentioned above is decent coverage. I've also found a few sentences about the legal issues on Sci-Fi Japan , as well as Thai-language reviews on Postjung (translated) and Pescinema (translated). I think there's enough to suggest notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:29, 6 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

Addison Road, London: The other sources are used to discuss various buildings along the road and not the road itself. LondonTown.com and London's Abandoned Tube Stations are not RS. Rs chen 7754 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . Rs chen 7754 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Kensington or other appropriate area article. I agree that the road itself is not independently notable, but there is salvageable content which could plausibly be used in an "Architecture" or "Listed Buildings" section of a broader article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 06:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — a historic road with very strong literary connections, some already mentioned, but others are not such as Radclyffe Hall and Joseph Conrad . There are scholarly references currently not included, e.g., see https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-09387-8_3 — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 09:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those two articles don't mention Addison Road, and the Springer link goes to a chapter of a book which contains a passing mention of it, which I don't think counts as either scholarly or supportive of notability. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 09:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The link provided fails WP:SIGCOV as it is a trivial mention. -- Rs chen 7754 16:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: Addison Road has its own entry in The Encyclopaedia of London (Macmillan, 1983), indicative of notability. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk ) 20:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you write anything more about the road from that source besides that it exists? Rs chen 7754 20:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just checked my copy of the Encyclopedia of London and it has a an entry that goes far beyond simply stating the road's existence. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kensington per Barnards.tar.gz - No evidence of notability to warrant an article but some of the content could certainly be used in the Kensington article. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the above, much of what is here is encyclopaedic and appropriate for a Wikipedia article but the street itself isn't notable. Either Kensington or something like a List of streets in Kensington and Chelsea would be a better home for it. Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable, sourced, meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Well-cited article. Notable road, and easily passes WP:GNG . Edwardx ( talk ) 13:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Self-evidently notable I would have thought and easily passes GNG with the literary and architectural connections. I find a good entry in the Encyclopedia of London , plenty in Pevsner (London NW), and entries in the next two London books I consulted. Philafrenzy ( talk ) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : there are multiple sources which indicate that the article passes WP:GNG . InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG . Justwatchmee ( talk ) 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between those supporting Merge and those advocating Keep. No support for article deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe the Survey of London and Pevsner London 3: North West individually provide SIGCOV, which is supplemented by The London Encyclopaedia (5 sentences). There are eight groups of listed buildings, including Debenham House , which contribute to the notability of the Street. TSventon ( talk ) 12:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 ( talk ) 12:49, 24 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

Hero Envy: There are at least two newspaper articles about this series, in the Leominster Champion and in the Telegram & Gazette , however, both are local sources ( Worcester County, Massachusetts ), and both articles are from August 2006. Hero Envy is also present in the book Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997-2015 , where about 130 words are dedicated to the summary of the plot/characters, and about 75 words of additional commentary (mainly about the spin-off). The article also cites Nerd Caliber, but that doesn't seem like an RS. Perhaps I've missed something, though. toweli ( talk ) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet . toweli ( talk ) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom Okmrman ( talk ) 04:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] According to this search , this comment is one of 67 AfD comments Okmrman made in the 04:00 hour. Cunard ( talk ) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria , which says: Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources , and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores . Sources Terrace, Vincent (2016). Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997–2015 . Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7864-9760-7 . ProQuest 2131337447 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Four off-the wall friends (J.D., Orson, Wally and Dekker) and how they deal with the situations they encounter as they just go about their daily activities. J.D. acts like a three-year-old but is actually 30 and lives for babes, beer and cartoons. He is also very irresponsible and has little respect for the law (or even people). Dekker, a clerk at the local comic book store (Fly on the Wall Comics), is not as out-going as his friends and is considered a loner. ... Ridiculous characters, foul language and not very convincing acting. Despite the ludicrous production a spin off was created called Hero Envy: The Swass Adventures that aired in 2009. Here, Dekker's further adventures were chronicled but in an alternate universe where he now lives with a man known only as the Toy Dealer. His efforts to return to his own time while dealing with his current situation were the focus of the program." Semon, Craig S. (2006-08-03). "Geek revival: Comic characters reborn on Web" . Telegram & Gazette . Archived from the original on 2024-05-13 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . The article notes: "In the case of “Hero Envy,” a series of “webisodes” for geeks, by geeks, it, too, has an origin. ... The brainchild of Leominster native Keith Gleason and Bolton’s Michael Hopta, “Hero Envy” evolves around the foul-mouthed and physically abusive misadventures of two childhood friends — Wally North (aka “Comicus Geekus,” played by Hopta), and his raucous roommate, J.D. Field (John Cimino of Waltham). ... With Adam Dyko behind the camera and Tom Rebello providing the cover art, a DVD featuring the first six “Hero Envy” episodes, as well as bonus features, has just been released at a cost of $10. At the recent Wizard World convention in Philadelphia, Gleason and company rented a table and sold 200 DVDs by weekend’s end." Sauvageau, Lindsay (2006-08-11). " 'Hero' worship: Popular Web series has no shame 'Hero' worship" . Leominster Champion . Archived from the original on 2013-01-27 . Retrieved 2024-05-13 . The article notes: ""Hero Envy's" plots are characterdriven, with the series featuring four main characters that represent what Gleason refers to as four areas of "geekdom." Specifically, each is decked out with attributes highlight that character's individual obsessions: comic books, old cartoons/ merchandise, video games and movies in the science fiction and horror genres. These are also the obsessions of their real-life counterparts. " " "Webisódios" viram febre nos EUA" ["Webisodes" become a rage in the USA]. Folha de S.Paulo (in Spanish). 2006-06-12. ProQuest 335932182 . The article provides 57 words about the subject. The article notes: "É dessa arena que vem "Hero Envy" ("Inveja de Herói"), série escrita e atuada por uma turma de amigos fissurados em HQs de super-heróis, com trama baseada em um roteiro que nunca encontrou financiamento para se converter em longa-metragem. A produção caseira começou a ser rodada no ano passado e já gerou sete episódios de dez minutos. " From Google Translate: "It is from this arena that "Hero Envy" comes, a series written and acted by a group of friends obsessed with superhero comics, with a plot based on a script that never found financing to be turned into a feature-length film. footage. The home production began filming last year and has already generated seven ten-minute episodes. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hero Envy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - cunard has found some excellent sources proving that enough WP:NEXISTs to meet notability guidelines Hopefully some will get incorporated, but there is no longer a need to delete. - 2pou ( talk ) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I had brought up three of those sources, except the 57 word one in my nomination for deletion message; Cunard didn't find them. My concern is that both of the newspaper sources are very local, and are both from August 2006. toweli ( talk ) 15:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, fair enough... apologies for the miscredit. I guess the intent was to thank Cunard for the sources being conveniently quoted here for easy access. I have long held a low bar to clear such as WP:100WORDS and just 2 sources to pass GNG. I believe that this satisfies that. The spinoff is also covered by this article, so I interpreted it as lumping them together more as a "franchise" article.Regarding the locality of the newspapers, I can't say much about the Leominster Champion , but Telegram & Gazette seems to be decently sized for the region and owned by the NYT at the time as opposed to a strictly regional operation. As to the age of the works, I don't hold that against it per WP:NOTTEMPORARY . - 2pou ( talk ) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : sources brought by Cunard are enough to show it's notable. 2 are from regional papers from 2006 but that does not make them less reliable. The other 2 are a significant mention in a book and the Folha de S. Paulo (which, for the record, is in Portuguese not Sp.), a major Brazilian newspaper. Thanks - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: Sources brought by Toweli and Cunard , thanks both. Quod caesaris , apologies. [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sons of the Serpent: ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Comics and animation . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, Merge or Redirect , there's a list somewhere this can be merged to. H i ding T 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources noted by Daranios and Toughpigs (particularly those being added by Higher Further Faster) or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per User:Hiding . BOZ ( talk ) 00:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE . -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While once more this article is in bad shape, secondary sources for improvement do exist: Marvel Comics in the 1970s , p. 193, has commentary and analysis, as does this paper from a Brazilian journal, thus fullfilling the minimum requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN after all. And there are more shorter mentions in various sources, like The Ages of the Avengers , pp. 15, 18, 100, 107. Daranios ( talk ) 15:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment to closing admin "Keep" votes without evidence should be completely ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE policy. Daranios was the first one to advance an actual argument. The sources shown by Daranios are a good start, but I'm not sure it's enough to outright convince me it passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are existing secondary sources in the article: Marvel Comics in the 1960s: An Issue By Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon and American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s . The nominator did not address why these secondary sources should not be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sentence that cites said sources has near-nil in the way of anything beyond the most cursory description, leading me to believe they have only the most trivial and passing of mentions. I would assume if they said anything more, it would have been integrated into the article, or at least brought to the attention of editors on the talk page. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is the article creator's WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. While the Keep arguments might be weak, I see no support currently for Deletion. For those editors advocating a Merge or Redirect, is the suggested target article acceptable? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While we've been talking, User:Higher Further Faster has improved the page dramatically, with a Reception section that includes a widely-discussed flap on Fox News specifically about whether this villain group is being used in Captain America comics to malign conservatives. I would encourage everyone in this discussion so far to check out the improvement, and see if it changes your opinion on notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep reception section clearly meets GNG now. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the sourcing in the article from multiple reliable sources. Curious as to why that didn't show up in the nominator's Before research considering it all seems to be online and User:Higher Further Faster seemed to have no problem locating it. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

1802 in Ukraine: Not significant enough for its own article. BangJan1999 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ukraine . BangJan1999 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and add some of the notable people and things listed in the corresponding Ukrainian article at uk:1802 в Україні . I feel really frustrated with nominations like this. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And the "someone without their own article", Józef Bohdan Zaleski , already has an article in the English Wikipedia and several other languages. The nominator might want to withdraw this nomination. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I fixed the link to the Template:Years_in_Ukraine this a common thing for nations to have. Józef Bohdan Zaleski has their own article confirming where and when they were born. D r e a m Focus 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - common for nations to have this type of article. Now that the links have been fixed, the page is working and can be expanded. Onel 5969 TT me 09:31, 14 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

Nikhil Kamath: The majority of the sources are coming from Newswire and are not independent. Lordofhunter ( talk ) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India . Lordofhunter ( talk ) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I only see three reliables sources mainly Al Jazeera, Bloomberg and Forbes and do think the rest of the sources are not reliable enough to remain as an article. Untamed1910 ( talk ) 14:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 1) The article was accepted by an AFC reviewer just a week back. How can an article which was reviewed at AFC needs to be deleted in just seven days? If there are any issues with the article then discuss on its talk page or fix it directly rather than nominating it multiple times for speedy deletion or AFD. 2) The subject is extensively covered by Indian National Media - Times of India, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, Forbes and also by some International Media - Aljazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes and South China Morning Post. All of the aforementioned media are considered as reliable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . The article has more than 25 such sources which are considered as reliable at Wikipedia. Himalayan7914 ( talk ) 15:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Like i said only Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, Forbes, China Morning Post are listed as reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV, do not appear on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, there is no way of knowing if Economic Times, Indian Express, The Hindu, NDTV are reliable enough. Untamed1910 ( talk ) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ Untamed1910 , I think you haven't gone through the entire list properly. The Indian Express and The Hindu are also mentioned as most reliable (in the green legend) in the list. The article also has many more sources from the most reliable medias and today I have added a few more. I am listing down all the sources from the article by Most Reliable Media below for better understanding: Al Jazeera - [69] Bloomberg - [70] [71] Barrons (Wall Street Journal) - [72] Forbes - [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] Indian Express - [79] [80] [81] South China Morning Post - [82] [83] The New York Times - [84] The Hindu - [85] [86] [87] Yahoo Finance - [88] There are many more such coverages from Indian National and Regional media from yellow legend section (no consensus on the reliability) too but they are considered as reputed here in India. However, I think the above coverages from the Most Reliable medias are more than sufficient to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Himalayan7914 ( talk ) 06:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Majority of sources shared are nothing more than interviews where there is no independent comment of a journalist. Example: Aljazeera , Bloomberg , barrons , forbes , Forbes published by outsider , interview , ForbesIndia Interview again , Story of non notable company which is already been deleted multiple times , Interview PTI News , PR Material published on various news , PR Newswire , again interview Lordofhunter ( talk ) 10:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Defiantly passing WP:GNG , this , this , and this looks good to me. And all of them are reliable sources. Forbes listed him as the self-made billionaire. Forbes India listed him 30 under 30. Nomadwikiholic ( talk ) 07:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ceres, Washington: It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted. Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom ( talk ) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . James.folsom ( talk ) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (as the PRODder) for reasons given above. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per nomination. Non-notable community. TH1980 ( talk ) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rewrite/reclassify as a former community. A long read is available at the Talk:Ceres, Washington page with details in early history of Ceres. I agree that such a community no longer exists, but it did from the late 1890s and with some strength into the late 1930s. Small, rural communities are rarely given due historical attention, but thanks to local reporting, even if in snippets, we can see the Ceres community that once existed. If via consensus we keep the article, I volunteer to rewrite and expand the page. Shortiefourten ( talk ) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources compiled by Shortiefourten on the article talk page shows this is a recognized populated place sufficient to be kept. The Origin of Washington Geographic Names sources also calls it a "town", though I understand that to be in the American way that rural areas gathered community identities. -- Milowent • has spoken 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to rewrite this article as proposed by one editor? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Me, me, me! I do, I do, I do! I'm out of action this Memorial Day weekend but I can certainly start working on it by Tuesday, using the sourcing already found. Thanks! Shortiefourten ( talk ) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sourcing detailed on the Talk page. Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk ) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment article has been expanded using sources from the Talk page and rewritten to declare it a former community (no sources since the 1950s refers to it as such) and now as a locale. Feel free to copyedit or use differing terminology to describe Ceres. Thanks to all who participated, and let's Keep this thing! Shortiefourten ( talk ) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coat hangered would be a better description of what happened there. It doesn't exist and her revisions only further highlight that. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This article now has basically been rewritten. Does that influence opinions? An editorial assessment of changes made would help with this closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The expansion and subsequent sourcing on this in the last week or so has improved this tremendously. A tremendous amount of sourcing backs up this article. Category:Ghost town articles by importance shows Wikipedia with over 2,000 such articles. It's OK to have ghost towns on Wikipedia, as long as they are adequately sourced. — Maile ( talk ) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] if it were a ghost town, instead just a place where trains picked up cargo, water and coal. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because there are 41 references on this page. SpokaneWilly ( talk ) 08:30, 4 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

Famiclone: A lot of cruft that few people in the general public that the encyclopedia serves would be interested in it. Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 03:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The nominator's statement suggests that they're attempting to open a merge request , for which AfD is not a proper venue. Apart from this, a deletion discussion is closed based on a determination of the notability of the subject, not whether it is interesting ; there are somewhere north of a hundred sources here which seem to militate against deletion. jp × g 08:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , GNG — siro χ o 09:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article has 122 citations, many of them from reliable sources both domestic and international, with quite a few of them talking about the decades-long history of Famiclones at length. It is very clearly notable. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 11:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable and GNG passing article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:57, 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

Nana Wanjau: Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO . Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW , and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women , and Kenya . Shellwood ( talk ) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here: [1] [2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DaffodilOcean I think you should link Gale to Gale (publisher) instead of gale (a kind of wind). Toadspike [Talk] 10:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Munde, Claire (October 22, 2016). "I blend my charity work with personal growth". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya) – via Gale . ^ "No husband no dignity? Group helps widows rebuild their lives". The Star (Nairobi, Kenya) . July 15, 2017 – via Gale . Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one ( link here ) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 23:10, 5 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! 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You may be able to access Gale databases through your local public library. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : let's not ignore the fact that internet sources in Africa are scarcer than in Europe or the US. A lot of media outlets there generate online content mainly on social networks which we would normally avoid (just one example: an interview on a major TV network there . Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are enough sources to meet the GNG. I don't like they focus so much on the subject's charitable work, almost making them puff pieces, but I doubt they are paid and they clearly consitute significant coverage. @ Dclemens1971 , you can access both newspaper articles DaffodilOcean cited through the Wikipedia Library . Hopefully these links work: [1] [2] . Alternatively, you can just search for the titles (without any punctuation marks) at this search page . The second one is clearly not an interview – for the first one it's debatable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 26 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

B. C. Janardhan Reddy: Does not meet WP:NPOL as a district level official. Only 1 source, which does not have WP:SIGCOV on him. '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk • contribs ) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a member of an Indian state legislature he definitely does pass NPOL and as he’s also a state minister there’s really no question about it. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the page about a person took Oath as Cabinet Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 12th June 2024 [1] [2] [3] Wikipedia & other editors , this not illegial matter, it is very useful to the viewers. They can know who is this particular Minister The photo of this person is already existed in Wikimedia commons. So I created this page. So Wikipedia and editors please don't delete this & please don't nominate for deletion. 🙏 Boyina Naga Navadweep Sai ( talk ) 02:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://ntvtelugu.com/news/andhrapradesh-cabinet-ministers-taken-oath-today-613936.html ^ https://ddnews.gov.in/en/tdp-supremo-chandrababu-naidu-sworn-in-as-andhra-pradesh-cm-in-presence-of-pm-modi/ ^ https://www.ndtv.com/andhra-pradesh-news/andhra-pradesh-pawan-kalyan-among-25-ministers-to-take-oath-with-chandrababu-naidu-5871149 Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Andhra Pradesh is an Indian state with a population larger than the average country, or of any US state. This chap is a lot more than a "district level official". Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : He is the member of Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly, so he passes the WP:NPOL . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 06:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : As a council of minister for the state of Andhra Pradesh he is one of the important persons of the state and I believe people should be able to learn about him. Shannu Nadh ( talk ) 04:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : [...] a district level official , excuse me? Did the nominator even read the article? Indian state legislators, especially state government ministers, clearly meet WP:NPOL #1. Since the nomination, further sources have been added. Also, is the article mistitled? His assembly profile gives his name as B. C. Janardhana Reddy. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies every bit of WP:NPOL . How exactly is a state-level minister a 'district-level official'? There is India, a country, made up of 28 states and 8 Union Territories, of which Andhra Pradesh is one of them. Like the Cabinet at the Government of India, there is a cabinet at the state level, and the subject of this article is a member of said cabinet. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk ) 01:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mccapra. Passes WP:NPOL . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:07, 24 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

Derek Webster (actor): All sources are passing mentions, so fail WP:SIGCOV and hence WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ UtherSRG In my talk page, another editor suggested that the notability was established after the previous AfD. I suggest viewing my talk page to see better their arguments. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk ) 🇮🇹 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Randy Kryn You're invited to participate. Kind regards 14 novembre ( talk ) 🇮🇹 15:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Its advisable if you provide the diffs. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 20:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has multiple significant roles, famous actor, which makes him notable. Is main cast member on Mayor of Kingstown, had prominent roles on NCIS and 9-1-1. Has numerous TV roles. Was also in famous films like Independence BilboBeggins ( talk ) 16:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article about him from Looper is particularly helpful in establishing notability. "Why Dr. Hudson From CSI: Vegas Looks So Familiar" Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is no comparison to his acting career as it was in 2017 and how it has progressed since. Easily meets GNG, per his sourced acting resume since the last AfD in 2017. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 23:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with Eastmain that that Looper article is good coverage. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:03, 31 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

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout: Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Filmyworldwiki who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice. Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete. They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile ( talk ) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Maile66 : , thanks for the comment. Is the ! vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point. Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go. — Maile ( talk ) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile ( talk ) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed it to Comment. — Maile ( talk ) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion .".... Emphasis mine. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wait until announced film release.... .in 12 days. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 12 days. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep even tough releasing in a few days, it already has tons of coverage in Indian publications. I have added these 2 new ones thehindu.com and indiatoday.in . Hkkingg ( talk ) 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.... .Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Final reply: Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply). I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page ? I've asked this twice ( here and on the page ( edit summary ), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point. .... .As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link . Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important . -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: " Now please excuse me but I won’t reply nor comment here anymore : again, too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources. Remove, replace anything you wish; after all, it probably won’t be harmful and I am sincerely sure you will do it in good faith anyway. " (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to.... you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). @ CNMall41 : I feel that @ Mushy Yank : is right in this case. Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times [32] require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] , any further discussion is a complete waste of time. Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable . [38] . DareshMohan ( talk ) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL , I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The film has released, and there are reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy KEEP : film is absolutely blockbuster with reviews and it stars Great actors passes WP:NFILM why is this even nominated ? HarryD ( talk ) 07:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it does, actually. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE.... seriously.... this relist is ...unnecessary .... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @ Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reviews already cited are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews.... ; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This AfD is no different than this AfD . I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL . Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING . You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency . So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:13, 21 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

MicroSIP: Skynxnex ( talk ) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It has limited media coverage, but I'm not sure how much the media would cover something so esoteric. There is robust discussion about it (which indicates wide usage) on platforms like reddit and Youtube. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I'm seeing a respectable amount of discussion in academic papers (e.g. here )— Moriwen ( talk ) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's got decent industry adoption, as evidenced by several scholarly articles, as well as a very large number of how-to's. it's kinda esoteric, but still notable. -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 20:22, 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

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons: The vast majority of the characters listed here are very minor, usually one-off or gag characters with terrible sourcing consisting of other lists ( one of which is the sole source for almost half of the minor characters ) or mere episode reviews that barely mention the characters, making most of this article fail WP:N and WP:GNG The characters that are major enough to talk about already have their own separate articles at Patty and Selma , Waylon Smithers , and Kang and Kodos , or them being LGBT could easily be described on List of recurring The Simpsons characters , which makes the remainder of this article entirely redundant. I want to reiterate so I don’t have to say this again: I am not against noting lgbt characters in The Simpsons, but a list is redundant at best and fancruft at worst, and the only notable section, the lede, has already been copied to a more fitting page. I am open to a compromise: rework this page to be something other than a list format and rename it accordingly (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because it's obvious that the list format clearly does not work for this page. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This grouping is notable as already cited in the list, and note that per WP:NLIST Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable . — siro χ o 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of of the non-notable characters are one-offs or gag characters, like "Comic Book Gay" as a parody of Comic Book Guy. Additionally, the contents that are independently notable already have pages at Patty and Selma , Waylon Smithers , and Kang and Kodos , making the majority of sources on this page more fitting for those pages instead, and also making this page very redundant. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's generally fine for standalone lists as long as they roughly meet WP:NLIST — siro χ o 07:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As stated above, the list is quite notable. Besides the news refs, the fact this topic was covered in a peer-reviewed academic journal is noteworthy. APK whisper in my ear 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The simple fact that there are lgbt characters or the actual characters themselves are notable? Because, as I mentioned earlier, I had already copied the lede of the article to the influences and legacy section of the show’s page , which sufficiently covers the fact that there are lgbt characters. The peer-reviewed academic journal can also simply be covered on the show’s page, not deserving of being split off in its own article that is otherwise filled with fancruft. I should’t have to reiterate this; the coverage of lgbt representation is fine, but the actual list of characters is not notable in any way because most of these characters are one-offs or have their own pages which can talk about their sexuality. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - The nominator removed the lede and has removed links to the page from The Simpsons and Template:The Simpsons . @ Unnamed anon : it seems you're very passionate about this, but can you please wait until this AFD has concluded before scrubbing the content? Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't actually remove it fully, as you can see in the top of this afd, I added the lede to the show’s page. I additionally copied the text and sources from the lgbt characters page to the pages for Patty (and Selma), Smithers, and the Aliens, but I have not removed the text from the page they were originally on yet like I did with the lede per your suggestion. I'm frustrated because both of the "keep" reasons have been faulty; both assumed I don't think the representation isn't notable, but it is, hence why the info was moved. The problem is the page being a list at all; part of it redundant due to its subjects having their own pages, and most of the rest consisting of one-offs. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nowhere did I say you thought representation isn't notable. I referred to the list itself. Let's just wait and see what others think about the page. Take care. APK whisper in my ear 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems odd to delete the lede, as every Wikipedia page should have a lede, and it's okay for content to be duplicated between two Wikipedia pages. Enervation ( talk ) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable as the subject of many sources. The list of minor characters seems fine as well if they are included in reliable sources. Enervation ( talk ) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Enervation : Here's the giant problem about the minor characters: they are barely talked about in said "reliable" sources, which themselves are mostly lists themselves, furthering the redundancy of this article. For example, this source is simply just another list, and it is the only source of the 7 out of 16 (nearly half!) of the minor character entries on the wikipedia list. One source shouldn't compose of almost half of the sources in a section, how that would be considered acceptable in this disaster of a page is baffling. This source for the first minor character is mostly about an entirely separate character, and is also just another list. Other sources, such as this and this , are simple episode reviews that barely mention the character who uses it as a source. The sourcing on this article is just terrible, and, aside from parts of it that belong on other pages, completely unsalvageable. The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable, sure, but belongs on the show’s page, not its own. At the very least, I am open to a compromise: rework it into no longer being a list and (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because the list format just does not work for this page, at all. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Sexuality and gender , and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move I think it should be converted into an article called LGBT representation in The Simpsons . Just having a list like this seems... random, but the overall topic is standalone notable. Making it into an article would hopefully fix the redundancy issue noted in the AfD. I should also note that LGBT representation in American adult animation , its ostensible companion/parent article, was boldly merged without any sort of consensus which may have caused some of the confusion shown here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Unnamed anon : If you agree with this, perhaps it is best to withdraw the AfD entirely, and start a move discussion instead. I think it's clear per WP:SNOW that outright deletion is not going to ever succeed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : I agree with starting a move discussion (and have started it), but I'm not withdrawing this AfD unless it's not allowed to have both running concurrently. I still firmly believe that the contents of this article that are actually notable could comfortably fit onto the show's page and the pages for the three characters with articles. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They can keep running at the same time, but frankly I don't see a path forward for the AfD. It's almost certainly going to be a SNOW close. I was suggesting due to that, but if you want it to keep going, it will. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Zx above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sergecross73 : Move as well or just keep? Because as a list there was so much poorly sourced bloat I had to remove, and the article would at least be salvageable and not redundant if it was moved to LGBT representation in The Simpsons written in a prose format instead. Unnamed anon ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine either way. Whatever garners a stronger consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move per nom and ZX. It is indeed a notable topic. For WP:NLIST , it probably stretches a little, which is why under a different name it would work better. However, even minor/guest characters for any show can have the impact necessary for outside their show. I believe there is an Emmy category for guest appearances. Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic, as others have pointed out, but a move might be in order. ★Trekker ( talk ) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Politics in The Simpsons#LGBT_issues . Possibly split into its own prose (not list) article afterward (per move suggestions above). There is something notable here, but it should not be covered in the listicle of trivia format. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasons stated already. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:01, 17 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

Henrik Karlsson (musicologist): Clear friend a 💬 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Bands and musicians , and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Probably meets WP:AUTHOR , I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I'd like to see more than one book for WP:AUTHOR but Royal Swedish Academy of Music might be a pass of WP:PROF#C3 . It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also ping Mscuthbert as our in-house music scholarship expert. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- my sense is that the membership in Royal Swedish Academy of Music would be a WP:PROF#C3 qualification (membership in a very rigorously chosen and prestigious academic society). There are four academics (or five if the society director is included) in the list of 177 current members, among 800ish since the founding in the 1770s, suggesting that at least one society considers him among the top handful of music academics in Sweden. I don't personally know his work, but I haven't really studied Swedish music history, which is his specialty. But he is the author of the plurality(? majority?) of the articles on Swedish music in the New Grove 2001 encyclopedia, meaning he had enough reputation by then to be a significant authority. I think that to the extent that the Academy does appoint researchers as members, it is in that capacity an academic institution; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appoints some non-academic musicians and screen actors as well, but its appointments of academics are considered as WP:PROF#C3. (I was convinced of a Keep before I looked at WP's coverage of Swedish academics in music. A delete here would be 20% of the living people in the category). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (And thanks for the Ping David Eppstein !) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it certainly seems that NACADEMIC is met. Niafied ( talk ) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Molly McGrann: 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 (her author website, her Spotify , etc). The article was created by a WP:SPA . GuardianH ( talk ) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Poetry , England , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: possibly notable: Selected by the BBC Radio 4 as a read-aloud audio program . Reader: Susan Jameson Book reviews: Blackman, Janie (14 May 2015). "Review: Ladies of the House by Molly McGrann" . Oxford Mail . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Donaldson, Brian. "Molly McGrann" . list.co.uk . short review of Exurbia: The List . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Cook, Elinor (12 February 2007). "The kids in America" . New Statesman . review of Exurbia. p. 61 . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Hibbert, Katharine. "FICTION-Exurbia-Molly McGrann." The Times Literary Supplement 5423 (2007): 19. Barber, Laura (9 July 2004). "Skating on acid" . Times Literary Supplement . review of 360-Flip. p. 21 . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . {{ cite web }} : CS1 maint: location ( link ) I found no substantially in-depth coverage in reliable sources about Ms. McGrann herself. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Thanks to A. B. for finding these book reviews. This gets the topic halfway to meeting WP:NAUTHOR #3, so are there any sources that shows Ms McGrann has "created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment According to this [47] article in Bookseller , Exurbia was also reviewed in the Daily Telegraph on 17/3/2007. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 06:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 paragraph Guardian review of 360-flip [48] One paragraph review of The Ladies of the House in the Sydney Morning Herald [49] Brief (very odd) article here [50] in Ham&High another book club feature in The Daily Mail [51] . -- Jahaza ( talk ) 06:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Seems very likely that Exurbia (book) and 360 Flip (book) meet WP:NBOOK . Seems possible that The Ladies of the House (book) does, too. But, despite being reasonably well-reviewed, I don't quite see any significance being attached to them by the reviewers or otherwise. — siro χ o 10:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR : multiple reviews of multiple books. pburka ( talk ) 14:04, 7 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! * 01:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , the book reviews are fine. Perhaps not as big an author as a Steven King, but we have more for sourcing that some "authors" we see at AfD. Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the reviews from A. B. Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It's stil not apparent to me that a few book reviews justify keeping the article of their author. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator here. There's nothing approaching reliable sources which directly details any aspect of her life except for her few writings, which may or may not be notable themselves. Spin contains a single bare mention of her name and profession, the Skidmore class paper clearly does not meet independence, MOJO (radioheadperu.com) is not an RS, Masthead is her bio page at her employer of the time. The rest of the presented sources are reviews. Note: none of the material asserted in her "biography" section is properly cited and could be deleted by any wikipedian as violating BLP. We owe living subjects better coverage than merely a list of writings. BusterD ( talk ) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per policy though, it's completely fine for the notability of an article about an author to rest entirely on reviews of their work. Meanwhile, some of those reviews, e.g. [52] do include biographical information and could support that section of the article. Jahaza ( talk ) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I think this meets WP:AUTHOR , if not as robustly as some. Otherwise, as an alternative to deletion, if not kept independently, it looks like Exurbia is independently notable and could be its own article and as very much a third choice, it could redirect to Colin Greenwood , where she's mentioned. -- Jahaza ( talk ) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Expanding on my keep reasoning above: WP:AUTHOR says a writer is notable if "The person has created...[a] well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clearly McGrann's work has been the primary subject of independent reviews, and I believe it's apparent that her works or collective body of work are well known, as her books have been reviewed in widely circulated general interest periodicals such as The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald . Additional reviews can also be found in The Daily Telegraph : Leith, William (17 July 2004). "Suburb of Lost Souls" . Daily Telegraph . p. 10. Leith, William (17 March 2007). "Clouds Break Through the Sun" . Daily Telegraph . p. 27. pburka ( talk ) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Do I understand the keep arguments correctly? We may base notability for a living person entirely on reviews for their work? I assert the collective body of work is neither well-known, nor has the subject produced a single well-known work. There are reviews, I'll concede. But there is not one single presented or found reliable source which directly details the subject of this living person. What shall we say about this subject? A list of works. That's all we may cite. Disagree with me. BusterD ( talk ) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you look at any of the reviews, because some, like the Oxford Mail one contain a significant amount of material about her background. Jahaza ( talk ) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, before my first comment on such AfDs, I check sources then perform my own reasonable BEFORE. By my reading, there is nothing in the (tabloid) Oxford Mail review that wouldn't be found on the inside of one of her books' jackets. I disagree with keep asserters' assessment of significant coverage . Most of what I'm seeing, even in reviews, is bare mention of the author. Zero which engages her body of work at all. Routine coverage of individual writings, but nothing which approaches our GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject sufficiently to keep and maintain an article about a living person on Wikipedia . As a subject, she doesn't seem to meet ANYBIO or CREATIVE. I can't presume such sourcing exists. Without such sourcing, this biography as written is an original work and as such, synthesis. BusterD ( talk ) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. That's in line with our notability guidelines. We have lots of articles about people without needing to know biographical minutae. The encyclopedia is improved by the inclusion of articles about athletes, even if we know only about their athletic accomplishments; articles about politicians, even if we know only about their exercise of power; and articles about writers and artists, even if know only about their art. We could give these articles more precise names, I guess ( Works of Molly McGrann , Athletic career of Fernanda Ribeiro , Medals of James Brady ), but it's simpler to treat them as simple biographies. pburka ( talk ) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simpler to whom? Certainly not simpler to the subject of a Wikipedia article which poorly or inaccurately represents that person. Certainly not simpler to the administrator who must close such AfDs. This is exactly why BLP policies were created. We must weigh our contributions against a possible harm. I hold that at least one source must be presented or shown to exist which meets the significant coverage direct detailing criteria. We have none. BusterD ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simple, as in concise. But if you agree that Works of Molly McGrann is a notable topic, then we're just quibbling over the title at this point. pburka ( talk ) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not quibbling in any way. You are clearly misreading my assertion. I have stated I do not find ANY discussion of her body of work, just a few disconnected reviews of individual works. I do NOT hold her body of work is notable. I do NOT hold a single work is notable. I find this is a subject which lacks reliable sources sufficient for a BLP ("works of..." would still fall under BLP policy). Based on presented and found sources, this is a minor figure without any direct detailing by RS. It's a clear delete. I can't find any reason to keep, and the arguments presented thus far are unpersuasive (and don't include RS supporting). BusterD ( talk ) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's your position that not even her books are notable? In that case there's no persuading you, but I expect the closing admin will see that your position is contradicted by several SNGs and years of precedent at AfD that authors of two or more notable books are usually notable. pburka ( talk ) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mike Blackburn (businessperson): I think this is a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL . If sources meeting WP:IS , WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, no objection to Drafting until it is ready for mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 10:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weakish Keep , this is an article clearly re-written from an obituary, but the man himself is probably notable as the CEO of two of the UK's largest financial institutions. The obituary is from the Times, so it's quite a heavy indicator of notability on its own. But more sources about his career could be added, for example [41] , rather less favourable [42] , or a pay-wall source that seems to include discussion of him [43] as well as copious passing mentions of which this Guardian piece is typical [44] . Elemimele ( talk ) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Elemimele. Commander of the Royal Victorian Order , CEO of two major building societies of the UK, coverage in all major newspapers of the UK. I've added additional references. This is not an attempt to memorize anyone – hasty nomination IMHO. Burthert ( talk ) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The CVO passes WP:ANYBIO #1. And an obituary in The Times is also always seen as notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:29, 21 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

Niftski: ltb d l ( talk ) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America . ltb d l ( talk ) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not at this moment certain of notability, but I do not think that BLP1E applies? It seems that there are multiple events covered over several years. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep Invalid rationale. There are sources ranging from 2021 to 2023 covering different events related to Niftski. It's clearly not a case of BLP1E. Skyshifter talk 10:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article creator here, subject meets WP:BASIC with sources currently present in the article, BLP1E does not apply. — siro χ o 11:03, 27 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

Wilda Diaz: This article cites a lot of sources, but they're all just routine coverage of her mayoral administration by local outlets in New Jersey. Several of the articles aren't even news coverage, they're just pages on government websites. 55,000 is not a big enough population to inherently justify giving the mayor a Wikipedia page, and it seems like no other mayors of this town have Wikipedia pages except the ones who went on to hold higher office. I don't see anything she's done that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 03:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as appropriate with Mayor of Perth Amboy, New Jersey : There appears to be only one article with significant coverage of Diaz. Appropriate details should be merged into the article on the Mayor of Perth Amboy. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Change to keep : the NBC and NY Times articles are enough to meet GNG along with the other existing sourcing. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment while I review the sourcing of the subject (which does appear on first glance to be extensive). The standard for a stand-alone article about a local official (including a mayor), is whether there is enough sourcing that describe an official's impact in the community, or national or international coverage where the subject is featured. Size of a jurisdiction's population should generally not be used as a metric. The NBC article appears to be one good source to independently meet GNG, and the prose in the article suggests that the editors have done a good job putting verifiable context to her mayorship and discussing her impact. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 05:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Changed to keep. [ reply ] Keep in addition to the NBC source provided by voorts, a second GNG source is a story box about her in "Women and Politics: A Quest for Political Equality in an Age of Economic Inequality" by Barbara Burrell (2017). Beginning on page 120 of the textbook, Burrell features Diaz. Between those two sources and the existing sources, this is a GNG pass. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 05:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two more GNG articles (one found, one alluded to). Coverage in the NY Times after her initial election: "Newcomer’s Rise Signals a Shift in Power New York Times. Jul 6, 2008 (one representative quote "political analysts say victories like those by Ms. Diaz represent a significant generational shift in state politics"). Also, it is mentioned that she was "featured in Real Simple Magazine as, “The Accidental Politician” among only four female mayors nation-wide. " I have not found the article, but if it does say what it is alleged to say, it should also be an independent, significant source. -- Enos733 ( talk ) 06:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As noted in the book, the story box is an excerpt from the NBC piece, not a separate source. That said, I think the NY Times article in addition to the NBC piece meets GNG, so I will be changing my ! vote. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources provided satisfy GNG, as being significant and sustained regarding her mayoralty. Size of locale not relevant and like OTHER STUFF (about others mayors) exists or does not exist is not a nomination criteria. first women mayor of city, first female Latina mayor of state adds cachet. Djflem ( talk ) 10:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The claim of notability as the state's first Latina mayor, backed by this reliable and verifiable source in the state's largest newspaper, combined with the other non-routine sources about her described above and in the article demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn ( talk ) 15:52, 12 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

Globalization in India: The content in this essay might be belong in various forms on articles such as History of India , Economic history of India , or Economy of India , but has no encyclopedic value as a standalone article. Thenightaway ( talk ) 23:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Politics , Economics , and India . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Trim I agree that the article reads as an essay, with analysis rather than just reporting. For example One event that helped India immensely was when Netscape went public on 9 August 1995. And There is a food security crisis in India because a significant portion of the land has been designated to grow crops for biofuel. Crops like rice and wheat are often harvested in large quantities. However, the amount of crops that are used for biofuel is largely unregulated, with an inadequate amount going to the poor and needy. However, there is also much useful and interesting referenced material. I recommend that, if the article is kept, it be brutally edited to remove every paragraph or sentence that does not have an adequate citation (noting that sometimes the citation for a sentence comes with the sentence before, and that sometimes the justifying citation is to another Wikipedia page, of course.) This will give a much smaller and focussed article. Rick Jelliffe ( talk ) 01:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The topic is notable but the content is a mess. Could be a WP:TNT job? Aszx5000 ( talk ) 23:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the topic is clearly notable. The text needs work but it's not obviously in WP:TNT territory as it's intelligible and for the most part appropriately cited. Some experienced copy-editing would help. I think this is a KEEP as far as AfD is concerned. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 09:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as notable. I'd consider a merge to Economy of India , but then it would need to be WP:SIZESPLIT back out anyway, and this exists as a valid child article . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 17:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify/Merge This is an awful lot of synthesis, attributing a development and social concepts to globalization without narrowing this admittedly broad concept into a cohesive article. The Payments section is a duplicate of Economy_of_India#Balance_of_payments , the Investments section duplicates Economy_of_India#Foreign_direct_investment , the Remittances section duplicates Economy_of_India#Remittances . The Women section is vague, and although this can be tied to international companies I don't think increased access to education is strong thesis here. The Education section is likewise vague without direct discussion of globalization. I'm baffled what this Health section is doing here. The Historical Context section is similarly vague, where "India" could be replaced with the name of any other country. Trimming what isn't relevant or what is duplicative leaves little unique or useful content, so a redirect to Economy of India may be appropriate – the noted sections should not just be removed from the main article. Something being conceived as notable doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92 Talk 21:37, 15 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

Maelyn Jarmon: Aside from some less-than-impressive charting singles, most of which also come from her time on the show, I don't see independent notability at this time. Merge/redirect to the season page. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wait for You (Maelyn Jarmon song) . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Texas . QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She charted #6 on the Digital chart, that's not nothing. One Other single charted in the top 20 on the same chart, that's notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the digital chart, sure, but with zero placements on the Hot 100 that it feeds into. It's not nothing but I'm not convinced it's much of something, and without much else to match it, I still don't see the keep. Besides, that's info that can still be merged easily. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 01:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The point is that she got #6, it doesn't mater what you think will happen after said occasion. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 23:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think her notability is recognizable with chart topping singles. The article mentions noteworthy statistics that a redirect could not. 2603:9001:1B02:FB65:1182:B2D5:A51C:9565 ( talk ) 23:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 13:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep- everything said in here and the article points towards keeping it. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Charts on the US Digital Song Sales make this eligible for WP:MUSICBIO #2. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Wonjong station: This article does not appear to meet general notability guidelines (unless perhaps the Korean-language articles bring to light notability). A Google search has provided no additional sources to prove notability. ETA: Apologies for not bundling AfDs. Significa liberdade ( talk ) 02:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Siheung Daeya station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Sinhyeon station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siheung City Hall station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Wonsi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Seonbu station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Dalmi station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Note that Siheung Neunggok station also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Delete : Searches for its English and Korean names return nothing. Given the station was only opened 30 days ago, also perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON . C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain's references. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 02:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Korea . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . @ ClydeFranklin : I added some references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per cites added by Eastmain. Meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:44, 5 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

Dayton High School (Texas): Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 03:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a second active AfD nomination by an editor with very few (56) edits, with an invalid deletion rationale of "just a high school". Just as with the other nomination, it is a school over 100 years old with many, many references available. Jacona ( talk ) 14:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I assume this editor found this high school looking through my | contributions after my response in a previous deletion discussion . Dayton High School has been established for many years and a very simple Google news tab [ search ] yields more than enough results to satisfy the GNG guidelines. This editor is acting in bad faith and seems to be going on a streak of overzealous deletion given the apparent inexperience in AFD and lack of rationale. Burgeoning Contracting 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting A Google search shows lots of results but any high school is going to be mentioned a lot in local media. Which of those search results are non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources? Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 17:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know how you define trivial or independent, as the sources are both. Perhaps you did not look at the "news" tab like I had stated. A Newspapers.com search yields thousands of results going back to the establishment of Dayton ISD in the late 1800s. Burgeoning Contracting 17:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting That link doesn't work for me. I don't have access to Wikipedia library. The first result I get in a Google news search is "Dayton school board considering policy change for students who attend games" in the Dayton Daily News. As I said, any school will have mentions in the local news - football game scores, graduations, etc. Is there any in-depth reporting about the school from outside of the local community? Saying why this school is notable? Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dayton Daily News is an Dayton -based paper. Not Dayton, Texas. I find it remarkable you are not able to access the Newspapers.com link, but you can certainly see this version . Just because you cannot see or find the results on Google does not mean they do not exist. There are too many examples to link. Burgeoning Contracting 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting You're right. So it's not even an article about the same high school, which just shows that having a lot of search results doesn't mean that something has non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 18:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand what you it is that you mean by "trivial." I'm afraid this is a case of disruptive behavior to make a point since I am handing you these sources into your own hands. Burgeoning Contracting 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting "Trivial" in this case is the opposite of "substantive". See WP:SIGCOV . I have no idea what you mmean by "I am handing you these sources into your own hands". Which sources? Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If one is to read the s ignificant coverage guideline , it will read, "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." Obviously, both search options I presented, again, yield various results that satisfy this requirement. I will no longer respond to your replies, since it seems this is a case of plain disruptive behavior , more specifically, a case of I Can't Hear you Burgeoning Contracting 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BurgeoningContracting I can't hear you because you aren't answering my question. I have told you that I can't access the newspapers.com articles and the Google search results aren't helpful. What are the reliable sources that provide significant, independent coverage to show that this high school belongs in Wikipedia? If you have some, why not tell me what they are or add them to the article? Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌───────────────────────────┘ Counterfeit Purses , Your ability to access a source doesn't make a source valid or invalid. If you aren't capable of doing the research, why are you nominating articles for deletion? — Jacona ( talk ) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jacona I don't understand the game-playing here. You both claim you have useful sources. If there are sources, just add them to the article. Or post links here. I really don't understand how it is helpful to keep them to yourself. Counterfeit Purses ( talk ) 21:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Counterfeit Purses , I'm playing no game. I'm not keeping anything to myself, I've found thousands of sources, and given you some instruction on how to find them. If you can't find them, you do not have the skills needed to do the job, so gain those skills. I am willing to help, as are others. Competency is required , and you don't seem to have it nor are you willing to get it, so why are you nominating articles for deletion if you don't have the capability or willingness to do the research? — Jacona ( talk ) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - According to Category:Public high schools in Texas , there are approximately 766 total Texas high schools listed on Wikipedia. Of those, 485 are Category:Texas high school stubs , unknown how many are Start class. So, "It's just a high school" doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion. — Maile ( talk ) 02:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . No valid rationale given for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per al forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:GNG. Also, saying "it's just a high school" on Wikipedia in 2023 as an AFD nomination is simply unacceptable, and of course this nominator and beautiful troll knows it.-- Milowent • has spoken 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep - the AGF rational is that this was an overly ambitious action by a new editor. With there being no opposition to keeping and no valid rationale for deletion this ( and the editor's other nom) should just be closed. With appropriate counseling for the editor in question, of course. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't gotten all the way down the list. The other deletion discussion has already been closed speedy keep. This one should be too. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 23:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , just a simple google search gives numerous reliable sources about Dayton High School (Texas), has been in existence for a long time. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 20:06, 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

The Fearless Collective: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. As I stated when I decided the Fearless Collective article was not eligible for speedy delete, there are plenty of reliable sources that prove the notability of this artist collective. In addition to the reliable sources already in the article, a quick Google News search returns 616 results including coverage of this group in the Kashmir Observer , The Daily Star ( link ), Homegrown , The Sunday Times ( link ), News9Live ( link ), The New Indian Express ( link ), The Express Tribune ( link ), Business Standard ( link ), and many more not listed here. And in addition to that the Wikipedia Library returns even more articles about this group in journals and magazines such as Bitch Magazine , Development, Women's Studies in Communication, The Journal of Women in Culture & Society, and more. While this article does need a lot of work, the Fearless Collective easily meet Wikipedia's notability standards. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the large number of good refs. Consider “speedy keeping”. — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

San Rafael City Schools: Stating ahead of time that school districts are not automatically notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , United States of America , and California . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I put a neutrally worded notice at Talk:San Rafael, California . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 20:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should place the same notice at WT:WPSCH , on any schools in the district that have articles and WT:WikiProject California . If you're in for a dime, you need to be in for a dollar. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Keep in mind a school district is a local government just like a city or a town, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts states: ""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). " (my emphasis added) However I think I can also find sources and argue such on WP:GNG grounds, especially those that are about appointment/resignation of superintendents and/or construction and/or development of school facilities. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 20:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on WP:GNG grounds after finding three sources in San Francisco-area newspapers. WhisperToMe ( talk ) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WhisperToMe's statement and the sources he found. School districts in the US are governmental units, no different than a city. As a matter of fact, in at least one state (Indiana) they are commonly referred to as "school-city". They are not educational institutions, but rather quasigovernmental administrative districts with taxing authority and elected officials; the same reasons other governmental entities recieve a near presumption of notability under the geography SNGs. SNGs exist because certain things always have secondary coverage. Bond issues and elections are always covered by the press. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . School districts are in a special category, and serve as redirect targets for schools in the district that do not have articles, such as elementary schools or new high schools not yet covered in reliable secondary sources. Besides, this article meets eets GNG with sources identified by WhisperToMe . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on the assertions above that this is a local government area rather than a grouping of schools (despite the current contents of the article). MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:36, 3 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

Leon Burchill: I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, this article isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 11:37, 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 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , and Australia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong delete Fails WP:NACTOR . All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows. LibStar ( talk ) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I too want this article deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) ( talk ) 16:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . One of two co-leads in Stone Bros. so even if nothing else this could be redirected there so there is absolutely no justification for deletion. But it's not just that. His role in Wyrmwood is a significant role so he satisfies WP:NACTOR . duffbeerforme ( talk ) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete : That's no excuse keep the article and consider it notable. If you consider an article notable and want to keep it, have it expanded by looking for accurate information. If not, then I'll have it deleted. Anonymy365248 ( talk ) 07:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This ! vote is from the nominator [ reply ] You had already ! voted as nominator, as Aviationwikiflight and Liz indicated on your talk page. Kindly strike your ! vote, thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (and yes, two significant roles are a sufficient reason to consider him notable) [ reply ] You can't "vote" twice. L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Applications of WP:SKCRIT #1 and #3. The nominator has failed to provide an accurate deletion rationale and has also failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. Aviationwikiflight ( talk ) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 13:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Seriously, why was this relisted? The initial nomination failed to raise a valid argument for deletion. One of many problematic nominations that are being discussed at ANI. The sole support was flat out wrong. "All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows." Quite simply wrong, two major film roles. With no credible delete arguments this should have been summarily closed keep instead of a weak arsed relist. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep bordering speedy for the reasons mentioned above. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Roles in Stone Bros. and Wyrmwood are enough for NACTOR. Also appears to pass GNG with the sources in the article. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 14:05, 16 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

Salman Muqtadir: The current and googled sources are not both independent and reliable. NiftyyyNofteeeee ( talk ) 09:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bangladesh , and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - It has been less than two months since the last nomination was closed. This is borderline disruptive editing. Please take a moment to read WP:RENOM . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as last time, see the source list from that AfD. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - enough reliable sources and there is multiple news coverage. EngrShakamal ( talk ) 15:45, 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

André LaMothe: This article has a 20-year history of cruft being added and removed, but the sources remaining still don't establish that this topic passes WP:GNG . ~ T P W 14:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . ~ T P W 14:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not for self-promotion - notability must be established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Computing , and California . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If reviews of books like The Black Art of 3D Game Programming (1995) could be turned up, we might have a case for WP:AUTHOR . However, reviews in old programming magazines might be hard to dig out. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'll be the first to admit I haven't determined notability for a computer author before, so I'm willing to change my mind if strong alternative views are put forward. However, I did a search on Archive.org and turned up a number of computer magazines that reviewed works by André LaMothe . This includes reviews of his works in places like Game Developer Magazine , PC Zone , and other magazines (see the search link above to find the reviews). I also found a three-page profile of him in issue 4 of Make Magazine from 2005, where it's stated that he's the author of 15 books and hundreds of games ( link to archive.org edition here ). Based on all that I believe he meets our notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article doesn't seem like a profile about him , but the . Given that none of his works have their own articles, it will be difficult to prove that his body of work garnered any critical attention. Maybe with actual links to the reviews rather than WP:LOTSOFSOURCES this might change. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having multiple books each receive multiple reviews is a standard way to pass WP:AUTHOR , whether or not those books have articles of their own. XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A possible starting point: Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus (co-authored) [19] ; Windows Game Programming for Dummies [20] ; Black Art of 3D Game Programming [21] [22] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in response to ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ : While the article I mentioned above is about the XGS console, it's almost totally focused on LaMothe's work developing it and his larger work in the industry. The article even describes him as the "Yoda of game design." While we can disagree if that article qualifies as a profile or not, the article does go a long way toward proving his notability. He also has had his work reviewed and discussed in a number of other articles in various gaming and computer magazines along with having an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. I've now added information from all these citations to the article. In short, the citations I've found shows he's a best-selling author of game development books along with creating his own games and systems. Definitely meets Wikipedia notability standards for creative professions . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SouthernNights - I investigated your claims and I agree that the subject passes GNG. Merko ( talk ) 01:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Confident that the sources established by SouthernNights establishes notability. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - needs a clean-up, but subject passes the threshold for notability. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 15:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bartholomew Cubbins: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Dr. Seuss bibliography , as the character is in two books. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 21:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Three stories, a couple of plays, a film and a TV show. Maybe merge into The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins , but I'm not convinced that would be an improvement. pburka ( talk ) 03:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article does need some improvement, but I don't think that merging or redirecting would be the solution. I guess maintaining the status quo, at least for now, would be best. CycloneYoris talk! 21:19, 17 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

Esso Station: It seems like a good addition to the article on the town, but I don't think it merits its own article. Incidentally, even if the article is kept, "Esso Station" isn't a good title. There's a lot of Esso stations out there. Ormewood ( talk ) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In general, things listed on the NRHP are considered notable by default and there exists at some coverage of it outside of just the NRHP filing. See Arkansas listings in the National Register of Historic Places , Latimer, Franklin Allen, Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Summ 2002, Vol. 61, Issue 2. It has several sentences of historical details and a pull photo of it, in particular Although not large in size, the Esso Station in Piggott is notable for its Colonial Revival style of architecture and its excellent state of preservation. . And being torn down doesn't really change anything since notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY . For the name, there's no other full article with that base name. But changing this to a disambiguation page with links to this and other Esso stations that are under other names may make sense once this AFD is resolved (either boldly or through a WP:REQUESTEDMOVE .) Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep agree with Skynxnex, a future merge may work, but the article on the town is a bit of a hodgepodge and needs some organizatio, so I think for the moment a merge would not improve the state of the encyclopedia for readers seeking knowledge. — siro χ o 22:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with title change. Agree with Ormewood that the title is useless, but Skynxnex is right about NRHP subjects. Last1in ( talk ) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

EssentiallySports: Mercenf ( talk ) 14:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Companies , Sports , Websites , and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Bizcruft soucing. This is about the best I find [7] . Appears paid promo article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The website appears to have significant reach and influence, with 30 million monthly readers across 150 countries, according to the information provided. This statistic suggests that it has considerable notability within the sports journalism world. Also, the site claim to produce original content such as the 'Quarentennis - Bridging the Broken Strings' podcast, suggesting that it plays a role not only in disseminating but also in creating sports news and analysis. LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per quite significant site's audience. Also, there is a minimum sourcing needed to establish the website's notability (although some of the sources may not be of high quality). The site also received a notable award from the Indian news site Afaqs, for best sports coverage or something similar. [8] . Could be added to the page's credibility. -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 14:00, 28 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! 17:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep with over 1 billion views this independent sports media also ranks among top sports sites worldwide per Feedspot. It's also listed among the top 30 blogs in the world per https://detailed.com/50 . IMO, looks pretty notable and interesting mix of fan-generated community and classic sports broadcasting. 多少 战场 龙 ( talk ) 13:38, 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

Lsdxoxo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I'll add more references then?? BiggestBidder ( talk ) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites. If you can find some, please share with us. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some good ones. If you want me to add these to the article, I will. Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though? There isn't even much information that would need many references. https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/interview-at-the-feet-of-rj-glasgow-lsdxoxo-nightlifes-deity-of-dance/ https://djmag.com/cover-features/lsdxoxo-x-education https://mixmag.net/feature/lsdxoxo-cover-interview-xl-pop-techno-berlin BiggestBidder ( talk ) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These are not so good. All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject. The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG. The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself. The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is. Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail. Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability. Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this. Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available. It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG , which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AllMusic is an established reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources . and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic. The Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him. The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I spoke to each one here. [20] Adding a little more. The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words. Hardly prime biographic material. The Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in. I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview. It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get. WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" GNG is not met. The nomination still stands. The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage. Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either. It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous. Unfortunately, Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold. Saucysalsa30 ( talk ) 05:54, 9 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! 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources. Hatman31 ( talk ) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning to Keep as meets WP:MUSICBIO . Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in Resident Advisor which is also an WP:EMRS . Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for Mixmag - here . Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade: [21] . Resonant Dis tor tion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also has a residency on a major national radio station BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs Essential Mix - here . Further points which meet musicbio#12. Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'. Resonant Dis tor tion 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Parkrun: Excessively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles. Refbombed with primary sources to detail the minutia of running events, promoting awards and achievements. TNT it and allow the creation of a non advert. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 08:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A quick glance at the article shows multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and major news sources including BBC News, the Guardian and Reuters plus academic papers. The article could be improved. It leans too heavily on primary sources, I don't think there's any need for a list of Parkrun events and "stylised as" notes for branding are a personal pet peeve but it's not an AfD candidate to me as it clearly meets WP:GNG . Even nom says it needs to be "rewritten" so I'm unclear as to why it's here at AfD. Flip Format ( talk ) 09:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sports , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I was surprised to see this nomination, as this is a well-known organised pursuit in recent times, as well as being one whose restrictions during Covid attracted controversy (e.g. [49] , [50] ). The article text includes references to independent studies of Parkrun and its impact. While I agree that articles should be trimmed of minutiae, that is a matter for normal editing; the present article looks far from requiring WP:TNT . AllyD ( talk ) 09:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . A worldwide weekly participation event that has attracted WP:SIGCOV clearly satisfies WP:GNG . Agreed, there are too many primary sources (one would question whether many aspects actually need to be referenced at all!), but no less than 50 of the current 117 references are cited to reliable secondary sources, including the BBC, Reuters, running and sports sites, government sources, and medical journals. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Very obviously meets GNG. A quick glace at the sources in the article includes [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] . Concerns about promotional tone can be resolved by anyone who wants to - but we're nowhere near TNT territory. WJ94 ( talk ) 09:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic is notable. Not all the content belongs in here though as the nominator has expressed there is some promotional elements in it. This can be fixed by consensus in the talk page. Ajf773 ( talk ) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep . Nom should be aware that notability is established by reliable sources IN THE WORLD: there is no requirement for the sources to be already in the article, though in this case there are certainly plenty there too. The BEFORE search should be external, and a nominator should be convinced that good sources cannot be found. The case is rather the reverse here. This applies even if the article is short, unstructured, badly-written, contains irrelevant material, is unillustrated, and poorly formatted: which this article isn't. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It looks like Duffbeerforme tried to get this deleted under WP:CSD G11 on March 20 and again on April 6 . I'm not sure what the user has against this article but they seem determined to get it deleted. Flip Format ( talk ) 11:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well if neither CSD nor AfD worked, they're speedily running out of options for attacking it that won't get them blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 12:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Funny how so many editors attack anyone who tries to get rid of advertising. Actually it was deleted by CSD. It was then userfied to allow editors to address the over the top promotional nature but of course no one did anything. They just restored it unchanged. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think there’s a problem nothing is stopping you from improving the article yourself. Garuda3 ( talk ) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I know there is a problem so I'm trying to improve the situation by getting this advert deleted so an actual encyclopedia article can replace it. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article doesn’t have to be deleted for it to be rewritten. Instead of letting many hours of volunteer effort go to waste, why not try improving the existing article? Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, show us your draft replacement article? You do have one? Right? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excuse me, what now? There have been over 30 non-minor edits to the page since restoration. We're volunteers, and there is no deadline. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the dif showing what has been changed. I was wrong, there was ONE change towards fixing the problems, the removal of the Poland list. Otherwise purely superficial. Moving a few words around, more primary sourcing, technical fixes. The only other positive change was the Barkrun note but the cruft, the overly self serving reliance on parkrun sourcing, the how-to nature, etc remains untouched. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Purely superficial - apart from this change, and that removal, and the new expansion, and the use of additional non-primary sources, and... you really don't like it , do you? 🤣 Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's right little kid, I don't like it . It's not the only thing I don't like. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 12:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep Plenty of reliable sources, including media coverage and academic papers. Anywikiuser ( talk ) 09:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep needs tidying up and more third party refs, but there’s no shortage of those. Mccapra ( talk ) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no shortage of sources on parkrun. Garuda3 ( talk ) 15:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I didn't even have to finish the reflist before I could tell this was notable. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP , clearly notable topic with encyclopedic content in the article. If some content is not encyclopedic, then that and only that should be removed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 07:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:snow . Not sure why we're having this discussion. Resonant Dis tor tion 15:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes please keep. It is very informative 2605:A601:A38F:A500:DD50:8DCB:DB99:D8C4 ( talk ) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Came to the page wanting info and found it. Let's improve, not discard. -- Travelite088 ( talk ) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Alex Zurdo: A notable attempt at making them look as notable has been made by ChuchoVCJMusik, who has created other articles for non-notable "entertainers" recently deleted such as those of Sagcy, Aiona Santana, and may be involved in a potential COI. Bedivere ( talk ) 06:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Christianity , and Puerto Rico . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Check The references and Awards (Dove Awards, Tu Música Urbano Awards, Arpa Awards, a Latin Grammy nomination). ChuchoVCJMuzik ( talk ) 13:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets point 8 of WP:MUSICBIO : Nominated for Latin Grammy. Since the Latin Grammy nomination establishes notability, the deletion of other articles created by the author are not a valid reason alone for deletion of this one per WP:WHATABOUT . I contributed to neutralize this article in 2021, so I don't think it violates WP:NOT . -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk ) 06:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as nominated for Latin Grammy and won 2 Dove Awards as confirmed in reliable sources Spanish newspapers referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Solveig Argeseanu Cunningham: BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 02:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing found for this person; article reads like a likedin post. Associate professor is a long way from notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] People are so quick to say "nothing found". Here's an entire NY Times article [23] about the 2014 article in the New England Journal of Medicine of which she's the first author. [24] She's not a slam dunk for notability, but it's also far from "nothing". Jahaza ( talk ) 03:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't find the NYT article and it's paywalled, I stand by my statement. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Associate profs are nothing to be overlooked. Give me an associate professor from Harvard or MIT over one from an Alaskan Community College. BostonMensa ( talk ) 18:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , Health and fitness , and Georgia (U.S. state) . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Google Scholar page on her at https://scholar.google.com/citations? user=3qiScrMAAAAJ&hl=en shows an impressive citation count and h-index. I think together they establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not entirely persuaded by the citation statistics alone, since she's not a top author on three of the four Lancet articles that are supercharging her citation count, but I think there's enough here (see my comment above with a NY Times article). Jahaza ( talk ) 03:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain and Jahaza's decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - even ignoring the Lancet articles, her work is highly cited both by the academic literature and in the popular press. Her 2014 paper on childhood obesity generated multiple news stories, as did her work on doctors' strikes, and a 2022 article on increases in childhood obesity. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 00:06, 5 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

Yangyuan & Tiesiyuan station: A redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) seems best. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation , and China . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) Djflem ( talk ) 05:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added some sources, which I think are enough to meet GNG. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 08:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article is better now. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ulrike Fitzer: No SIGCOV, only a few passing mentions, she once was in a non-notable documentary film. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Military , Aviation , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Also known as Ulrike Flender. Her article on the German Wikipedia is much more fleshed out and has links to several sources of significanto coverage. In short, passes WP:GNG with sources such as these [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . Alvaldi ( talk ) 23:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The first female fighter pilot in a major air force is clearly notable. And easily enough coverage to meet WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:09, 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

Fionna Gibb: Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Most of the coverage is about the rainbow flag incident which is not WP:SIGCOV about her and would be better placed in the relevant bilateral relations article. LibStar ( talk ) 10:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references. I found some additional references by searching for the person's name, restricted to the country where she was posted. That is, I searched for "Fionna Gibb" site:by . This is often the best way to find additional references about an ambassador or other diplomat. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't regard a number of additional sources are WP:SIGCOV , they mainly merely confirm she held a meeting with the Belarus government. such as [16] , [17] and [18] . This one is short and confirms a few biographical details of Gibb. This one is her commenting as a representative of the UK government. LibStar ( talk ) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Belarus . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG . The controversy may be suitable for discussion on another article, but it's not really about her. SportingFlyer T · C 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per the sources. NYC Guru ( talk ) 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is enough to support her notability in my opinion including coverage of an attempted assassination in Yemen that she survived, and I think ambassadors probably should be considered more notable than not for inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources, as needed to meet WP:NBIO . MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible . Okoslavia ( talk ) 10:45, 16 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! 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Here is one more source from MENA REPORT via ProQuest [19] . WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note about what trivial type sources don't help). The sources we have seem to provide that at this point. — siro χ o 22:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible and Siroxo. Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep