Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty
/

wide_analysis

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (3)

train · 13k rows

text stringlengths 40 160k	label stringclasses 8 values
Darlene Taylor (Hollyoaks): Found nothing with WP:BEFORE except for sources talking about the actress' future works. Not sure exactly where this could be merged or redirected to, as many list pages from this show should probably also be deleted. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 18:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor . The character does not have enough SIGCOV for a standalone article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor due to lack of sources available on the character, as well as lack of real-world information. – Meena • 18:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing vote to keep following improvements made by Raintheone . – Meena • 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Meena : I mean, the Guardian source and the Digital Spy source are both very short and are literal character bios and plot description respectively. Metro does not even talk about the character outside of literally two sentences. All of the other new sources are WP:PRIMARY . There is still basically no coverage. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 15:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to improvements made to the article. While much more could be done, it's a good start that is enough to show the article is notable. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Hollyoaks characters (2003)#Darlene Taylor . I would ideally like to keep this but a merge is more reasonable. Just wanted to add that the yearly lists should not be deleted. They are important to soap operas for the information about the character's and plot and context. Soaps do not have seasons and thus there is not a season/series page for each year like there are for other TV shows, and soaps are long running (Hollyoaks has been running since 1995, whilst Coronation Street since 1960!) and air 4–6 new episodes a week and thus have a large cast and set of characters that have very long storylines and context. Some of the earlier Hollyoaks yearly lists are not as sourced as is ideal, but we are working on that. But if you look at some of the later articles, such as List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) or List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) , you can see that every character that has a section is sourced and has real life information (reception, development, casting, quotes etc). DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 05:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do have to say this is rather unusual for television show casts. Look at, say List of Millennium characters , it quickly covers the character's presence in each season and then goes more into detail about the main and reoccurring characters. Minor characters are simply excluded, unless they are the subject of significant coverage or controversy. I think you can merge each yearly list into a decade list ( List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s) is not a bad example here). Also, most of the sources on List of Hollyoaks characters (2022) are WP:PRIMARY and many of the others come from the same source ( Digital Spy ) which is discouraged. (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] UPDATE:Strong keep due to the improvements on the page which show development and casting information and demonstrate clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 17:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - an article with real-world information and sources. No reason to delete this article. Soaper1234 - talk 20:04, 17 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
Atlantic Baseball Confederation: There is no indication of significant independent coverage of the league. – Aidan721 ( talk ) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Baseball , and New Jersey . – Aidan721 ( talk ) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In searching newspapers.com there is quite a lot of independent secondary coverage from the present back to 2002 in the The Courier-News , The Philadelphia Inquirer , Daily Record , The Coast Star , and The Asbury Park Press (a total of 271 articles). There are many articles about the league and not just coverage about individual games and teams (which also exists). Passes WP:SIGCOV . 4meter4 ( talk ) 18:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do these sources provide reports beyond routine game coverage ? It's hard to evaluate these sources when they are not present in the article. – Aidan721 ( talk ) 20:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aidan721 I think I was pretty explicit that there was independent significant coverage of the league itself and not just games in my original comment. Cbl62 has kindly provided links to some of them below. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 03:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See, e.g. this , this ( part 1 / part 2 ), this ( part 1 / part 2 ), this , this . Cbl62 ( talk ) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Per the sources provided by Cbl62, this article meets the WP:GNG . User:Let'srun 20:50, 13 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
Zari_Kovo: I don't think he has a place on Wikipedia. Otherwise any property owner could get an article. Tapal2024 ( talk ) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa \| username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed \| username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm \| username }} or {{subst: csp \| username }} . Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 14 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Fashion , Hong Kong , and Bulgaria . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The only RS, Haretz, is an article about Oded Kobo who isn't this individual. The rest aren't RS and I don't see anything about this person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b , could you take a look at the new sourcing presented below? TLA tlak 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : no significant action. This is not suitable for Wikipedia. Unreliable reference [ unreliable source? ] — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Success302 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. Keep sufficient reliable coverage in Hebrew RS: Calcalist [3] , Globes [4] , TheMarker [5] Marokwitz ( talk ) 16:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per the WP:THREE by Marokwitz. TLA tlak 04:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per WP:RSP , only Haaretz is considered reliable. Juice00001 ( talk ) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Juice00001 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. [ reply ] Keep . This is a disruptive nomination, with a nonsensical intro, from an account that has since been blocked. Easy pass of the GNG. No case for deletion whatsoever. One of the three "sources" above is a list of articles about Kovo. Plus there are more RS in the Hewiki article. Furthermore, with the rape conviction and jail time included, this is a balanced article. The delete ! votes look like WP:NEXIST failures. For Juice00001 and Success302, with very few edits, this is the first AfD. gidonb ( talk ) 21:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easily passes WP:GNG . Also known as "Bebo Kobo" etc, plus many sources are in Hebrew. Edwardx ( talk ) 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This entry was tainted with a lot of bad blood and a desire for revenge. The relevant corrections have been introduced. In my opinion, this page may be appropriate for the Hebrew Wikipedia but not for the English Wikipedia. The criminal charge refers to 1979 long before he became a real estate broker and made the deal of his life, so none of this is relevant to the English entry. Developer19801 ( talk ) 09:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Developer19801 ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. Marokwitz ( talk ) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No one asked me to come here, I've been following this article for a while now and have made a few edits to it. I think this article is not worthy of Wikipedia. What you are doing is unacceptable. In a conversation it is customary to respect the opinions of other contributors, especially when it is not to your liking. . Developer19801 ( talk ) 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Poor content. Should not be included in Wikipedia. Mhagay ( talk ) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Delete - no Wikipedia importance. No significant contribution according to Wikipedia values. The only thing that stands out in this person's actions is his criminal record. A criminal record is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Joshua Royal ( talk ) 15:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While I have no opinion on what should happen with this article, I thought I'd point out to the ineventual closer that except for User:Oaktree b , all of those editors advocating Delete are low edit accounts who have been active for several months. What drew them to this AFD discussion, out of the hundreds that are currently open, I do not know. L iz Read! Talk! 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : First article is about Kovo, going into some description of his life. The second one is a series of articles, the last one is about him disputing a rape conviction in 1979. First perhaps helps notability, I'm not sure the rest do. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Marokwitz and others, there seems to be enough coverage at the very least in Hebrew, which would meet the requirement for notability. That being said, I agree with @ Liz that some of these edits appear suspicious. FortunateSons ( talk ) 10:56, 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
Lee Bu-ti: Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Taiwan . Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This modern source mentions him as attending a sporting event and them specifically taking time to mention that he attended the event (with a picture) makes me feel like he was likely a notable gymnast. This source also mentions him and includes a picture of a Taiwan newspaper clipping talking about that year's Olympics, but I can't read it. I feel we'd probably find something if we looked in a Taiwanese newspaper archive, but I don't know of one... BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources The sources found by BeanieFan11 ( talk · contribs ). Yang, Wuxun 楊武勳 (1977-11-19). "高英傑這樣成為職業球員？美球探緊迫釘人‧李武智穿針引線" [Is this how Gao Yingjie becomes a professional player? U.S. scouts urgently target someone, Lee Moo-chi leads the way]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 3. The article notes: "以目前的情形看來，辛辛那提紅人隊在華的聯絡人李武智是最清楚整個事情來龍去脈的人。因為，從高英傑被美國球保看中，到被網羅，乃至與辛辛那提紅人隊簽約，李武智一直居中聯繫。" From Google Translate: "Judging from the current situation, Lee Bu-ti, the contact person of the Cincinnati Reds in China, is the person who knows the ins and outs of the whole matter best. Because, from the time Gao Yingjie was spotted by the American football team, to being recruited, and even signing with the Cincinnati Reds, Li Wuzhi has always been in the middle." The article notes: "他透過關係認識在台北美國學校擔任體育教師的李武智，聘他為駐華的聯絡人，希望他促成這件事。李武智曾獲選為我國參加墨西哥奧運會的體操選手。他太太是美國人，也在台北美國學校教書。李武智與台北體專棒球隊教練林敏政是師大體育系同班同學，因此又找林敏政幫忙。不過，在事前他未向林敏政表明他與辛辛那提紅人隊的關係。" From Google Translate: "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand." The article notes: "另外，霍森答應由李武智負責給高英傑及李來發補習英語，按月付給李武智補習費。" From Google Translate: "In addition, Huo Sen promised that Lee Bu-ti would be responsible for tutoring Gao Yingjie and Li Laifa in English, and would pay Li Wuzhi tutoring fees on a monthly basis." Chen, Yingzi 陳英姿 (2003-02-09). "街舞「小威」體操明日之星 19歲的他去年就拿下廿幾面金牌被視為進軍奧運新秀" [Street Dance "Serena" Gymnastics Rising Star. The 19-year-old won more than 20 gold medals last year and is considered a rising star in the Olympics.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 9. The article notes: "當時前體操國手李武智在天母開設兒童體操營，林祥威在兒童體操營從幼稚園大班練到小學一年級，李武智看他有天分，建議他轉學到內湖的三民國小，" From Google Translate: "At that time, former national gymnast Li Wuzhi opened a children's gymnastics camp in Tianmu. Lin Xiangwei practiced at the children's gymnastics camp from kindergarten to first grade. Li Wuzhi saw that he had talent and suggested that he transfer to Sanmin Elementary School in Neihu." Xu, Ruiyu 許瑞瑜 (1997-10-14). "鄭為仁迷'網' 李武智願伸援手" [Zheng Weiren is obsessed with the Internet and Lee Bu-ti is willing to lend a helping hand]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. 3. The article notes: "我國青少年網將鄭為仁缺乏奧援的處境經本報披露之後，昨天得到了迴響，在美國學校任教二十年的李武智表示，願意免費提供鄭為仁英文以及網球技術的指導，讓鄭媽媽感到非常窩心。... 另一方面也將義務指導鄭為仁出國參加得心應手。" From Google Translate: "After the Taiwanese Youth Network disclosed Zheng Weiren's lack of Olympic aid to this newspaper, it received a response yesterday. Lee Bu-ti, who has taught in American schools for 20 years, expressed his willingness to provide free guidance on Zheng Weiren's English and tennis skills, which made Zheng's mother feel very heart-warming. ... On the other hand, he will also be responsible for guiding Zheng Weiren to participate in overseas participation." "洪丹桂囊括女子體操金牌" [Hong Dangui. Won gold medal in women's gymnastics]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1962-10-29. p. 3. The article notes: "省運男女體操比賽已全部結束。... 男子組個人總成績冠軍則由屏東縣隊的李武智奪得。" From Google Translate: "All the men's and women's gymnastics competitions of the Provincial Games have ended. ... The overall individual championship in the men's group was won by Lee Bu-ti of the Pingtung County team." "世運代表初選一五二人合格田徑複選定明年三二九舉行游泳選手僅蘇金德入圍" [152 people qualified in the primary election for World Games representatives. The track and field reselection will be held on March 29th next year, and only swimmer Su Jinde is shortlisted.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1963-11-08. p. 2. The article notes: "我國參加十八屆世運的體操第一期選拔合格選手，男選手十八人為： ... 李武智" From Google Translate: "China’s first phase of gymnastics selection for the 18th World Games consists of eighteen male athletes: ... Lee Bu-ti ..." "參加舉重健美比賽北市選出代表北部拳賽下月舉行全省體操賽今結束" [Participate in weightlifting and bodybuilding competitions. Representatives from the northern city are selected. The northern boxing competition will be held next month. The provincial gymnastics competition ends today.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-12. p. 2. The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十一)日上午在三重正義國校揭幕，為期二天，... 男子甲、乙二組吊環的規定及自選動作，昨日已全部賽畢，甲組前三名由師大李武智、鄭虎、張明峰包辦" From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships kicked off yesterday (November) morning at the Sanchong Zhengyi National School and lasted for two days. ... The regulations and optional movements of the men's rings in Groups A and B were completed yesterday. The top three in Group A were taken by Li Wuzhi, Zheng Hu and Zhang Mingfeng of the National Normal University." "全省體操賽男組師大稱霸新莊女中膺后" [Provincial gymnastics competition, men's team from Normal University dominates, Xinzhuang Girls' Middle School graduates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-13. p. 2. The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十二)日下午五時在三重正義國校閉幕，同時頒發男、女六組團體及個人優勝者獎品。全省體操賽的優勝名單如下：男甲組團體前二名師大、高雄市，個人前三名李武智、鄭虎、張明峰，" From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships concluded at 5:00 pm yesterday (12th) at the Sanzhongzhengyi National School. Prizes were awarded to the six male and female team and individual winners at the same time. The list of winners of the provincial gymnastics competition is as follows: the top two teams in Men's Group A are from Normal University and Kaohsiung City, and the top three individuals are Lee Bu-ti, Zheng Hu, and Zhang Mingfeng." "奧院研究員錄取十人" [Olympiad Academy researchers admitted ten people]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency . 1973-02-25. p. 6. The article notes: "中華民國奧林匹克委員會，甄選參加第十三屆國際奧林匹克學院研究員，成績業已評定，計錄取簡曜輝、黃賢堅、李武智、" From Google Translate: "The Olympic Committee of the Republic of China has selected researchers to participate in the 13th International Olympic Academy. The results have been evaluated and the candidates are Jian Yaohui, Huang Xianjian, Lee Bu-ti," "奧林匹克學院活動我九青年赴希參加" [Nine young people from our country went to Greece to participate in Olympic Academy activities]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency . 1973-07-12. p. 8. The article notes: "中華民國參加第十三屆奧林匹克學院研究員九人，將於明天上午十時，坐環球公司班機離台北飛雅典，參加十三日至廿九日在那裏舉行的研究活動。... 中華民國今年遴選的九人是李武智、..." From Google Translate: "Nine researchers from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China who participated in the 13th Olympic Games will fly from Taipei to Athens on a Universal flight at 10 a.m. tomorrow to participate in research activities held there from the 13th to the 29th. ... The nine people selected by the Republic of China this year are Lee Bu-ti,..." "奧林匹克研究院夏季講座已揭幕" [Olympic Institute summer lectures have been launched]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency . 1973-07-20. p. 8. The article notes: "國際奧林匹克研究院第十三屆夏季講座，本日在雅典古城隆重舉行揭幕典禮。... 同時，由李武智率領的中華民國十人代表團，為參加本屆講應我國青年代表。" From Google Translate: "The 13th Summer Lecture of the International Olympic Institute was grandly opened today in the ancient city of Athens. ...At the same time, a ten-member delegation from the Republic of China, led by Lee Bu-ti, addressed our country's youth representatives for participating in this session.: "我派團參加世界體操節" [The country sent a delegation to participate in the World Gymnastics Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency . 1975-06-28. p. 4. The article notes: "中華民國體操協會昨天決定派五人代表團前往西柏林，參加七月一日舉行的第六屆世界體操節大會。我國代表團由體操協會監事陳朝傳領隊，秘書陳慧玲，團員是余思遠、李武智、陳慧穎。 " From Google Translate: "The Gymnastics Association of the Republic of China decided yesterday to send a five-member delegation to West Berlin to participate in the 6th World Gymnastics Festival Conference to be held on 1 July. The country's delegation is led by Chen Chaochuan, Supervisor of the Gymnastics Association, and Chen Huiling, Secretary. The members are Yu Siyuan, Lee Bu-ti, and Chen Huiying. " "奧運體操選手明在左營決選" [Olympic gymnast Ming in Zuoying finals]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1975-12-26. p. 8. The article notes: "我國參加奧運會體操賽最後決選定明日起在左營舉行，將有十四名男女選手參加。 ... 目前，這十四名男女選手在教練李武智和助理教練薛美林指導之下，都有很大的進步，" From Google Translate: "The final selection of my country's participation in the Olympic gymnastics competition will be held in Zuoying from tomorrow, and 14 male and female athletes will participate. ... Currently, these fourteen male and female players have made great progress under the guidance of coach Lee Bu-ti and assistant coach Xue Meilin. " "我國柔道體操選手將分別到日本受訓" [Taiwanese judo gymnasts will go to Japan for training]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-02-22. p. 8. The article notes: "前往南非參加奧會體操會外賽的我國體操代表隊，定明天中午搭機取道香港返國。 ... 我國體操代表隊的名單：領隊董彭年，教練李武智，助理教練薛美林" From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese gymnastics team, which is going to South Africa to participate in the Olympic gymnastics qualifying competition, is scheduled to fly back to China via Hong Kong at noon tomorrow. ... List of Chinese gymnastics team: Team leader Dong Pengnian, coach Lee Bu-t, assistant coach Xue Meilin" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Bu-ti ( Chinese : 李武智 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard ( talk ) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WOW. I have no idea how Cunard finds this stuff, but it appears to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cunard : Do you think you might be able to add a few of the sources into the article? Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not have time to add sources now but may do so later. Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . All but one of the sources mentioned above are trivial passing mentions. The one that isn't is still far from the independent, secondary, non-routine SIGCOV required for sportsperson notability. "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand. " JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "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. " The combination of these sources is enough to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria . Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And recent global consensus requires sportsperson biographies to cite at least one SIGCOV source in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Sources in 1 are not significant. Sources 5-14 are immediately eliminated as purely trivial passing mentions. Sources 3 and 4 are routine and trivial, amounting to a couple sentences each in transactional news. That leaves source 2, which is not enough to base a whole article on. Can you find more sources that actually discuss the accomplishments he's supposed to be notable for in depth? JoelleJay ( talk ) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Cunard . It is clear that WP:SIGCOV exists, the question is to translate the content appropriately. Svartner ( talk ) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references provided by Cunard which provide significant coverage that is far more than simple, routine passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Frank Anchor , which sources specifically? JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All references from 2-14 above have multiple sentences of SIGCOV, which, when combined (as explicitly allowed by WP:ANYBIO ) provide enough to get past the GNG bar. I disagree with JoelleJay's mischaracterizations of these sources as trivial passing mentions . Frank Anchor 18:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concur with this analysis. Let'srun ( talk ) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Most of the sources per Cunard appear to contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun ( talk ) 23:48, 21 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
Overseas military bases of India: None of the base mentioned in the article are in permanent operation, some are not even built. Sources are sketchy. nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Mauritius , Maldives , Singapore , Sri Lanka , Tajikistan , and Oman . nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions . nirmal ( talk ) 05:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand The subject is notable and it is fine as a stub for now. It needs expansion, not deletion. Azuredivay ( talk ) 13:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that some expansion will be needed but deletion cannot be the solution. Agletarang ( talk ) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Azuredivay needs expansion, not deletion. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 18:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Most information is at List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases#India already, but having its own article allows it to expand, plus the map is useful. D r e a m Focus 17:50, 1 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
Homosexuality in the Batman franchise: It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham. But Wertham proposed quite flawed and controversial theories about comics, and claimed that Batman had homosexual subliminal messages, among other things, in order to support his theory that comic books were perverting children. The rest of the article seems to be a collection of quotes from different people linking homosexuality and Batman, for different unrelated reasons. In addition, the end of the article states that there are several LGBT characters in the Batman comics, but that is not uncommon in comics in general nowadays. This aspect does not seem something specific to the Batman franchise, nor seems linked to previous information contained in the article. As a character that has existed for over 80 years in comic books, TV series, films, and all kind of media, it would be possible to write all kinds of articles in the format “Topic X in the Batman franchise”. It would be also possible to propose a link between any other major comic book character and homosexuality by following the same strategy of cherrypicking information that, on the whole, does not associate or relate in any meaningful way. If the creator of the character, Bob Kane, had been homosexual and had said that he created Batman with the purpose of subtly expressing that, we would have a strong case to support this article. But as it is, the connection between the topic of homosexuality and the Batman franchise seems forced and not justified, because the only aspect of the Batman mythos that could have consistently suggested an homosexual understone is simply that Batman and Robin are two men living together. It is not enough. ( JohnMizuki ( talk ) 20:50, 27 October 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 October 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Sexuality and gender . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The argument in this deletion justification reads to me as "This article isn't notable, it's just (insert list of the same things that make this article notable)". The fact that the theories are flawed does not make them not worth examining, as several sources have by your own admission dedicated paper and ink to this subject. Otherwise, we might as well delete the pages on e.g. Flat Earth , Young Earth creationism , and the like, because if they're not true, they can't be notable. On top of that, the assertion "As a character that has existed for over 80 years in comic books, TV series, films, and all kind of media, it would be possible to write all kinds of articles" is literally just WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST . Deletion reasoning feels inherently flimsy. KaiEnTai-DX-Fan ( talk ) 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable and well-referenced. The nominator says The existence of this article doesn’t seem justified. It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham. " . Fredric Wertham, is in fact cited in the lede: Gay interpretations have been part of the academic study of the Batman franchise at least since psychiatrist Fredric Wertham asserted in his 1954 book Seduction of the Innocent that "Batman stories are psychologically homosexual". But then the article cites (with 59 references) many subsequent discussions over the years in popular culture and the entertainment industry. Even the guy who played Robin acknowledged this issue. I doubt many of these people ever heard of Fredric Wertham. This is a long article: 32,000+ bytes [29] that's been edited by 342 editors [30] over 14 years. It was nominated for deletion once before and kept–and that was when it was half the size and had half the references it has now. Finally, ask any cynical male teenager and they'll tell you, "of course he's gay–everybody knows that". -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bonus pic: Batbed.png -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the only evidence from the classic comics that keeps being provided to support the theory is 1 single decontextualized comic book panel, says it all. On the other hand, the evidence for a heterosexual Batman is overwhelming. JohnMizuki ( talk ) 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This article is notable and worth keeping. The OP's reasoning is fatally flawed. Historyday01 ( talk ) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Well sourced at the beginning, then veers off into non-RS near the end. I'd perhaps rewrite, but seems notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The example image was drawn in a different time and Harley Quinn isn't that old a series. Maybe stop jumping the gun like this and instead focus on topics with some mileage behind 'em. If you're interested in writing about queers, Homosexuality in the Inca empire has, undoubtedly, SCADS of reliably-sourced articles written on it. There, go nuts. Americanfreedom ( talk ) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep The nomination itself talks about what makes it notable, seems to feel like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Crown Canyon: Sources are not reliable, many not independent. I see some 2015 coverage of a similarly named place in Arizona, but based on this content, it does not seem to be about this community. — siro χ o 09:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO . SportingFlyer T · C 09:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Some references are problematic, including Forbes (a contributor article) and AZ Big Media. Of the remaining references, https://www.arizonafoothillsmagazine.com/in-house/in-house-news/retsy-bedbrock-partner-for-new-paradise-valley-crown-canyon-community and https://www.citysuntimes.com/real_estate/bedbrock-retsy-partner-to-co-list-luxury-crown-canyon-community/article_c4dc5cc6-9688-11ed-aee2-03d2d6968c30.html both seem legitimate. I also found this one, from a television station: https://www.12news.com/article/life/home-garden/huge-houses/30-million-laying-around-afford-paradise-valley-mansion/75-06794489-4189-4dc1-a429-233bf8e45307 Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Foothills magazine appears to be a press release. Still not seeing it. It's just a housing development. SportingFlyer T · C 16:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/Improve a Google search comes up with articles, mostly about how expensive the houses are in this community. I found some articles 1 , 2 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJem ( talk • contribs ) 18:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Including further discussion on the known sources Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk ) 12:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Eastmain . For a topic to be notable, we just need two in-depth sources to establish the notability and here we have more than two sources: [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] . Passes WP:SIGCOV . 129.222.136.103 ( talk ) 19:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see some additional assessment on newly found sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While some references don't indicate passing WP:NOTE, that doesn't negate that others as Eastmain has pointed out do. Oakshade ( talk ) 20:13, 24 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
Gabriela Rodríguez de Bukele: Being the president's wife certainly is not TanookiKoopa ( talk ) 13:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Some of the references mention her in passing due to her husband, but there appears to be enough significant coverage in some of the references that indicate she is notable enough in her own right. I would suggest the subject passes WP:GNG . The article referencing needs some attention due to a few dead links (not something I'm adept at, sorry). Knitsey ( talk ) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Politicians , Women , Dance , and El Salvador . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject meets GNG. Aside from this discussion, are there notability guidelines for the spouse of a head of state? Thriley ( talk ) Yes, generally presumed notable. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on a number of articles about her. See 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 . I think this was a poor nomination. Royal88888 ( talk ) 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Spouses of heads of state are presumed notable. This presumption of notability can be disproven, but in this instance it stands as there appears to be plenty of significant coverage of her. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG with plenty of articles about her. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are enough examples of significant coverage in reliable sources for this to pass the requirements for notability. Rublamb ( talk ) 14:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of at least two books. -- hroest 17:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are enough evidence of the work of the First Lady and the benefits for the salvadoran -- JuanP3rs 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Spyros Spyrou (runner): Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Cyprus . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move to Spyros Spyrou (runner) Meets WP:NTRACK per “1.” with his 6th place at the Athletics at the 1982 Commonwealth Games – Men's 800 metres and per “2.” Winning multiple gold medals at the Games of the Small States of Europe . He set the national record in 1983; and that is still the Cypriot national record . Because he was internationally active between 1981 and 1989, sources should be searched at off-line and Greek language sources. 109.37.152.36 ( talk ) 09:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly notable runner who competed at the top level of the sport internationally for many years and is one of Cyprus's best ever distance runners. Has held the Cypriot national record for decades – a fact still mentioned in Cypriot press to this day. SFB 16:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete . The sources on the page do not show the subject meets GNG, and no one here has presented any additional citations. SPORTSBASIC requires a SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article for additional coverage to be presumed, and even that is rebuttable. Meeting NTRACK is irrelevant when SPORTSBASIC is failed. Keep per SIGCOV in documentary suggestive of multiple other sources of GNG coverage. JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NTRACK might still be relevant as it states “coverage is likely to exist” of this athlete; and looking at the era of his active years coverage would be in offline Greek sources. As we don’t have access to offline Greek sources the sentence “coverage is likely to exist” cannot be invalidated, and I assume this is one of the reasons why NTRACK exist. 109.37.152.3 ( talk ) 09:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage is likely to exist if they meet SPORTSBASIC. If they don't have a piece of SIGCOV cited then none of the presumptions from NTRACK apply. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Noting that I amended my !vote in response to the documentary source -- apparently editing a comment doesn't show up in watchlists) JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Searching his name in Greek in relation to "800" (his national record) seems to bring up a bunch of results, but I don't have the time to go through them all and some aren't translating for me. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : I have gone through some Greek language sources and located multiple interviews with the subject. I've used these to add his coaching achievements – besides being the national record holder, he is Cyprus's foremost athletics coach at national level. SFB 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sillyfolkboy , I haven't had a chance to look through those interviews, but if they are mostly quotes/repetition of things he's said they would not count towards notability due to failing independence and being primary. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject is not the publisher, hence it is independent. Some of the sources provide retrospective coverage of the athlete's past achievements, which is the definition of a non primary source. Other sources are interviewing the subject on the basis of his achievements in the sport – this is pretty much the common definition of the term, notability. SFB 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, per OR, interviews are regarded as primary sources, and any content coming directly from the interviewee is obviously not independent. It doesn't matter where the interview is published. It also doesn't matter why the subject was interviewed. The requirement is that someone else has written their own significant commentary on the subject completely independently of the subject. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there's independent content written by an author for a reliable source in addition to the interview part it would count towards notability I believe; I haven't yet looked at the sources but that's what SFB seems to be saying ( Some of the sources provide retrospective coverage of the athlete's past achievements ). BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 12:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, maybe SFB could point us to which sources would satisfy that criterion? JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per JoelleJay. BilledMammal ( talk ) 00:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think I found an old documentary about him: see here . And is this a reliable source dromeas.com ? 109.37.131.169 ( talk ) 18:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't tell whether dromeas would be considered reliable, but that would definitely count as significant coverage if so. That documentary wins me over. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, this is a clear Keep now, thanks to IP 109.37.131.169. A 45-minute documentary focusing on his life, which includes at different points images of newspaper headlines about him? Plus a pass of NSPORT, and numerous modern news mentions of him for holding a decades-old national record, at least one of which is clear SIGCOV (assuming reliability)? He's notable. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Pinus washoensis: The article has many errors in how it is written. It should be noted that most of the references used in the article label the species as Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, rather than just Pinus Washoensis. I would support renaming the article to Pinus Ponderosa Var. Washoensis, however, is not accurate to label the article as Pinus Washoensis when multiple reputable sources like Willyard and the USDA/USFS label it otherwise. I would also be open to merging the article and adding more information to the Pinus Ponderosa page under the specific section for Var. Washoensis. 🌀 Cyclone Football 71 🏈 \| sandbox 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions . 🌀 Cyclone Football 71 🏈 \| sandbox 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding a few references that are relevant: [1] [2] [3] References ^ "Pinus ponderosa subsp. washoensis (Washoe pine) description" . www.conifers.org . Retrieved 2023-06-22 . ^ Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S. ; Cooper, Blake; Douglas, Connor; Finch, Kristen; Karemera, Hassan; Lindberg, Erik; Langer, Stephen K. ; Lefler, Julia; Marquardt, Paula; Pouncey, Dakota L. ; Telewski, Frank (2021-10-25). "Phylogenomics in the Hard Pines ( Pinus subsection Ponderosae ; Pinaceae) Confirms Paraphyly in Pinus ponderosa, and Places Pinus jeffreyi with the California Big Cone Pines" . Systematic Botany . 46 (3): 538–561. doi : 10.1600/036364421x16312067913435 . ISSN 0363-6445 . ^ Willyard, Ann; Gernandt, David S. ; López-Reyes, Alejandro; Potter, Kevin M. (December 2021). "Mitochondrial phylogeography of the ponderosa pines: widespread gene capture, interspecific sharing, and two unique lineages" . Tree Genetics & Genomes . 17 (6). doi : 10.1007/s11295-021-01529-4 . ISSN 1614-2942 . Keep . No valid reason for deletion. See WP:MERGE if that was your intent instead. The article was just created yesterday, so it's not like you're unable to discuss this with the article creator. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As above, AfD is utterly the wrong place to be starting a discussion about changing the name of this article or merging its contents. Thincat ( talk ) 11:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think I read somewhere that it's under the purview of the individual user weather or not a subspecies gets an article. Americanfreedom ( talk ) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and wordsmith with additional sources to reflect its current status as a likely subspecies. -- Kev min § 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No reason to delete the title. The article can be moved to a title for a subspecies or a variety, or could be redirected to Pinus ponderosa , with the subspecies/variety being discussed there. Ultimately, Pinus washoensis should be a redirect, but there are different options for the target. Plantdrew ( talk ) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Rewrite as a subspecies article. UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a subspecies, its a variety. In fact, the folks working on plant taxonomy are heading in the direction of renaming all plant subspecies as varieties. Abductive ( reasoning ) 00:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough. Still, it's a keep ! vote with a rewrite that would necessitate a move . - UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa . Abductive ( reasoning ) 00:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It generally requires more than a couple of phylogenetic studies for names to be changed holus bolus. When the botanists are more aligned in their agreements, then redirects will be needed. MargaretRDonald ( talk ) 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a distinctive form that isn't a species does not automatically qualify for a page unless notable. This one appears to have enough sources to render page viable Cas Liber ( talk · contribs ) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Washoe Pine seems notable and even if it was decided not to give it its own article, a redirect is needed. The question then becomes whether to treat it as a species (OD, FNA), subspecies (Gymnosperm database), variety (conifer database via CoL, Willyard et al, 2021 ) or synonym (WFO following WCSP, POWO following Farjon 2001). In A Handbook of the World's Conifers (2010), Farjon referred to the "the spurious taxon P. washoensis " (p739). While the newer molecular studies now favour variety, we should probably treat it as a population or stand of Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa following POWO, WFO and Farjon rather than the primary sources. But that is a discussion for the talk page. — Jts1882 \| talk 11:26, 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
Nat Turner: Five years ago, the article was merged into Nat Turner's slave rebellion . Talk:Nat Turner preserves the history of the merge discussion, which was closed as "consensus to merge" when there was no such consensus. There is related subsequent discussion at Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion . Editor LouMichel is rewriting the biographical article, which I applaud, but it should be incubated in a draft space until it is ready for publication. Though I'm therefore recommending Draftify , I suspect some editors will also wish to use this AfD to revisit the merge discussion. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Nat Turner's slave rebellion#Turner's life with the option to WP:SIZESPLIT in the future if necessary. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect in it's current form to Nat Turner's slave rebellion , but I am in support of a page for Nat Turner himself in the future. Jebiguess ( talk ) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Split : I think there are enough separate facts about the individual responsible for the famous rebellion to give him his own page. For example here . I don't know if that source meets Wikipedia's standards to be reliable. This source looks reliable. There appears to be plenty of WP:RS on Google scholar . -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) and per LouMichel . I would support a speedy close of this discussion as Keep or Split per the arguments made by Central and Adams and regular editing between the two articles takes place. -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)] [ reply ] Keep -- No one will seriously argue that Nat Turner fails the GNG, so the only argument put forth by nom is that the present article is in lousy shape. AFD, as is well known, is not cleanup, so this is not a valid criterion for deletion. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response : This issue is not whether Turner merits an article but that a community consensus was made three years ago to merge two articles, making Nat Turner's slave rebellion the primary article. As a result better biographical content already exists but is elsewhere. If a discussion to split the main article had been started, existing content could have been used to populate Nat Turner , resulting is a C class rather than a stub. This is about process, not the merit of the subject. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That decision isn't binding on anyone now, and we're revisiting it. If the only question is whether it should still be merged that's a question for discussion on the talk page rather than at AFD. AFD is never about process. It's always about the notability (not merit) of the subject. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point. I honestly do think the merger is the issue, but here wer are. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I came here following WP:DRAFTIFY , which suggests AfD to establish community consensus for draftification. It is an odd AfD nomination, but not inappropriate. I don't expect anyone will seriously suggest deletion here. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 00:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IgnatiusofLondon I apologize for not having read your initial reasoning in the post. I thought it so absurd to make any argument that Nat Turner isn't notable, I responded to what I had assumed was a proposal to delete (or redirect). That said, I would still rather the article stay live and the appropriate content split back to Nat Turner . Drafts are hard to find and track, often ending up in some editor's space, making it hard to know how a phrase or deletion came into being prior to the publication of the draft. I think drafts are better for subjects that are only marginally notable, especially when there is really only one editor willing to work on the content. Then when it is published, we know all of it is from that one editor from that date. I very much doubt that is the case here. -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's alright; don't worry! The reason why I initially stumbled across this minefield was through new page patrol. If it were a new article, I would draftify; it isn't, so the process is AfD. It seems like I've also, in doing so, rather spotlighted the debate between editors regarding reversing the 2019 merge that had already started. I'm hoping there's enough enthusiasm, especially amid Black History Month, to get this topic the attention it deserves. To be honest, if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that article improvements will likely make the draftification question moot by the time the AfD closes, such that the discussion solely concerns keep versus redirect (revisiting the 2019 discussion and improper closure). IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nat Turner is an incredibly important figure in American History. He was rated one of the 100 greatest African Americans in Molefi Kete Asante's well-known book. He has had numerous articles, books, and movies made about him. In fact, any in-depth discussion of US slavery and resistance to slavery will almost certainly discuss him. There are numerous articles here on rebels, such as Pemulwuy , Emile Henry , Shields Green , and countless others. Many of them are less famous than Nat Turner. Even the Spartacus article starts with "Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory," so being mostly known for an uprising does not mean the biographical article should be deleted. Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability say: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." No one would argue the rebellion was not significant, and it is obvious that Nat Turner played a significant role. Why should we have pages for biographical films about Nat Turner and not a page for the person himself? Pulitzer prize-winning books about Nat Turner have Wikipedia pages. Films that are "based on the story of Nat Turner" have pages. I have started this article again because there was never a proper consensus on merging it into the rebellion article (suggestions for a formal "request for comment" were apparently ignored, and few editors even new the merger was occurring or had a chance to respond). The "consensus" that did supposedly occur did not properly follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deleted this page for a very notable historical figure. I recommend that either the previous version of this article before the merger be restored, or we Draftify it and continue working on it to create a version that is distinct from the rebellion article. LouMichel ( talk ) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The prior version of the Nat Turner article was merged in Nat Turner's slave rebellion and has been improved and expanded over three years by numerous editors. It would be a step backward to simply restore the former article, and would also result in unnecessary duplicate content in Wikipedia. A better solution is to move the appropriate section from Nat Turner's slave rebellion to here. Rublamb ( talk ) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then do it. This is a matter for ordinary editing. Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Central and Adams . I am a fan of boldly go, but this is not an ordinary sitution because there was a merger discussion, resulting turninh this article into a redirect. As indicated above by another editor, we are now revisiting the issue. Rublamb ( talk ) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rublamb If it was three years ago, then let's have an unmerge discussion. I think you can already see significant support here for it. Can you provide a link to the closed merger discussion so we don't have to look it up? -- David Tornheim ( talk ) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Tornheim : It was before my time, but here it is: Talk:Nat Turner#Proposing merger with Nat Turner’s slave rebellion . I would be more than happy to take care of the split. Rublamb ( talk ) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for linking to this. That was a terrible close IMO. At the very least it should have been no consensus, but to me the oppose arguments are clearly convincing. Central and Adams ( talk ) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Central and Adams How do we re-open the decision (is there a formal "unmerge" process, or is our discussion here enough)? Although I know it's not a deciding factor, it's Black History Month and deleting the page of a prominent Black historical figure (when this is often an underrepresented part of history) would be an unfortunate choice unless there's a very good reason. I was honestly shocked that Nat Turner didn't have a page. This seems like as good a time as any to revisit this. LouMichel ( talk ) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the discussion is on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nat_Turner LouMichel ( talk ) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this. I am not an experienced or skilled Wikipedia editor, so I kindly request that those with the capacity help make the required changes. And I thank @ Rublamb and others for their diligent work over the years on the Rebellion article. LouMichel ( talk ) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I don't want to prejudge the AfD or box people into discussing particular questions, but looking at the comments already offered, I think it could provide some help to separate the different questions here: Nobody is seriously suggesting the article be deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG . One question is whether Nat Turner should be a separate article ("keep") or a redirect ("redirect"/"merge") to Nat Turner's slave rebellion . As evidenced on the talk pages, the 2019 merge discussion and improper closure have caused much confusion and unsettled debate on this question. There is evidently an appetite to revisit this question. If the article should be separate ("keep"), a follow-up question is whether it should be incubated from the article space ("draftify") while it is brought up to the necessary quality of a Wikipedia article. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and community consensus , articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD . This is why I have dragged this article to AfD: not to propose its deletion, but to propose its draftification. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My opinion is that merging it with the other article does function as a kind of deletion. As I'm sure I've already made clear, I think there should be separate articles (Nat Turner is significant enough to justify it, and there are enough sources about him that we can have both this and one on the rebellion). Beyond that, I'm okay with "draftifying" it (as long as it doesn't get lost in limbo for an extended period of time). But I think if someone is willing to move the relevant section/ content from the Rebellion article over to this one, as @ Rublamb mentions, that may be the best choice. Then we can simply conduct further edits and expand it as needed. Either way is fine by me; my main concern is keeping two separate articles. LouMichel ( talk ) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I don't see any reason to draftify this. Everyone agrees that it meets the GNG, so is worthy of an article. The article's in bad shape now, but it's no different in this regard than tens of thousands of others. It can be fixed by ordinary editing and we absolutely have the power in this discussion to reverse the redirect and merge. Even an ordinary editor who was ready to write the article could do that. Central and Adams ( talk ) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Test did not succeed. Improve it. Nat Turner's slave rebellion effectively gives a biography: so let's write it up properly. Keep . Drmies ( talk ) 02:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve per Central and Adams, LouMichel, and Drmies. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per DUH, with a TROUTing to IgnatiusofLondon for good measure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- BeLucky ( talk ) 17:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep (nominator !vote change) : The article is in better shape, and the AfD discussion thusfar has suggested (i) no appetite for draftification and (ii) in my view, a perceptible consensus for a separate article ("keep" rather than "redirect"). I hope this outcome can encourage editors working on Nat Turner , and suffice to show community consensus to overturn the 2019–20 merge proposal and improper closure. Unless other editors wish to continue using this AfD to debate the 2019–20 history (which does not seem to be the way this AfD discussion has evolved), I think the AfD can be safely closed as keep. I am mindful too that it is Black History Month, and an AfD tag with no real prospect of deletion or draftification helps neither readers nor editors. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 00:43, 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
Eric and the Dread Gazebo: It's a niche meme / anecdote that did not get any WP:SIGCOV . The best source I could find is a PhD thesis that discusses this for about two pages or so; another academic book mentions this in passing and calls it "legendary". There are also WP:OR concerns, such as our article's stress that this was popularized by one "Richard Aronson", sourced to his old post where he focuses on his copyrights for this story - I failed to find any independent source which credits him with "popularizing" this. That said, we are effectively retelling this entire (very short) story, which does raise some copyvio concerns. And then there is the "in popular culture" section which forms half of our article and is pure OR (unreferenced). Sigh. I do find this meme (or anecdote) funny and I've heard it before today, but I am afraid it is not notable . I struggle to suggest where to merge and redirect it. The only page that links to this trivia is Gazebo , where maybe this could be summarized in a few sentences? PS. Last AfD few years ago had a lenghty list of sources about a play called Hannah and the Dread Gazebo , which may be notable, but I am not seeing any evidence that that play was inspired by this anecdote ( this review suggests there may be a connection, but is vague). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Popular culture . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 12:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: [29] is reliable, yes ( Seems to have a real staff etc.)? There are also books that cover this. I've just requested one from my local library ("The role-playing society: essays on the cultural influence of RPGs") which apparently has some coverage. @ Piotrus : could you point me to the Thesis, is it [30] ?? Note: I was notified of this AfD indirectly by another editor. Hobit ( talk ) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hobit : The PhD thesis is Anything can be attempted: Tabletop role-playing games as learning and pedagogy by Timothy Woods. / Julle ( talk ) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] https://knowyourmeme.com/ is not reliable. Tagged in red by User:Headbomb/unreliable ... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Could someone explain the copyright concerns to me? Storylines aren't covered, only unique expressions of said story – retellings of stories are allowed under US copyright law. But we're still talking about a work in detail rather than creating a new work of art with the same characters (Eric, the gazebo), so I don't understand how the characters could be the issue any more here than in any other description. / Julle ( talk ) 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Julle Copyvio is not a strong converns of mine here. The issue is that we paraphrase this very short story in about as many words as the original. But given how short it is, it may be fine due to fair use or such. The bigger issue is that this story is not very well covered by other sources (notability). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete In my humble opinion, none of this discussion or the original deletion discussion has really demonstrated what makes the story notable. That an anecdote is told and retold across sources does not amount to notability if there is not any cited coverage about the context, reception or influence of that story. Of the three sources, Aaronson is a primary source and purported origin of the story, Byers briefly retells the story without analysis (calling it "legendary" is not really reception) as a point of trivia about a reference in Munchkin , and the Woods source is a thesis, which is fair for inclusion but not particularly strong evidence for notability as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP , which retells the story to open a discussion about the "inner workings" of play experiences and play-based learning, which to be fair is valid and good commentary. If this is the WP:THREE sources we're leaning on for notability, it's not a good start, and I hope more reliable sources with sustained commentary on the story can be found, perhaps averting to a WP:NEXIST situation. On the point about the play, the previous deletion discussion suggested it may very well be notable. But that's because it had sources discussing it. As with WP:TRIVIA I would really caution the idea that something is notable because a bunch of loosely connected creative works have referenced or hinted at it in the past, because that in itself does not reliably evidence anything of substance about the nature of the thing itself, although does provide some evidence of legacy. On the copyright issue, yes, if it's genuinely copyrighted, quoting or reproducing the story would be a WP:COPYVIO , but paraphrasing would not be - that's fair use. Happy to re-evaluate this one if more sources are found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Don't think this is particularly strong, but the below text found reinforces a general pattern of retelling and commentary on the story, enough to substantiate notability, paired with the likely WP:NEXIST situation it is enough. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 00:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've found one more source, Dangerous Games , p. 11-12, which discusses the topic under the term "the gazebo story" and goes in the same direction as Wood's PhD thesis ("The gazebo anecdote is significant because...".) So while those sources do not provide a very large amount of commentary, I would say it is enough to just so establish notability. Daranios ( talk ) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per source found by Daranios. BOZ ( talk ) 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 Cookie Monster 12:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep we now have multiple, reliable, independent sources and so our inclusion guideline is met. Hobit ( talk ) 17:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think we have enough indications that this is a story which has been spread throughout various places, a cultural phenomenon which is helpful if we can explain, and enough sources to be able to keep it. / Julle ( talk ) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - several independent reliable sources. WP:GNG applies. BabbaQ ( talk ) 20:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with no objection to merging this into some sort of a bigger article on role playing game memes and culture. That is, this clears the bar per the above... but really, is it better served as part of a larger narrative. Jclemens ( talk ) 17:10, 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
Inno Setup: The sources used in the article are either blogs or simply software instructions. Nolan Cohen ( talk ) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Nolan Cohen ( talk ) 21:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think its widespread use (or not) should be established before deletion is even considered. The proposal alone discredits it to a casual reader. 92.26.189.159 ( talk ) 21:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POPULARITY Aaron Liu ( talk ) 01:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This is a popular piece of software as clearly mentioned in multiple different books [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and peer-reviewed journal and conference articles. [6] [7] [8] It is also considered as a language/tool by GitHub Linguist. [9] Uvarun2009 ( talk ) 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. The sources presented above are either instructional guides for downloading software or lack in-depth, detailed coverage . Also, some sources have a promotional tone, such as the one on Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions , which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are also sources that remain unverified. Nolan Cohen ( talk ) 08:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These instructional guides aren't just for downloading the software. I don't see why they should be disqualified. Keep Aaron Liu ( talk ) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. The WP:PARTISAN clearly mentions that: " Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. " Of course, I am not urging to use the exact same tone or point of view from the sources. I have verified all the sources that I provided. I want to highlight that WP:SOURCETYPES mentions that, " Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. " The peer-reviewed scholarly articles I provided in the sources, clearly mentions Inno Setup as a " powerful " and " popular " piece of software. Uvarun2009 ( talk ) 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I believe the many references (shared above) most likely fulfil the first criteria of WP:NSOFT , namely that it is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field". It is featured extensively in books relating to development, often acknowledging its popularity or functionality (e.g. "First introduced in 1997, Inno Setup today rivals and even surpasses many commercial installers in feature set and stability"). Despite the significant number of such references, I'm not confident many are particularly in-depth. Nevertheless, I still feel Inno Setup is notable enough and that this is established. GhostOfNoMeme 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ Buba, Yusuf. Mastering Python. A Comprehensive Journey from Beginner to Professional . BookRix. ISBN 3755445743 . ^ Gunderloy ·, Mike. Coder to Developer Tools and Strategies for Delivering Your Software . Wiley (publisher) . pp. 277–278. ISBN 9780782151251 . ^ Thorn, Alan. Game Engine Design and Implementation . Jones & Bartlett Learning . p. 562. ISBN 9781449656485 . ^ Thron, Alan. Cross Platform Game Development . Jones & Bartlett Learning . p. 359. ISBN 9780763782818 . ^ Schummer, Rick; Borup, Rick; Adams, Jacci. Deploying Visual FoxPro Solutions . Hentzenwerke Publishing. pp. 429–450. ISBN 9781930919327 . ^ Nasucha, Mohammad; Rahmat, Revo; Satrio, Muhammad; Khornelius, John Bryan; Hermawan, Hendi; Handoko, Prio (3 May 2024). "GUI Development for An Image Enhancement Application to Support Computer Vision". International Conference on Artificial Intelligence For Internet of Things : 1–4. doi : 10.1109/AIIoT58432.2024.10574765 . ^ Tyndall, John B. (15 October 2012). "Building an effective software deployment process". SIGUCCS : 109–114. doi : 10.1145/2382456.2382482 . ^ Signoret, J. ; Balme, S. ; Theis, J.M. (October 2013). "A friendly tool to remotely follow-up fusion machines experiments". Fusion Engineering and Design . 88 (6–8): 1455–1459. doi : 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.03.023 . ^ "linguist/lib/linguist/languages.yml at master · github-linguist/linguist" . GitHub . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Lars Bern: The main concerns include: - POV (Point of View) Issues: The article heavily reflects the claims and views of the biographed person without sufficient neutral coverage. - Lack of Reliable Sources: The content relies predominantly on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. - Notability Concerns: The subject does not meet the general notability guideline as the article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. - Content Focus: The article focuses more on claims made by the person rather than providing a balanced biographical account, which is a core requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia. These issues combined lead to the conclusion that the article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Looking into the bibliography at least four of them seems to be self-published, or published on "print-on-demand" publishing companys. "Recito": "Recito is an innovative publisher specializing in small print runs and making the publishing world accessible to authors. We work closely with our authors to create wonderful books, and because we are experts in small print runs, we can test the market with each book without having to predict the future or risk mistakenly rejecting a manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franke1281 ( talk • contribs ) 09:06, 18 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 21 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Politics , Engineering , Environment , Technology , and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but Stubify - The article has severe issues, but being a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences means that he meets point 3 of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 14:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's been some recent significant coverage of him as a person advancing climate change denialism and other fringe beliefs, but a notable crank is still notable, the article just needs to reflect the RS on him. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If so that has to be abuntantly clear. For instance, right now it says "Klimatupplysningen, a Swedish climate debating movement". Describing Klimatupplysningen as a "climate debating movement" is a bit like describing swedish "Strålskyddsstiftelsen" as "an organization that works to show the pros and cons of good mobile phone coverage". (And for those not knowlegable about Strålskyddstiftelsen: https://www-vof-se.translate.goog/utmarkelser/tidigare-utmarkelser/arets-forvillare-2013/? _x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=wapp As it is now, this article reads more like an Op:ed for Lars Berns, to put it mildly, controversial opinions, than a biographical account. Franke1281 ( talk ) 08:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've edited the article to what I believe is a better state policy-wise. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 12:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good changes. Now I believe the article aligns much better with Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies and appears more neutral and factual than it did before. Franke1281 ( talk ) 15:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per AlexandraAVX . While there are significant changes which need to be made to the article, the topic is notable and the issues can better be handled by shortening and editing the article than deleting it. / Julle ( talk ) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
David Wild: He's written some articles and books, but there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV of him. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP BLP has been nominated 5 times for an Emmy: [9] , significant reporter to Rolling Stone Magazine: [10] , a New York Times best-selling author, book reviews: [11] , has nearly 200 writing and 45 producing credits to his name. At the very least, passes WP:NBASIC . Keep . Based on the Emmy nominations alone he meets the basic criteria for Wikipedia's notability guidelines , which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Melanie Arndt: Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unless confusion with the biochemist can be resolved. Reference 3 seems false. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . I added six reviews of two books, enough I think for a pass of WP:AUTHOR . The fact that she shares a name with someone else or that soon after article creation some drive-by editor added a bad reference (which I removed) should be irrelevant. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 02:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do we know what her GS profile is? She ought to have got some cites. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] This is a book field, not a journal field. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even authors of books get citations. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 09:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep Looks like a WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Six reviews of two books seem significant enough for me to meet. WP:AUTHOR . Shoerack ( talk ) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article seems to be identical with one in the German WP, which has higher standards than the English WP (or used to). Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think their notability standards are strong. Their sourcing sometimes can be inadequate (for instance I was unable to confirm the birthplace listed in their article), but then so can ours. Anyway, this article was initially created as a translation of theirs, but has undergone significant edits subsequently to that. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:12, 24 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
Alexandria Harmonizers: although there seem to be many sources on the web, most are unreliable or lack substance. lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia . lettherebedarklight 晚安 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on searching newspapers.com, it appears to meet WP:BAND given sustained coverage (outside of the immediate region even!) and seemingly well-regarded awards: https://www.newspapers.com/article/centre-daily-times-200-voices-strong/125568990/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-item-alexandria-harmonizers-to/125569014/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-daily-american-alexandria-harmonizer/125569076/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/citizens-voice-alexandria-harmonizers-c/125569095/ (which refers to them, in 1994, as the two-time international champions of the Barbershop Singing Society ), https://www.newspapers.com/article/asbury-park-press-singers-offer-champio/125569119/ and four-time a few years later: https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-press-reliving-barbershop-melodies/125569434/ and https://www.newspapers.com/article/republican-and-herald-harmonizers-to-ser/125569484/ . This is the first batch of independent, and largely in-depth sources. There are more in newspapers.com and I assume other places as well. Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Washington Post has maybe a dozen or so articles of varying levels of detail, one of which is https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1995/08/03/harmonious-hotshots/86150afb-1215-4a40-ae3b-1eae1e35b718/ . Barbershopping: musical and social harmony ( https://archive.org/details/barbershoppingmu0000unse/page/126/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22 ) refers to it as Witness the fact that in the Alexandria Harmonizers, one of the largest and most successful chapters .... . And this doesn't really contribute to notability (but kind of does?), but in searching archive.org, I saw that John Glenn mentions them in his memoirs, during his flight on Discovery ( https://archive.org/details/johnglennmemoir0000glen/page/396/mode/2up?q=%22Alexandria+Harmonizers%22 ): I also took along a disc of barbershop chorus harmonies by the champion Alexandria Harmonizers, a taste I inherited from my dad. After that, the entire crew slept. Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based upon the reliable sources newspaper coverage identified in this discussion which verifies they have played at the White House and Supreme Court and won various awards. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:52, 4 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
Lankhmar: I don't see any SIGCOV sources in the article or elsewhere (although I could not access Bryce 2008 cited in Further reading; Lovett-Graff 1996 cited there as well mentions the city in passing but does not provide any in-depth analysis. I wouldn't hold much hopes as the source was found in the prior AfD, nobody could access it and that AfD which ended with keep verdict was sadly influenced by claims that I can at best describe as incorrect if not misleading (ex. "Covered in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction." - false, as can be seen from the entry here ). I suggest redirecting to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (merge is not necessary, the Ankh-Morpork reference is already there; that article probably should be renamed to the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series - I started a discussion at that article's talk about refocusing it, feel free to comment there) or perhaps Lankhmar – City of Adventure . PS. See also related older AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehwon . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 08:43, 23 December 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 Games . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 08:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a merge to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser , not a straight redirect. The D&D stuff isn't separately notable but I think it's likely worth preserving . — S Marshall T / C 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (the naming question of the target notwithstanding) following S Marshall 's opinion, or keep as there are secondary sources which are borderline with regard to establishing notability in my view. As an aside, this is not primarily a D&D city, but rather an important city of fantasy literature also adapted to D&D and other RPGs. This PhD thesis by Schneider already has a number of bits of commentary throughout, e.g. p. 129. It does refer both to the mentioned essay by Bryce 2008, as well as Waugh: The Word and the Wild: The Problem of Civilization in the Works of Fritz Leiber from the same monograph(?). I also cannot access either to see how much there is on Lankhmar. Can anyone else? One relevant question with regard to notability/ WP:WHYN here would be if the gods of Lankhmar should be considered a subtopic contributing to the content of our article here or not. Schneider has more commentary on that, as does this paper by Lovett-Graff , which also has a bit of commentary on Lankhmar itself, like Lankhmar being a fantastic reflection of our world. Daranios ( talk ) 14:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I think a holistic look at how we depict 1) the works of Fritz Lieber, and 2) the game elements that derive from them, is in order. We don't need a bazillion different articles, but nor should the foundational elements only be reflected in the well-marketed game supplements which were based on them. Jclemens ( talk ) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep this is a bit tricky because we have an article on the D&D setting, a board game, and lots of other places where this is referenced. Sources like [26] discuss both the setting and the city itself. [27] is mostly about one of the books set in the city but again covers the city quite a bit. [28] is an academic paper which dwells on one part of the city in pretty great detail (in fact that writeup makes me realize that Glen Cook's work took the same ideas of in a city). But yeah, we should certainly keep this. Just do a google scholar search on the word "Lankhmar". Once you get past the first few pages of just books by Leiber, you can see the massive trove of papers that reference this fantasy city. I was shocked. I seriously think there is a featured article in here with enough work. Hobit ( talk ) 01:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, be sure to read the last AfD . Hobit ( talk ) 01:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hobit Can you cite (link) to let's say two best examples that would satisfy SIGCOV concerns? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think all three I linked to were pretty good. The third one spends a fair bit of time on a specific place in the city and also on the nature of the city and it's people. [29] is a review of a game based in the city, but it has a ton of details about the city including maps. And while it's no academic paper, it is reliable and independent. I'll go with those two--one academic and covering a small part of the city and it's nature and one a review of a product about the city that goes into deep detail about the city. Neither is perfect--I'd love to find an academic paper focused on the city itself. But both are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the city. And there are at least dozen or so that are also over the WP:N bar. (I linked to two above, check out the article itself and the last AfD for some more). There are very few fantasy topics that have anywhere near this many academic papers about them... Hobit ( talk ) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per agreement with the arguments made by Hobit. BOZ ( talk ) 01:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in light of the above sourcing, with no prejudice against article reorganization as per my earlier comments. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable plot item (city) covered in series of books, a boardgame dedicated to it, and ttrpg. Has independent sourcing Cas Liber ( talk · contribs ) 11:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not a D&D city at all (the fact is is claimed to be so gives me suspicion that the nominator probably needs to do a bit of WP:BEFORE ). The central setting of the extremely significant writings of an extremely significant fantasy writer. Plenty written about it. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:13, 4 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
Emmanuel Aluyor: - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria . UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . UtherSRG : Would you like to explain in more detail your argument for why you think he fails NPROF, given that our article lists him as vice chancellor for a university in Nigeria, where vice chancellor is the title used for heads of universities ( WP:NPROF#C6 )? (As in the UK and elsewhere, the chancellor is a ceremonial title; the vice chancellor is the real head.) While I'm asking, can you also explain why you think his citation record [6] with multiple triple-digit citation counts is not good enough for #C1? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay said it well: Is this really a major university? If not, that strikes out C6. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's the top public university in Nigeria and third overall. Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Top in the country doesn't equate to major. It can mean there isn't any major university in the country. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No major universities in Nigeria, the sixth most populous nation in the world? Good luck with that argument. The top university in Nigeria is not like the top university in Monaco -- its top university is major purely by virtue of being top in Nigeria. Your argument begins to sound like WP:BIAS . Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What is the rigorous definition of "major university"? Does EDSU meet that definition? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a fallacy to assume that a "rigorous definition" is required for notability or even possible in any context. Why do you think we need such a thing or that such a thing can even exist? There's no sensible way to understand the phrase "major university" that doesn't include "top university in Nigeria." Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no fallacy. "Major" has a meaning. If you include "top university in any country" then that could water down that definition. How does EDSU compare to any other university that would generally be considered "major"? Does it have the same standards of accreditation? The same level of research output? top public university in Nigeria and third overall can mean very little if there are only four universities in Nigeria. (There aren't, but I'm showing how your logic is weak.) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Equating "has a meaning" with "has a rigorous definition" is equivocation, another fallacy. This has been known since Wittgenstein's work on language games . But this conversation is getting too tangential for me and I'm content to let the closer decide at this point. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not the "top university in Nigeria", it was the "best state university in open educational resources " in 2018. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- as the head of a major university satisfies WP:NPROF#C6 , as noted by my colleague David Eppstein . Central and Adams ( talk ) 22:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPROF. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Is in the highest seat of a major university, although not meeting GNG passes NPROF. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 08:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I would also like to know the reason behind UtherSRG 's decision to bring this topic to AFD again after I informed them here that it met the WP:NPROF#C6 when they moved it to the draft phase initially. Despite my explanation, they still insisted on bringing it to AFD again. Is there any other criteria that UtherSRG is using to make this decision? Kaizenify ( talk ) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I prefer the community to weigh in when there is a question of notability. Too often I've seen articles accepted from draft that are in the questionable range. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a good-faith reason why your nomination statement did not mention that you had already been made aware of this, and did not elaborate on why you thought this criterion did not apply? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See the conversation above. There's enough room for debate on whether NPROF#C6 applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are avoiding the question. Your nomination statement did not say that this was a possible issue, that you already knew about, on which there might be room for debate. It just stated flatly that he failed WP:PROF, potentially misleading other contributors into the false belief that you had searched for ways in which he might pass WP:PROF and found none that were even worthy of mention and debate. I have to assume per WP:AGF that it was not your intent to mislead contributors, so perhaps this should be a warning to be more careful in formulating future deletion nomination statements. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : Clearly pass WP:NPROF Kaizenify ( talk ) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets academic notability guidelines. Note I have linked to the wikidata record and added the link to his SCOPUS record which shows healthy citations too: [7] . Resonant Dis tor tion 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Is EDSU actually a major, significant university in the sense expected by C6? It was only established in 2016, we don't have much to go on regarding the quality of its research output, and its establishment was controversial. JoelleJay ( talk ) 23:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is not vice chancellor anymore, or better, he is holding on to his post after his term was finished, see this January 2024 news . If the article is kept, this information should be added. Broc ( talk ) 13:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NTEMP . Central and Adams ( talk ) 15:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : I had wondered the prompt for the AFD since the subject clearly passed WP: GNG and WP: PROF . Since the nominators main purpose is because they believe the chancellor is no more the vice chancellor. But the article and sources states he is still the VC. Besides, Notability cannot be permanent . There are also verified sources for his academic achievement for WP: NRV . EDSU basically is a major university so far it merited an enwiki article. Otuọcha ( talk ) 19:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I am convinced by Central & Adams' assertion that the university he heads or headed is the top public university in its (large) nation. If there is controversy over whether he still heads it, that cannot decrease his notability. Additionally he has a (weaker but still present) case for WP:PROF#C1 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein , the article's claim of being a "top university" is rather misleading; the university ranked as the best state university in open educational resources , which is a metric related to availability of openly licensed and freely distributed course materials, not the quality of education or research output. I too was going to ! vote speedy keep per C6 until I noticed the young age of the university, which seemed incongruent with a high overall ranking. It looks like EDSU is tied (with several other universities) for last place among Nigerian universities. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I totally understand UtherSRG's confusion here, Edo State of Nigeria is underrepresented here on Wikipedia (Nigeria generally is). Anyway, this subject easily passes C1 and C6 of WP:NPROF . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Africa is still suffering from systematic bais , so this nominations and others i have seen since i came back is of no surprise to me. UthrrSRG nominated this article because he thought that Edo State University was not good enough like western universities [" Global Perspectives "]). All the best, Reading Beans 06:42, 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
Ilija Vakić: Thus proposing for deletion as it therefore fails WP:GNG Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo , Serbia , and Yugoslavia . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The person's position was the equivalent of a state or provincial premier or cabinet minister. The Serbian Wikipedia sr:Илија Вакић or this URL lists as a reference Југословенски савременици: ко је ко у Југославији. Yugoslav contemporaries: who's who in Yugoslavia. "Chronometar", Belgrade, 1970. Presumably he's listed there. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to have been the head of government of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo , which is an WP:NPOL -conferring position. Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes NPOL. Mccapra ( talk ) 02:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very notable, a member of the Central Committee of the 12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia . I'm currently working on creating that very article here: User:TheUzbek/sandbox2 . I've managed to find on him. -- TheUzbek ( talk ) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:NPOL , but definitely needs references added. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPOL . The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:01, 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
Ernst Hannawald: One link is dead, and none can be found online when I look. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 13:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Added things. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . A simple brief look at the German Wikipedia might have shown that, maybe. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't add other wikipedia articles information into another wikipedia article. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 12:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. You. Can. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, I didn't see that the other article was in another language, thought it was the same one. Have a look at WP:RSUEC , although you can use non-english sources, I'd prefer if you translate it into English since this is an English version of Wikipedia and it would get a better understanding. And. .look at WP:CIRCULAR as it states that you cant use sources from different wikipedia articles to cite on different versions as well. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, WP:CIRCULAR does not say that. I am inviting you to read it again with more attention.And I don't understand your comment about non-English sources. If you want to add other sources and translate other things, feel free. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The broken link has been repaired, Mushy Yank has expanded the article, and the German article contains additional material and references that can be used to further expand the article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 07:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Still not enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV requirements; the NY Times article is about the movie, not the actor, other available online sources are self-published. Prof.PMarini ( talk ) 08:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The NYT review is about the film but mentions him. Other sources I added are not self-published. It's the Berliner Zeitung (the article is attributed to his name, but that's evidently a mistake of the online version) and Tz . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just added more sources. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I disagree with the nominator and Prof.PMarini's statements. No Wikipedia policies bar articles from citing native language sources. The German sources provided by Mushy Yank are more than adequate to demonstrate the subject person has fulfilled GNG. The NYT review was obviously cited to prove the subject person has an officially credited lead role in the film Die Konsequenz instead of introducing the actor. The subject person has three officially credited sole leading/co-leading roles in the films Die Konsequenz , Die Faust in der Tasche [ de ] , and TV series Zeit genug , fulfilling NACTOR #1 as well. Meeting two notability guidelines is quite an obvious keep to me. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you click on the sources that the person has added before nominating for a keep? It only briefly mentions the subject. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 12:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you even click on the sources? How did you identify source#2, 3, 5, and 6 as briefly mentioning the subject person when the article is entirely about him?? Your denouncements aside, three easily identifiable lead roles is already an obvious keep. — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the sources are self-published, which is what one other person has said. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the sources are self-published? — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 18:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you planning to tell us which specific sources you identify as brief mentions and self-published, or should we make our own guesses? — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the links have no author in it, so I'm assuming they're self-published. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is obviously not the definition of self-publishing ... The German sources are from established media outlets ( Bayerischer Rundfunk , Tz , Abendzeitung , and Nürnberger Nachrichten ). Not all media outlets would credit the journalists, and it makes no sense to equate all uncredited news articles as being written by the subject person themselves. Also, only one of the aforementioned news sources did not credit the journalist, may I ask why the other sources are also being assumed as self-published? — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ） 15:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - multiple sources; can use sources that are cited in other language wikipedias; that’s not the same as citing articles from other language wikipedias as sources; cites can be in foreign languages; WP:AGF . Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - German-language sources added and discussed above show WP:SIGCOV and subject meets WP:GNG . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Rachel Korine: Most articles that mention her are discussions about the films she has been in, or a single sentence saying that she is Harmony Korine's wife. I found one interview with her but that does not establish notability. Putting this up for editors to discuss or bring more evidence for notability forward. LovelyLillith ( talk ) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Film , and Entertainment . LovelyLillith ( talk ) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] . Delete It does not have the criteria of complete wiki recognition. Khtibkiarash ( talk ) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) —	keep
Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim: BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below. Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's Lord-Lieutenant , "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county" . In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton ). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case. Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Peter W. Hammond (1998), The Complete Peerage . No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. ✘ No Marie Louise McConville, Earl of Antrim's funeral to take place in Glenarm next week , The Irish News , 6 August 2021, accessed 3 July 2022 Obituary of the 9th Earl, no mention of the son. Fails SIGCOV. ✘ No Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90 No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. ✘ No "DUNLUCE, Viscount" in Lucy Hume, ed. , Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2017), p. 1882 No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source requested by WP:GNG . ✘ No " The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com , accessed 3 July 2022 The Earl is one of the chiefs of the clan, which owns this website. WP:SPS ✘ No https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/pams-people-artist-hector-mcdonnell-sees-big-picture/31133678.html No mention of the Earl. ✘ No Richard Pococke, John McVeagh, Richard Pococke's Irish Tours (Irish Academic Press, 1995), p. 212 This source covers the castle, not the Earl. ✘ No Mark Bence-Jones, Burke's Guide to Country Houses: Volume I, Ireland (1978), p. 135 This source covers the castle, not the Earl. ✘ No "DUNLUCE , Viscount Randal Alexander St John McDonnell" in Sara Foster, Zoe Gullen, eds., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2002), p. 568 No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests. ✘ No " New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks ", Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, accessed 28 July 2022 No mention of the Earl. ✘ No Deputy Lieutenant Commissions , The Belfast Gazette, 31 January 2014, Notice ID: B-7586-1 WP:PRIMARY official gazette, not SIGCOV. ✘ No Kathleen O'Sullivan, " Glenarm Forest is NI’s first accredited QCC forest conservation project ", agriland.co.uk, 9 November 2021, accessed 3 July 2022 Passing mention. ✘ 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 }} . Pilaz ( talk ) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: A previous iteration of this article was deleted after a AfD discussion last year. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim . Pilaz ( talk ) 02:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Royalty and nobility , Ireland , United Kingdom , and Northern Ireland . Pilaz ( talk ) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Clear WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Earl of Antrim . Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No objection to redirecting to Earl of Antrim from me. Pilaz ( talk ) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as I see enough for compliance with the WP:GNG . I do not agree with the table on Debrett's People of Today , which is surely a reliable secondary source, or Agriland, which is an important agricultural publisher (see here ). I would not say that article has only a "passing mention", as it is about a project by Dunluce. Other sources help to provide significant coverage collectively. The GNG is of course not about importance, but I doubt if many Deputy Lords Lieutenant of counties are non-notable. Moonraker ( talk ) 19:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Debrett's is a tertiary source, as confirmed by this RSN discussion . Its main problem is the lack of SIGCOV of the Earl (DOB, parents and children are routine info ). The argument that a person can inherit notability from a project is a typical WP:NOTINHERITED argument and is not grounded in policy, and I don't know how you can trust a publication that calls the current Earl the "15th Earl of Antrim". Besides, he only gets a namecheck. Significant coverage needs to be more than a trivial mention . Pilaz ( talk ) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] New sources added from Spear's Wealth Management Survey and The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook , providing significant coverage of his city career. On your link, Pilaz , with the greatest respect, a discussion led by you which is about a different publication isn't an authority on Debrett's People of Today , you may like to review that article. Moonraker ( talk ) 01:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the addition. Spear's Wealth Management Survey doesn't help meet the GNG since it just seems to paraphrase Dunluce's workplace bioblurb in length and content (i.e. the reference to the "over 25 years" in the first sentence of both bioblurbs), which means Spear's blurb about McDonnell/Dunluce has independence problems from the subject. Secondly, it's not secondary: a secondary source , as defined in WP:NOR , ought to provide thought and reflection based on primary sources , of which there is none here. That's because Spear's acts as a tertiary source whose stated goal is to be a "guide" to private client advisers . I also don't think this kind of information is SIGCOV, but others can chime in on this. The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook is another yearbook, meaning it's also a tertiary source and is likely to not feature much beyond "contact information for over 1,000 advisers and a list of their corporate clients" [2] . So, not secondary, and although I don't have access to his entry, almost certainly no SIGCOV in there (paper and ink are expensive). Wikipedia is not a directory , so I don't think using other directories makes for a great argument that the subject is notable. Pilaz ( talk ) 01:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As for Debrett's People of Today , it acted in the same way as Who's Who , by asking biographees to provide their own biographical entries and update them each year [3] [4] . Entries cannot be independent from the subject if they are written by the subject themselves. And, again, not secondary, so no thoughts or reflection on the material presented. Pilaz ( talk ) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: on "15th Earl of Antrim", it's common for peerages to have disputed numbering, when they have been created more than once for the same family. In this case "15th" is arrived at by counting from 1620 instead of 1785. Moonraker ( talk ) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the article looks well sourced. However, I wouldn't oppose merging this article into Earl of Antrim in a "Present peer" section, as is done at Marquess of Anglesey . estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 01:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] estar8806 , two questions: which reliable secondary sources provide in-depth coverage to help meet the GNG? And what information would you merge from the current article into a "present peer" section? Pilaz ( talk ) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Estar8806 has put forward a reasonable proposal. If other users think that the article cannot be a standalone page, then it's better to redirect it to the page that covers all his predecessors. Keivan.f Talk 23:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Matt Petgrave: The article was created on the assumption that Petgrave is the man arrested, which however likely is unconfirmed and breaches WP:SUSPECT . Adam Johnson played in the NHL so he had a minor element of notability before the tragedy. Petgrave only played minor league in North America and there was very little written about his career before this event happened, so he is not notable as a sportsman. If he is, then level the page up with sources about his North American career, dating from before October 2023. The event for which he is known is under investigation and due process applies, there is no WP:DEADLINE . A person being known for the death of another person does not merit an own article. When/if Petgrave features in documentaries or is portrayed in many books and films about the death on the ice, then we can say that "his role was both substantial and well documented" which is an exception for WP:BLP1E . Unknown Temptation ( talk ) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was actually working on adding his career stats and when I went to post it I lost everything because of the deletion notice. I understand why the article is up for deletion, in fact I was trying to improve the article before it gets deleted. Sadly, I lost all my edits. Thank you for posting the reasons for deletion, as I was unaware of them prior to editing the article. Winni134 ( talk ) 00:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I agree with the others saying that Petgrave is notable, and I do think we should keep the page but we should remove claims that he was arrested for Johnson's death until we have confirmation from a reliable source. Snickerdoodle12 ( talk ) 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. He's notable for both his amount of penalties as well as his involvement in the injury, which is pretty rare for the sport of hockey. I haven't found any confirmation that Petgrave was the one arrested, but NewsNation has been reported that the person arrested is "a professional hockey player", which seems to insinuate that the person arrested is indeed Petgrave. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This player plays for a notable team in a notable league. Over 15 years, he has played for a number of notable teams in notable leagues. Many players in these teams are notable for just playing in these teams, so is he. He was notable before the incident with Adam Johnson. Here are just some sources about him (many featuring him) from before the 2023 incident: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0g1mwxh https://chl.ca/ohl-attack/matt-petgrave-named-ohl-player-of-the-week/ https://prohockeynews.com/defensive-pairing-back-with-steelers/ https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/ice-hockey/not-everyone-appears-to-be-a-fan-of-sheffield-steelers-star-matt-petgrave-3878459 https://theahl.com/stats/player/6947 https://www.nbcsports.com/nhl/matt-petgrave/00000188-9cf1-da6b-abd8-fcfd9a560240 https://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/6234/ https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/players/3140872/matt-petgrave/ https://www.floridaeverblades.com/news/2020/12/everblades-add-defenseman-matt-petgrave https://www.uticacomets.com/news/detail/canucks-recall-brisebois-comets-sign-matt-petgrave https://capitalsoutsider.com/2013/09/05/catching-matt-petgrave/ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/steelers-top-defensive-pairing-signs-050000047.html https://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/1648804/Matt-Walls-scary-crash-fan-blood-Commonwealth-Games https://theathletic.com/206515/2018/02/02/in-one-my-four-insane-days-trapped-in-minor-hockey-hell-with-the-brampton-beast/ I started this page. Topjur01 ( talk ) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Ice hockey , England , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify UNLESS a rehaul of the page gets done, in which I will support. I researched Matt Petgrave earlier when the incident was still fresh on everyone's minds and I believe along with the sources in the article and other sources I have found online that Petgrave is notable, passes WP:GNG and deserves an article. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to vote Keep now after improvements to the article. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment / Soft Oppose : I was a little mixed at first but after some consideration, Petgrave meets notability criteria as a professional athlete who has played at least one game in the top professional sports league of a nation, and undeniably even moreso through his incident with Adam Johnson. But this article needs an overhaul and to be greatly expanded to better represent the subject matter, as it stands currently this is not an article up to the standards of Wikipedia. Spilia4 ( talk ) 00:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, in fact he does not meet notability criteria. Simple participation standards were deprecated from NSPORTS nearly two years ago, and playing top-flight matches in any sport meets no current criterion. Ravenswing 02:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He was a first-team all-star in the ECHL and is listed on the article 2018–19 ECHL season . That seems to meet Criteria #2 at WP:NHOCKEY . Minnemeeples ( talk ) 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify I agree with Kline. I think that Petgrave definitely possesses some amount of notability, but the article fails to really reflect that in a meaningful way. An overhaul is definitely necessary. EytanMelech ( talk ) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - The subject is notable but the article needs a lot of work before it should be moved to the mainspace. LM2000 ( talk ) 01:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck my previous ! vote, it's okay to Keep now. The recent work done on the article is sufficient enough. LM2000 ( talk ) 10:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] '''Keep'''. The subject was featured in The Atlantic (now part of the New York Times), BBC, Pro Hockey News, The Star, NBC Sports, Daily Express, etc. Clearly passes the notability standard. Regarding the draftifying vs. keeping, the page has been improved within the last few hours after most evaluators suggested it be moved to draftspace. It seems that it is quickly getting better. It is not perfect but it is good enough. Keep. Tiberius1978 ( talk ) 07:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agree with above, doesn't need a whole lot of work to become a decent article. Definitely passes notability standards. Marleeashton ( talk ) 08:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The relevant policy is WP:NHOCKEY . cagliost ( talk ) 09:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well, I did not think that this would be the AfD to bring me back to WIkipedia, kicking and screaming, but here I am. Disregarding witty remarks, Petgrave's notable, mainly due to playing in notable leagues, and has had many mentions of him outside of the Adam Johnson incident, as mentioned above in Topjur01 's comment. IncompA 15:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have found another source before the Adam Johnson incident. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0f5g03w IncompA 16:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The person was a notable hockey player prior to the incident. The article needs a chance for expansion not quick deletion. Minnemeeples ( talk ) 17:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there's enough significant coverage. Giant Snowman 19:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He's a key participant in a very newsworthy event. 156.57.11.183 ( talk ) 07:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are enough SIGCOV sources unrelated to the BLP1E event to pass GNG. As an aside remember that NHOCKEY is just that the subject is likely to be notable, per question #2 at the top of WP:NSPORTS . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @ » ° ∆t ° 00:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Textbook case of an article created after a notable incident in which a person was involved in, but that person isn't necessarily just notable for one event. The Slovak and Czech Extraliga, as well as the EIHL, are top-level leagues. Given the glut of sports articles out there, I think Petgrave would have cleared notability even before this incident. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 04:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. Even besides the Johnson incident, the Czech Extraliga is a significant-enough league to justify the article. The Kip 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as a kind-of - reverse - WP:NOTMEMORIAL , this article complements the deceased's and gives a quick insight into professional players in their non-native countries, useful for drive-by readers. -- 82.13.47.210 ( talk ) 14:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Legitimately, probably the most well known NHL player in the world right now. There is not going to be any end to coverage on him in sight either. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 05:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even outside of the Johnson incident, Petgrave is well sourced for a sports article and there is no reason as to why his article should suddenly be deleted. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk ) 19:58, 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
2004 Copa Petrobras Santiago – Singles: Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The minor league ATP Challenger Tour events are notable. This article just needs some sourcing. It does have an official source listed... the governing body of men's tennis the ATP. But it's under external links rather than sources. I have now added the draw source to the bottom of the draw. Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point. Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've recently added 3 more sources (all of them in Spanish, since the tournament was held in South America) and another external source from the ITF website. Of course I'll vote to Keep . Pablito064 ( talk ) 00:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let’s keep it. Brachy 08 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Tennis , and Chile . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 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
Carphologia: Medicine-related, so also fails WP:MEDRS . NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added 2 additional RS that comply with WP:MEDRS . Nagol0929 ( talk ) 12:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable after Nagol0929 added refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:04, 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
Ahmed Zitouni: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per newly found sources Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep additional sources at 1 and 2 as well as numerous Google book references such as 3 (pp.21-22) . Mccapra ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Algeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This smells of retaliation since the nom had the article about them deleted via AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 11 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! 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In addition to the sources already mentioned, which satisfy general notability, Zitouni's work has also been the subject of peer-reviewed academic research . Cortador ( talk ) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG. Any one of these would be enough to keep. The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found here . Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cocobb8 In light of the sources provided by Mccapra and Cortador, would you consider there to be sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR ? Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found this , which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and this book , which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131. Toadspike [Talk] 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Toadspike , I would, yes! Thanks for the ping, not sure how I had missed those sources! Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Elisabeth Smit: A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself. BangJan1999 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As HNLMS Marken (1944) she would have been a commissioned vessel of the Royal Netherlands Navy. The list of minesweepers of the Royal Netherlands Navy reveals she was a 105' version of the MMS-class minesweeper . A little searching reveals enough of her history to bash together at least a start class article. As we all know, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots ( talk ) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've bashed together an article. @ Mrfoogles and Wcquidditch : commented before I did this, perhaps they might want to re-evaluate the article. Mjroots ( talk ) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ James.folsom : , who I misnamed above. Mjroots ( talk ) 16:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is information there but not every ship in the Netherlands Navy is notable, and that listing is not significant coverage, it's just a database. The current article only cites Wikipedia, and provides no indication of what distinguishes from all the other ships in the Netherlands Navy. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The reference from the Dutch Wikipedia has been removed. Mjroots ( talk ) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, if not merged here MMS-class minesweeper That article more than covers the subject of wooden mine sweepers built by the Netherlands. There is nothing special about any of the individual ships. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not at all just another small warship with unremarkable service. After 1977 she was given a radical conversion from motor minesweeper to a three-masted passenger barquentine, for the tourist trade on the IJsselmeer. After the storm damage in 2002, she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands, which was unresolved until 2020. There is extensive source material to expand the article further. The proposer's justification ("A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself") is completely false. - Davidships ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then write the article with these sources, or provide them. James.folsom ( talk ) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) nevermind James.folsom ( talk ) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I looked for guidance on notability of ships for purposes of being a stand alone article. I didn't find anything useful so if anyone knows of any, I'll read it. With this being the case the subject of this wikipedia article needs to meet WP:GNG in order to avoid merger or deletion. Both the google.com and Google.nl sites have only a few hits and the the coverage is sparse and primary in regard to this subject. I don't see any quality sources either in the artilce itself or online that establish this as a notable topic. What would be needed is secondary sources showing significant coverage. James.folsom ( talk ) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No doubt depends what you search for. It takes time to work through the 1000+ relevant Google list entries about this ship, select the best sources, and write the story; which I will not be doing today or tomorrow (please email me if you need to know why) - Davidships ( talk ) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I also notice that someone using the handle "david ships" or "davidships" has posted a lot online in regard to ships, and I wonder if there is a conflict of interest occurring here. James.folsom ( talk ) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) : [ reply ] There isn't. What did you have in mind? WP:COI does not mean Coincidence of Interest; I came upon this ship just last month and dug around a bit here , and added to List of shipwrecks in 2002 . - Davidships ( talk ) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not claiming anything. It's just wise to mention it upfront if you you know your name is going to be found during WP:before for a subject, and you are voting in the AFD for that subject. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ James.folsom : have you considered that it's possible that the guy named "davidships" is just someone named David who likes ships? It is no crime to be passionate about a subject on the encyclopedia. Don't jump to wild conclusions about other editors without assuming good faith. Fritzmann ( message me ) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your seeing wild conclusions where none exist. I simply observed and reported something I thought the editors here should know. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Googled for sources: it looks like there's some coverage, but I don't know if its only local https://binnenvaartkrant.nl/muider-spookschip-eindelijk-geborgen , used currently, I can't tell if this is local news? Seems regional at least. It is a trade newspaper though. https://www.gooieneemlander.nl/cnt/dmf20180926_76356161? utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic , which is some pretty significant coverage of "this weird old ship the owner's been struggling to pump for so many years" https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=1_j7MB2dD-8 , a segment on the local news. Apparently it was relevant to (by google translate) an election campaign for the Water Board. The notability would be because it became rentable later on in its life, and it's locally important as the "ghost ship" (google translate) because it just sat in the harbor for so long. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 18:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is my point, the sources available are all routine news coverage in the local press. Many of the sources are just facts and figures, so verifiability is met. So, we know the boat exists, but alot of boats exist. The next step here is to establish that the boat is more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats. The election stunt was notable but the boat is a bit player and the notability from the event doesn't transfer to boat. To make that work you need a source that says the the notoriety of the boat played a role in it's selection for the stunt (EG any boat could have been rented, why that one?). The ghost ship angle is also interesting but is there anything special about that boat that played a role in that phenomenon (EG if another boat had wrecked in that spot instead, would it have mattered?). Okay, so I hear it was a charter vessel for while, was it the best one, what made it more desirable or more useful or more important than other charter vessel. Sources that establish any of this or something similar are needed. The mere existence of sources doesn't equal notability. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats." This is not how notability is established. All that is required for notability is coverage, not more coverage than other subjects in the same topic. There are a million sportsball players that have articles because they are notable, without consideration for their relative importance to other sportsball players. A subject either has coverage, or it does not. This one does. Fritzmann ( message me ) 13:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] your mistaken. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Possible keep . It's definitely locally notable in Muiden. If non-local notability can be shown, then definitely keep. If it can't, maybe merge it in to Muiden ? It does stand out that it got converted for recreational purposes but on the other hand its probably not the only dutch recreational-converted ship either. @ Mjroots says "she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands", but according to these articles she's only relevant to local politics (unless the "Water Board" is not what I think it is.) Mrfoogles ( talk ) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that if someone can find another non-local non-trade-magazine source like #2 above, then this satisfies GNG Mrfoogles ( talk ) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Commissioned naval vessels have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per my above comment. Fritzmann ( message me ) 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , as “that one boat that got turned into a civilian-rentable boat and sat half-broken on the IJsselmeer for 18 years and got called a “ghost ship”, rather than as “this one ship in the Dutch navy.” Mrfoogles ( talk ) 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I still think the argument here is more convincing as a delete vote, but I really like the concise way that MrFoogles sums it up. James.folsom ( talk ) 20:19, 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
Moped Army: I have looked online for clues of notability and besides a few vague references, the only real statements made about this organization are from themselves. It falls very far short of the notability guidelines. Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 03:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 03:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In 2010, a participant at the previous AfD wrote: Two documentaries and a book mentioned in the article, plus a fair number of sources cited. It looks like it's been covered enough to be a notable organization, as significant coverage in reliable sources is the baseline for notability per WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The documentary, whose Wikipedia page was removed following its own AfD recently, was not made independently of the organization. If the subject is referenced almost entirely by itself. . including a “documentary” which I watched and resembles a home video at a party. . serving next to no purpose. . doesn’t constitute notability as per WP:N. Just an fyi. Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete I agree that the sources aren’t strong or reliable. The article for the documentary having just been deleted and redirected to this one means that this article is the only source of relevance for the documentary. No production company of relevance or notability. Delete. TornUpInside ( talk ) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And what “coverage”?? They’re briefly mentioned in articles that are talking about mopeds and which of these brief mentions comes from a reliable source. .? Independent blogs? Brief mentions in them? only three tops? The rest are just all references to their site? The documentaries just being home movies produced in association with the actual group? The book is also in association with the group. It’s a comic book as well. . not a written piece about the organization. This just seem like a joke to me. Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fireandflames2 ( talk ) 18:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation , Canada , and United States of America . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 4 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! 03:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ORG . I found coverage in The Wall Street Journal , The Grand Rapids Press , and the Courier Journal . APK whisper in my ear 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per APK above. If you can't open their ProQuest links, I've got other links via the Wikipedia Library below. Also, some more refs in addition to his: Chicago Tribune lengthy article (newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [26] [27] Traverse City Record-Eagle (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [28] The Louisville Courier Journal (newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [29] . The Associated Press via the Odessa American and (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [30] . Cedar Rapids Gazette (newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia Library ): [31] [32] -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could those arguing for Delete review the newly found sources? They seem to address the deletion rationale. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Alas, Liz, I was not one of the ones arguing for deletion, but looking at A. B.'s articles, it's clear to me the GNG is met. — siro χ o 03:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources identified above. gidonb ( talk ) 01:49, 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
Rami Meir: More specifically, w/ regards to the former, the only permanent exhibit of Rami Meir's artwork is hosted by the Union of Mountain Jewish Artists of Russia (hereafter UMJAR ), an organization he was the chairman of. Further, with the research I've done, all sources regarding the article subject seem to lack WP:RELIABILITY , with most of the references (both listed and others I found through research) seeming to violate WP:COI , if not directly WP:SELFSOURCE . For those sources for which I was not able to find direct evidence of CoI, I have significant concerns about WP:PARTISAN , due to a consistent lack of citations within the sources as well as other issues. To expound on a few of these claims further: With regards to STMEGI sources, of which several on Rami Meir can be found, I believe these to be CoI. One of the cited references currently on the Article has a quote from the executive director of STMEGI claiming "[STMEGI] invited [UMJAR] to unite into a professional Union at the site of the Community Center of Mountain Jews in Sokolniki,” following which Rami Meir was elected chairman. Additionally, STMEGI seems to be an ongoing financial backer/charitable donor of UMJAR. Further, STMEGI has ties to Meir specifically, having previously awarded him their S.I. Weinstein Prize in 2021 as well as having hired him previously as an educator . With regard to the various Azerbaijani news sources (the one referencing Meir most frequently being media.az , but all the sources I've found in this category share similar flaws), ensuring that these sources are verifiable or reputable has been difficult. Admittedly, this could be due to language/cultural barriers so I welcome input from those more familiar; however due to the concerns RE media freedoms in Azerbaijan, and the lack of citations or similar journalistic practices, these sources lack any way to verify their accuracy and independence. Media.az--again as an example--lacks any listed author on its article pages. The only contributor I can find evidence of on the site is their editor-in-chief , who received an honorary journalism degree directly from the President of Azerbaijan, along with others in the publication's leadership team . While this doesn't necessarily prove that that the source is biased, it does add further strain to the reputability IMO. There are additional concerns I have about the article's quality; however for the most part they don't necessarily reach the reasons for deletion in their own right, so I'll not mention them unless they become relevant. KJGinger ( talk ) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions . KJGinger ( talk ) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions . KJGinger ( talk ) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . KJGinger ( talk ) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions . 23:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Poetry , and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't know enough about poet and musician notability, but far as his artwork most everything is PR or passing mentions user generated. fails WP:ARTIST . Hoping someone from another sort list will comment. As far as the reasons listed in (UMJAR etc.) I don't feel I can address. The specificity of the request makes this article hard to vote on. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no improvement or participation since I looked for sources on 11 November 2023. Fails WP:ARTIST and reads like promotion of a living person. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets GNG, [86] , [87] , [88] , [89] , [90] . I think a search for Ра́ми Ме́ир would turn up more. // Timothy :: talk 12:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG . Katy Williamson ( talk ) 07:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems ok, but needs to be better sourced. Since most sources appear to come from the same website. Furthermore, it appears he is notable enough considering career as well as chairmanship of artistic union. Homerethegreat ( talk ) 10:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Doesn't seem to be a WP:GNG issue here. MaskedSinger ( talk ) 08:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added more sources. Passes WP:GNG. Antimargi ( talk ) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Change of Our Lives: No coverage in google news and books or Australian database Trove. LibStar ( talk ) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In my opinion, the sources cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Redtree21 ( talk ) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While I can't actually see the items in the Fairfield Advance or South West Advertiser, the titles sound like the articles are discussed in detail in reliable sources. I think this passes. Toughpigs ( talk ) 00:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The sources show SIGCOV through the impact the film has had on the awareness of Hepatitis B . DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't think this has received enough critical attention to warrant an individual page. Possibly could merge/redirect as a compromise? - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KH-1 , you have to specify a target article if you are arguing that this article should be Redirected or Merged. L iz Read! Talk! 04:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maria Tran . - KH-1 ( talk ) 04:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no established practice, that I am aware of, of redirecting film articles to an actor. Personally, I think there is a better argument for keeping rather than redirecting. I do not think this is a good target. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Borderline decision here. If I were deciding whether to create this article, I'd probably resolve not to do so. The coverage is there, but I absolutely believe there is a plausible case for arguing this film is not quite notable enough. However, the article has been created. With what little coverage is available, a relatively complete article has been established, and I believe there is sufficient sourcing to avoid verification issues. Given that this film is only 11 years old, I'd generally expect to see more coverage. However, there is not a total absence of coverage. The film was picked up by the Daily Telegraph and a few local papers. It's weak coverage, but I still think there is a plausible conclusion to be drawn: the coverage is significant enough to warrant a vote for keeping rather than deleting. Considering the totality of circumstances, I believe the grounds for keeping the article slightly outweigh the grounds for deleting it. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NB : The Tele is redlisted as an unreliable source; however applying common sense, it seems fine to use it to substantiate notability for a film as it is still an enormous publication and significant news source. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 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
Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series): Tagged for notability since 2020 Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Technology , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Some Assembly Required" . Common Sense Media . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The review notes: "While the series is very informative, it lacks some of the spark needed to make it fun viewing for kids who don't already get a kick out of science. Its focus on almost every step of the product-assembly process sometimes makes it a little tedious. But the uncomplicated scientific explanations give interested tweens and teens a real chance to learn the physics behind how the products we use every day actually work." McNeill, Brian (2007-09-06). "UVa physics professor snags spot on Discovery Channel" . The Daily Progress . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Abowling ball. A Gibson electric guitar neck. Hundreds of jelly beans. The nifty souvenirs are one of the best perks of Louis Bloomfield's new gig - co-host of the Discovery Channel's upcoming show "Some Assembly Required. " ... Bloomfield, a popular UVa professor who teaches physics to non-science majors, will debut Dec. 26 as the science expert on "Some Assembly Required" alongside co-host Brian Unger, a former Daily Show correspondent. ... During each one-hour episode, Bloomfield and Unger visit three manufacturing operations around the country, including the factories where workers make Gibson guitars, Jelly Belly jelly beans, New Balance sneakers, Steinway pianos, coffins, sushi knives, bowling balls and more." "Bloomfield brings science to masses: UVA prof co-hosts Discovery Channel show" . C-Ville Weekly . 2007-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Bloomfield is the co-host of the Discovery Channel‘s "Some Assembly Required," a show that travels to factories and plants—like the Gibson plant in Tennessee—to take a closer look at just how everyday things, most of which we take for granted, work. ... From guitars to Wisconsin cheddar cheese to ice-making Zambonies, "Some Assembly Required" has taken Bloomfield across the country in search of the not-so-obvious hidden in everyday objects that have surprising scientific and technological beauty. ... Bloomfield landed the Discovery Channel gig when a former student auditioned for the role of the show’s host. He didn’t get it—it went to Brian Unger of "The Daily Show" fame—but while there, he recommended Bloomfield for the co-host spot. The show’s producers contacted Bloomfield, who is a natural fit." Engler, Daniel J. (2008-06-10). "TV Picks June15-21, 2008" . National Catholic Register . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Discovery: In this series, hosts Brian Unger and Lou Bloomfield visit factories across America and join workers in manufacturing the products about which we wonder “How do they do that?” — from acoustic guitars to Zamboni machines and even cat’s-eye marbles." Durden, Douglas (2007-12-27). "Discovery finds host at U.Va" . Richmond Times-Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Louis A. Bloomfield, University of Virginia physics professor, adds Louis A. Bloomfield, TV host, to his résumé at 10 tonight when the Discovery Channel previews its new "Some Assembly Required. " The hourlong series looks at items ranging from high-tech to mundane in its quest to unravel the process of assembly. Bloomfield, author of a textbook ("How Things Work") and a trade book ("How Everything Works"), is joined by humorist Brian Unger, a former "Daily Show" correspondent, as co-host. We recently asked Bloomfield to tell us about his debut as a TV host, and what makes "Some Assembly Required" work." Ravana, Anna (2008-04-18). "Old Town Canoe gets airtime Discovery sends TV crew, firm makes Outside '30 Best' " . Bangor Daily News . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Old Town Canoe and its parent company, Johnson Outdoors, received national attention this week from Outside magazine and the Discovery Channel program "Some Assembly Required. " A film crew of seven from "Some Assembly Required" enjoyed an afternoon of sunshine Thursday on the Penobscot River as they filmed an episode on the making and use of the firm's canoes and kayaks. Director and producer Emily Hodges said Old Town Canoe's long history of canoe making was what appealed to the show's research team." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Some Assembly Required to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per Cunard's sources above. Donald D23 talk to me 21:36, 19 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
Mark Satterthwaite: While Satterthwaite may be known for his theorems, few alternative secondary sources exist about him. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles (for this topic articles include: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, Muller–Satterthwaite theorem, and Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem) or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. I have failed to find sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject. On 13 Feb 2018, I posted on the talk page calling for good faith efforts to determine notoriety, find additional sources, to then attempt to merge any independently-verifiable content into a broader article, however no such information appears to have been found and thus this article meets the criteria for deletion. Thank you. Aeroplanepics0112 ( talk ) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Economics , California , Illinois , and Wisconsin . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per criterion 5 of Notability (academics) guideline : "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Additionally, Google Scholar indicates Dr. Satterthwaite's publications have been cited 14,586 times . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easy passes of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5 . Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep per above, the citations for individual papers are very impressive as well, including a couple over 3000 by Google scholar's count. — siro χ o 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep . Beyond the above (and the multiple earlier named chairs listed by his faculty bio), he has a double pass of WP:PROF#C3 evident in the article at the time of nomination, through fellowship in the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (by far the better of the two AAAS's). It's not a long article. You should read it before nominating it for deletion, and understand how what you read relates to our academic notability standards. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets multiple NPROF criteria and in addition having his name in several notable theorems further reinforces notability. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 12:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Nurul Fikri Boarding School: Searches show that the school existed, but nothing notable about the school has been shown. Some news articles that are cited in id-wiki showed how some students of this school survived a tsunami in Sunda Strait in 2018, but that didn't show any notability to the school. Other references in id-wiki showed the school won some awards but that didn't confer any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Islam , and Indonesia . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There is not much to go on in the article. No sources, and apparent low enrollment. However there are books mentions. The only one I could track down to start with is [11] , which talks about "Sekolah Islam' schools and cites this school as one of two examples (although there is a long note about why this school is a Sekolah Islam and not a pesentrans). It says, inter alia, Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School [is] known for producing top students who ace the national exams and win trophies in national and international competitions (see Figure 6.2). Figure 6.2 shows a trophy cabinet but it is not clear if this is their cabinet or that of the other school visited. There is more about high quality teachers, it is run by school management, and has a non traditional currciulum. The book doesn't say how big the school is, but I would put this down as one reliable secondary source that appears independent of the subject. We need multiple for GNG, but despite the parlous state of the page, I don't think this is a clear delete. I'll keep looking. Also please note the name used in this book "Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri" would be an alternative and search with or without "boarding". Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Another ref: Salmon, Yoseph; Saefudin, Didin; Mujahidin, Endin; Husaini, Adian (8 February 2024). "Pengembangan Kurikulum Sekolah Islam Terpadu Tingkat SMP di Pondok Pesantren (Studi Lapangan pada Pesantren Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten)". Jurnal Global Ilmiah . 1 (6): 321–324. doi : 10.55324/jgi.v1i6.50 . This one is about "Development of the Integrated Islamic School Curriculum at the Junior High School at the Islamic Boarding School (Field Study at the Ibnu Salam Nurul Fikri Boarding School Serang Banten Islamic Boarding School)". There are a lot of these, in fact. Scholar shows at least 10 such references I could post. It seems that a lot of people are looking at this school as an exemplar of islamic boarding schools and curricula. But there is also a question of whether there is some kind of promotion for this, and I note that few of the papers have any citations at all, and some are just preprints. Writing a paper is one thing, but not all papers are born equal. The school website tells me they have nearly 1000 pupils, and they also have a large staff. The various papers speak highly of the school, and even taking into account my caution regarding lack of citations of these, their own alumni pages and other pages seem to bear this out. If I was better versed in the culture and background I might have a stronger view, but on the basis of the evidence here, it is a large school, open for 25 years, studied in academic papers, mentioned in books and newspaper reports. It looks like a keep to me. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 16:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In contrast to the paucity of material on many schools put up in AfD this one does have coverage enough to satisfy the GNG. It seems to have been used as a model for research. Another paper is here [12] (assuming it's this school) same name but identifies only the province, not an exact location. Another here: [13] . Further coverage: [14] and here. [15] Rupples ( talk ) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Re strike through: having read through this paper, I don't think it's of a standard to contribute to notability. Rupples ( talk ) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Coins (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. Coins (suit) is visibly not a duplicate of Suit of coins . Coins (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of coins is (it says) about Tarot cards and has an alternative name of Suit of pentacles . Uncle G ( talk ) 09:22, 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 playing cards, they started producing their own packs over 200 years ago for cartomancy. So Coins (suit) is specifically about the playing cards, whereas Suit of coins is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, cups and goblets, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. I agree the naming should be changed and would suggest renaming Suit of coins to Pentacles (suit) ; equally we expand the disambiguator by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:56, 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
No (band): While most of its former members seem to have achieved notability separately, this can't be said for the group itself. Attempted redirect to one of its members, but this was reverted. Revirvlkodlaku ( talk ) 14:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Directly satisfies WP:MUSIC #6 with respected music writer Dr. Marcus Breen noting of the band "Marie Hoy and Ollie Olsen are almost legends in their own lifetimes". That Breen article itself is a full article about them in a mainstream major newspaper. Combine that with coverage from Ian McFarlane and we already have decent coverage for a late 80s Australian band. And that's without yet considering Dan's expansion. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above and new sources. This is an example of the 1995 year-zero effect, where print-only coverage never made it to the Web. e.g. , there will have been a ton of coverage in RAM and Juke. But the recent additions help a lot. There's also a Forced Exposure interview that I'll add at some point. No were a significant and influential band, presaging a huge amount of '90s industrial metal - even as Olsen himself went techno - David Gerard ( talk ) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , satisfies a number of the criteria under WP:BAND . Is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the ban itself. Dan arndt ( talk ) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:26, 28 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
Alireza Ghasemi Farzad: I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs ) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC) Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. -- Finngall talk 16:59, 10 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 10 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra ( talk ) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no proper rationale for deletion has been suggested, and in any case the subject passes GNG. Mccapra ( talk ) 17:08, 11 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
Anchorage Digital: The Forbes Crypto appears to be a blog-type posting. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Websites , and California . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Forbes through me for a loop at first because of the URL extension ".sites," but it appears that even staff written pieces have that extension now. This one was written by a senior reporter and senior editor and not part of any of their partner programs. The CNN article is borderline as it has a ton of quotes from the founder. However, there is this from Bloomberg written by two staff writers, San Francisco Examiner , and this from a staff writer in Fortune. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 07:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - surprised by CNMall41's evaluation of sources above in comparison to some of their other reviews, but nonetheless agree there seem to be enough references including but not exclusively those listed above to support for inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 23:11, 11 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! 23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per CNMall41 and Indefensible. Sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources provided meet GNG. Belichickoverbrady ( talk ) 00:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Andrew Harman: Article relies on a single unreliable source. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom . UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found a ton of reviews proving notability and his works were published by a major UK press. For his Firkin series of novels, there are reviews of the various books in Vector (in issues 174, 180, 181, 182, and 186), Interzone (in issues 75 and 89, both from the early 1990s) Locus (in issue 400 from May 1994) and Science Fiction Chronicle (in issue 187 December 1995-January 1996). In addition, his other novels are also reviewed in these places. For example, The Scrying Game was reviewed in Locus issue 422 from March 1996, in Science Fiction Chronicle issue 189 from May/June 1996 and in Vector issue 188. He's also mentioned in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction by Don D'Ammassa and Fantasy of the 20th century: An Illustrated History by Randy Broecker along with having a small entry in Fantasy: The Definitive Illustrated Guide and a detailed two-page entry in the St. James Guide to Fantasy Writers . Granted, some of these reviews are very cruel and cutting -- the one in Interzone 75 states "There is hardly a word in The Sorcerer's Appendix by Andrew Harman which fails to grate. Harman's recipe for humour is to invent a large number of very stupid characters, and show them behaving in very stupid ways, time after time. He then explains to the reader what has transpired, repeating much of it." But the reviews and other citations still exist and provide enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I have updated the article with some of the citations mentioned above plus others I found, such as an entry for him in the Waterstone's Guide to Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror . -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SouthernNights. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 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
James Farris (baseball): Joeykai ( talk ) 09:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There's some routine coverage including of his college career, but I'm not convinced coverage of players who never made the majors isn't simply WP:ROUTINE . SportingFlyer T · C 09:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clear pass of WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources, including The Hartford Courant ( "Farris Finds His Niche" ) and Arizona Daily Star ( "After 2012 title, Farris' long road at UA to end" and "CWS title at 10: James Farris delivered, and Wildcats took home fourth national crown" ), and The Arizona Republic (" UA pitcher James Farris drafted by Chicago Cubs" ). Feature articles in major publications are the antithesis of "routine" coverage. Cbl62 ( talk ) 13:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. There is a lot of coverage about him: [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] . Passes WP:GNG . 129.222.185.24 ( talk ) 19:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Has enough sources and coverage. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Fear and Hunger: The page is adequately sourced and it has been established that it is notable. Pyraminxsolver ( talk ) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really see why this page should be deleted. I was unaware that a previous Fear and Hunger article had been deleted, but I think another discussion should be had on whether this article deserves to be deleted. It is my opinion that the multiple articles from Rock Paper Shotgun , CBR , and DualShockers all fall under WP:GNG . I think another discussion should be had on whether it does or does not fall under WP:GNG . I don't think they're the strongest sources in the world but I've definitely seen Indie game articles that have been kept on far shakier grounds -- NimoEdit ( talk ) 00:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete @ Pyraminxsolver : AfD is for when you want an article to be deleted, not kept. Nevertheless the article should still be deleted, as the notability has not changed since the previous AfD held mere months ago. It fails WP:GNG with most sources not being from WP:RS . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 5 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . DualShockers is situational, the most recent discussion [97] is pretty promising, and the author of these two pieces [98] [99] is a professional journalist in the entertainment industry. Those plus RPS should suffice for GNG. And note that one of those DualShockers pieces is new since the last AfD, so the coverage is indeed deeper now than a couple months ago. — siro χ o 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even assuming we count DualShockers as a reliable source, per WP:GNG , "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The second one is also about a totally different game, the sequel. So we'd preferably need one other source, and CBR is simply a content farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the combination of the first DualShockers source and the Rock Paper Shotgun article is enough to just barely pass WP:GNG . Zxcvbnm is correct that if it were just the two DS articles this wouldn't be notable, but the combination of the first one with RPS is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's incredibly rare that 2 reviews would be considered GNG passing, especially when one of them is from a situational source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added 3 additional non-english reviews, all of which I believe should pass WP:RS . Surely this should be considered enough to pass GNG? NimoEdit ( talk ) 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not every source that is published on the internet passes WP:RS - there are massive amounts of unreliable sites. That said, The Games Machine is an unequivocal reliable source. This still does not, IMO, put it over the edge into notability, though it does help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still unclear why the nominator is making an argument for Keeping this article. Still, there is an editor advocating Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Found a news article from Finnish magazine MikroBitti but it's paywalled: [100] -- Mika1h ( talk ) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are just about enough RS to keep this article. I don't have access to Mikro Bitti articles, but it nevertheless contributes to the game's notability. Cortador ( talk ) 08:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
World of Music (Zeebra album): Failss the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It likely passes WP:NALBUM . It charted for six weeks and went as high as #11 nationally in Japan, per Oricon . I may not have time to perform a search for significant coverage but WP:BEFORE should be done in Japanese here. Dekimasu よ! 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu. 4meter4 ( talk ) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , charted, reference added. J04n ( talk page ) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the WP:NALBUM #2 Lightburst ( talk ) 01:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Agents of Secret Stuff: Besides all the primary sources used in the article (like YouTube and the production website), all the secondary ones used here either do not meet WP:SIGCOV , are blogs/ user-generated , or are unreliable (or of unknown reliability). The NPR could be counted towards notability, but it still does not fulfill all the requirements. I was considering the previous deletion discussions before nominating this, but I also fail to see how this film satisfies WP:NFIC as there are not enough reliable sources to claim its impact on the industry and it can be neatly summarized or redirected to the Ryan Higa article. Sparkl talk 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet . Sparkl talk 20:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : 36.719.020 views on YouTube. One of the first productions of its kind. [1] — MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) — 09:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ^ Niqui, Cinto (2014-11-14). Los primeros 20 años de contenidos audiovisuales en Internet. 1000 obras y webs (in Spanish). Editorial UOC. ISBN 978-84-9064-486-7 . Nice catch, but unfortunately YouTube views don't always fulfill notability ( WP:YTN ). The book that was cited also disclosed that they sometimes lift information from Wikipedia, stated in page 5. Sparkl talk 15:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Miller, Liz Shannon (2010-11-24). "NigaHiga's New Film Gets Digital Artists, Strompolos Support" . Gigaom . Archived from the original on 2012-11-04 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: "The YouTube release of the 35-minute film Agents of Secret Stuff, directed by Wong Fu Productions and starring Higa as a hapless teenage secret agent. ... Agents, initially a self-funded production, has been picked up by the studio Digital Artists to expand its reach beyond the YouTube sphere, including mobile, television and film platforms. ... The actual film is a slickly-produced spy comedy nicely anchored by Higa, who plays a teenager who’s spent his entire life training to be a secret agent, and thus when sent undercover to protect a pretty high school student (Arden Cho) from danger, has no idea how to handle normal high school life. Writing-wise, there’s some lack of sophistication ... Agents, in short, certainly won’t disappoint any hardcore NigaHiga fans, but in terms of execution wouldn’t be out of place in any mainstream line-up of teen programming." Lee, Letticia (2010-11-19). "Ryan Higa Stars in Agents of Secret Stuff". Asia Pacific Arts . USC U.S.-China Institute. University of Southern California . p. 2. EBSCO host 64885278 . The article notes: "This time it's not just a regular short YouTube episode; it's a 40-minute "medium film. " The term "medium film" is chosen to represent this collaboration because it is too long to be a short film but too short to be labeled a full-on feature film. Ryan Higa and Wong Fu Productions are ready to show their "medium film," Agents of Secret Stuff to the rest of the YouTube nation. The feature is a true YouTube phenomenon since it not only stars Ryan Higa but also model/actress, Arden Cho, who has her own channel as well. The rest of the cast consists of other YouTube stars including Smosh, Kassem G, and HiimRawn." Takahashi, Corey (2011-01-26). "In A Small Corner Of YouTube, A Web Star Is Born" . NPR . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: ""As long as I can remember, I've been training to become an A.S.S. — an agent of secret stuff," Higa's character, Aden, tells viewers at the start of Agents of Secret Stuff, a 35-minute action-comedy set in high school. The straight-to-YouTube mini-feature follows the mishaps of a covert, socially maladjusted hero who must save a classmate from impending threats. The video features a who's who of YouTube stars, and it's clocked well over 8 million views in the past two months. ... Wong Fu Productions, a production house based in Pasadena, Calif., directed, co-wrote and co-produced Agents of Secret Stuff with Higa, and has worked with him on shorter comedy sketches in the past. ... It partnered with the makers of Agents of Secret Stuff to release a special edition of the movie for iTunes, as well as mobile apps. " O'Dell, Jolie (2010-11-27). "Kitschy Indie Spy Feature Premieres on YouTube [Randomly Viral]" . Mashable . Archived from the original on 2023-06-26 . Retrieved 2023-06-26 . The article notes: "Earlier this week, a group of independent filmmakers decided to put their 35-minute film on YouTube. Wong Fu Productions' Agents of Secret Stuff has since performed fabulously, garnering more than 2 million views for the full film itself and nearly 2.7 million views for the trailer. ... WFP co-founder Philip Wang told YouTube that the entire movie was shot in one intense week this past summer. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Agents of Secret Stuff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the additional reliable sources identified in this discussion which together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
List of international presidential trips made by Dmitry Medvedev: No sources show this list has been previously discussed as a group by IS RS. All listed events are nn and do not have articles, so list serves no CLN or AOAL navigation purposes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rationale to keep a list that fails all criteria. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics , Lists , and Russia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep If everything on the list was notable enough to get coverage, as the references seem to indicate, then it is a valid list article. List articles aren't just for navigational purposes. Nothing wrong with this or the many others listed at Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state or Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of state . D r e a m Focus 16:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . A list of his fascist posts on Telegram, or of distasteful memes about him, would be more interesting, and probably better meet the notability guidelines for lists. — Michael Z . 04:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is going on here? “Keep” voters are wilfully ignoring, nay misleading us about the fact that this list is practically entirely sourced with a single, WP:unreliable , non- WP:independent , WP:primary source . It can literally only exist as a WP:link farm promoting the Kremlin. — Michael Z . 03:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the referencing is insufficient, this is not a reason for immediate deletion because it can be improved (unless it is not possible to find RS). But you are resorting to ad hominem. Mellk ( talk ) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The visits themselves are individually notable (e.g. random examples, [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] ) and were covered in contemporary sources. The choices of countries he chose to travel to were likewise discussed and analyzed in contemporary coverage, satisfying the core of WP:NLIST (examples pulled at random including [38] , [39] ). Although Medvedev in hindsight was clearly just a lackey, it wasn't always covered as such at the time, and his state visits and choices were given a sufficient level of analysis that this article should be kept. Nomader ( talk ) 14:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In which of those this “has been discussed as a group or set ”? — Michael Z . 14:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd respectfully prefer to avoid WP:REFBOMBING , but I think that where there are articles discussing multiple visits that he is doing and why he is doing them, that it would suit the criterion here -- it doesn't need to be a holistic discussion of all of his visits. Nomader ( talk ) 21:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It need to discuss them as a group or a set . One of your “satisfying” references was published before he was president. The other is about the relationship with China including visits there only. You are not even REFPEASHOOTING, because none of them indicate notability of this set. — Michael Z . 21:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The individual visits were covered in press, but it does not mean any of them was notable. We can not have a page about his every visit. If we had such pages, then this could be an argument. Hence, we should not have such list even for visits by Putin. Saying that, great images (especially one with Gaddafi) were uploaded from kremlin.ru by banned user Russavia. My very best wishes ( talk ) 03:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dream Focus. Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state shows this is a valid list. The delete arguments are weak and are off-topic. Mellk ( talk ) 03:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That a category exists does not automatically make every conceivable category member a notable subject. — Michael Z . 05:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good thing Nomader as demonstrated notability in this case. Mellk ( talk ) 05:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not provide any significant information. WP:SOAP , WP:NOTDIRECTORY . Indeed, even a list of his posts/memes would be more interesting and significant. My very best wishes ( talk ) 13:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read their sources and actually concluded that that is the case according to the guidelines, then I am disappointed in you. — Michael Z . 15:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, Reuters and France24 are both considered widely reliable according to WP:RS standards which is why I used them per our guidelines. Nomader ( talk ) 21:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Their reliability is not in question. — Michael Z . 01:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See for example: [40] . Mellk ( talk ) 01:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I decided to do some digging on other AfDs for articles of this category, because although each of Medvedev's visits have reliable sources covering them individually and clearly we want to avoid flooding his entire article with descriptions of them (they're each individually notable), I wondered have there been other discussions about this? Turns out there has been: Imran Khan trips , Sheikh Hasina trips , and actually a nomination for literally all of the lists of this type as violating WP:NOTDATABASE . All resulted in strong keeps (and in my opinion, strong precedents for keeps that should be followed here as well). Personally, I think that Medvedev is absolute human garbage and it's downright obvious today that he held little real power while he was in office (as it was obvious then). I would much rather read an article per My very best wishes 's jestful suggestion of making a list of his memes as being more interesting. BUT -- I think it's clear that the notability exists for this list to exist (per the sources I found, Dream Focus 's rationale, and the precedent of all of these AfDs from the past year). I'd recommend that the lead include information about how Putin was widely seen as still being the leader of Russia during this time and some broader notes about his presidency from that respect. Nomader ( talk ) 21:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of staff exists, sure. Some commenters say he is prepped to "succeed" Putin once again and negotiate the end of the war or strike the enemy [41] . So whatever. My very best wishes ( talk ) 03:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NLIST Lightburst ( talk ) 23:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not. — Michael Z . 01:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with the criticism made by the delete voters that there are not sufficient sources covering this as "a group or a set". Normally this would be enough to establish deletion under WP:NLIST . However, NLIST also has other language to examine, namely the following, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists , although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory ." In other words, the policy language leaves open for the possibility of lists to be kept that do not meet the "group or a set" standard but have some other argued for rationale. In this case, we have a large number of sources covering the international travel of a major world leader. The quality and number of sources covering the topic, if only in pieces, generally shows a strong interest in the international trips made by Dmitry Medvedev. I believe such a list can be easily verified and supported in RS, and is of general encyclopedic value for our coverage of a major world leader as the visits by a foreign head of state by a major world power are going to have a wide impact on a variety of topics such as foreign policy, international relations, etc. In other words, it's encyclopedic, it's verifiable, it's useful, and as a list seems to be in line with all of Wikipedia's core five pillars . 4meter4 ( talk ) 02:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty good recipe, but you shouldn’t overlook that your only ingredient is poop. Kremlin.ru is linked eighty-five times! Remove those citations, and this list disappears completely, showing that the argument does not apply. — Michael Z . 02:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a cross-categorization list (such as "Lists of X of Y"). It is a "List of international presidential trips made by Dmitry Medvedev (X)", not a "List of international presidential trips (X) made by Russian heads of state (Y)" The above boils down to WP:ILIKEIT which is not a valid arguement to keep an article. // Timothy :: talk 09:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, actually one could argue that this is a subset of the list of Medvedev's Presidential trips, so it is cross categorisation ... not to mention, these are also subsets of Medvedev's official trips (ie Prime Ministerial and Presidential travel combined). His Presidential visits to the Kuriles or Chechnya or Ingushetia or Degestan all received interenational coverage and had international implications. My point here, however, is not to debate cross-categorisation, but rather to emphasise that there's widespread sourcing and repeated coverage of more or less every movement (domestic and foreign) of the leaders of the major powers. Were this a discussion about the the list of foreign trips of the President of the Maldives, sure, the grounds for notability would be a lot weaker. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 00:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First, as indicated above, there's a prevalent community consensus to keep articles of these types (and nothing to indicate a change in that consensus). Second, as indicated above, satisfying WP:NLIST is not reducible to a single threshold of sourcing related to the set/class. Third, the list can be reasonably justified as an WP:OKFORK of Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev#Foreign policy . Fourth, if Kremlin.ru is not considered reliable for this information there's a plethora of other sourcing available ... although I see no argument presented here why we should consider it unreliable for the sole purpose of identifying dates and locations ... back in the good old days of Kremlinology, Pravda was perfectly reliable for ascertaining the composition of, for example, the CCCPSU. Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 09:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There’s no evidence of any consensus to keep articles “of these types.” There is a consensus to keep articles that meet notability guidelines, and the existence of articles doesn’t indicate otherwise. Regardless of NLIST, this list is practically sole-sourced to an unreliable, non-neutral, primary source (Kremlin.org). How is this an OKFORK? Fourth, seriously? The Kremlin is not a neutral source about the Kremlin for determining notability. Well where is this plethora? — Michael Z . 20:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Still no sources showing this meets LISTN or CLN/AOAL. The above is either opinion or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which are not valid reasons to Keep. All the sources related to Kremlin.ru are not independent, and Russian state websites are never a RS for information. // Timothy :: talk 09:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A source not being independent is not grounds per se that it cannot be used ( WP:PRIMARY ); we just need to use them with care. We use the Academy to source Oscar winners. The question is the information being sourced; political analysis of a trip, its success or failure etc, we would only use kremlin.ru as a source for the "official" viewpoint, but there's hardly anything contestible over the date and location of a presidential trip, it's just common sense . FWIW, there is however other sourcing which includes Medvedev in terms of multi-site visits; the US State Department offers a handy list: Visits By Foreign Leaders of Russia . Moreoever, simple searches show single texts which discuss multiple visits undertaken by Medvedev as part of foreign policy of that time (eg Duncan (2013) speaks of visits to Kazakhstan and China (and treats the visit to Kuriles as disputed territory); De Haas (2010) discusses visits to China, Germany) - these visits all constitute an element of Russian foreign policy that is simply too large to cover in the Medvedev Presidency article, hence this is an acceptable WP:OKFORK . Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Nomader and Goldsztajn. While the present sourcing is inadequate there is no question that better sourcing exists for all of these visits. Mccapra ( talk ) 13:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn. Sourcing this to the Kremlin is perfectly fine. Having links to articles such as 2009 G20 London summit in the table would lead to the article more clearly meeting WP:NLIST . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 17:28, 11 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
New Hogtown Press: Under sourced and what is sourced seems to lack depth. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Organizations , Business , Companies , and Canada . UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable under the WP:GNG . Not sure why this was tagged and even less so why this was nominated. The nomination appears to be in conflict with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and something along the lines of wikipedia has no expiration date (sorry could not find it back so no link -- assistance appreciated!) gidonb ( talk ) 17:16, 14 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! 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think that the references are adequate. Being burgularized by the RCMP Security Service is a sign of notability. (sad face) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Scion (organisation): GnocchiFan ( talk ) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Environment , and Technology . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a significant government research organisation in New Zealand. Regularly gets coverage in New Zealand media, e.g. New Zealand Herald , Farmers Weekly , Radio New Zealand , and Stuff . NZ Herald, Stuff and RNZ are the most prominent news sites in New Zealand; Farmers Weekly would probably be the most relevant special-interest news site. - gadfium 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While the article is poorly sourced in its current form, sources exist. In addition to those noted by Gadfium , several entries ( [11] , [12] , [13] . [14] ) in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand detail the contribution of Scion (including under its former name of the Forest Research Institute) to forestry research in New Zealand. Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you so much for your contributions to the article! I would like to withdraw this request, clearly it was in error. Thank you again! GnocchiFan ( talk ) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries at all, I can totally see why it looked non-notable based on what the article looked like before. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 20:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable after Chocmilk03 's good work on the article. Thanks, Chocmilk03! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep yep, passes notability guidelines for organizations , per article expansion by Chocmilk03. Seconding A. B., good work! Tails Wx 02:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I suggest that a Crown Research Institute has inherent notability. Schwede 66 14:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Gordon Seyfried: The closest I could find was two paragraphs in a book. The overwhelming majority of book sources merely include his name, so no notability conferred from them. Newspapers.com shows a ton of trivial routine sports coverage, which is fine for facts but not for notability, per NSPORTS. SWinxy ( talk ) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , and Baseball . SWinxy ( talk ) 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm pretty deletionist but some of these nominations are getting ridiculous. I'm seeing plenty of quality sources without even digging particularly hard. I found a feature piece that I'm working on finding a way to mesh in the article on top of all the other sourcing out there. Wizardman 02:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What feature were you able to find? SWinxy ( talk ) 02:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last ref I just added is a half-page feature piece so that more that solves any potential issues. Wizardman 02:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Strong Keep I have since added more than enough. Wizardman 02:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wizardman's sources. Spanneraol ( talk ) 02:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm pretty deletionist too. Here's a paragraph from a book called Baseball in Long Beach , here's another from a different book with the same title, and some articles that provide more than just rotm game coverage. [66] [67] [68] Altogether, it should cross the line for notability. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 02:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per GNG. Rlendog ( talk ) 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. Clear pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 18:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Brief career? True, but if you're a good enough pitcher to make a MLB start, the odds are pretty likely you've generated enough coverage to meet GNG. Based on the sources from Wizardman and Muboshgu, that seems like the case here. Nohomersryan ( talk ) 19:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Wizardman, passes GNG. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC , per Wizardman and Muboshgu. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 04:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Wizardman and WP:HEY . — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk ) 13:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Iftikhar A. Ayaz: No secondary sources at all. AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , and Bilateral relations . AusLondonder ( talk ) 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . Clearly meets WP:GNG . @ AusLondonder : Have added reliable secondary sources to the article now. Request withdrawal of AfD nomination. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 21:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of the sources you have added, I'm not sure a single one is actually significant coverage of him as an individual. One source is the Court Circular column in the Daily Telegraph which reports he awarded an Tuvalu Order of Merit to Prince William. Another article is about persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan which name-checks him. I'm not seeing this as meeting WP:BASIC : "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." AusLondonder ( talk ) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 08:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Iftikhar Ayaz easily satisfies criteria #1 of WP:ANYBIO , having received honours from Queen Elizabeth II as both a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE) and an Officer of the British Empire (OBE) . On top of this, Ayaz satisfies WP:GNG , with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including this 2016 feature article published by AllAfrica.com, "Tanzanian Bestowed With Honours by Queen Elizabeth" , which covers his entire life in considerable detail, from his early life and emigration from India to Tanzania; to his education in Tanzania and teacher training in Kenya; to his early career as a government education officer in Tanzania; his graduate studies in Britain; his return to Tanzania to found the Tanzanian Commonwealth Society; and his activism as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. (Please log in to Wikipedia Library to read the full article on ProQuest.) The 2015 article in Rabwah Times , "Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad AYAZ awarded Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II" covers additional detail about his work with the United Nations. Of course, in addition to all of this, as Honorary Consul for Tuvalu to the United Kingdom, he is frequently quoted on issues including climate change (such as in this 2007 article in Herald on Sunday in New Zealand "BRITAIN Plea to stop atolls sinking into Pacific" , plus many others now cited in the article including the brief quotes in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal Online . This article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been improved considerably (with room for further improvement and expansion), and overall it's quite a remarkable story of a life of a notable living person. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- specifically per Cielquiparle 's analysis of criterion #1 of ANYBIO. Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please be aware that ANYBIO #1 does not establish notability. WP:ANYBIO states clearly that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." We still need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk ) 17:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 16:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 11:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - now adequately sourced for both GNG and ANYBIO1. Ingratis ( talk ) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , holding a KBE is clearly sufficient under WP:ANYBIO . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 17:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . KBE is not clearly sufficient for ANYBIO1, and regardless the subject should still have received multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV per N. I'm not totally convinced that the brief announcement in Rabwah is sufficient to meet the "multiple" aspect here. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless, it easily meets WP:BASIC , ::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. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 03:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above discussion. KBE is an indication, but not per se evidence, of notability. In any case, this meets SIGCOV. Bearian ( talk ) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Negros Trade Fair: Mccapra ( talk ) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Philippines . Mccapra ( talk ) 21:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete - Created 2012 and never sourced, none of it. Very little content and looks like it was meant to be a list but nothing happened. — Maile ( talk ) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Explanations do not support the user's "speedy" stance. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Oppose : neither the nominator, nor anyone else, have provided assurances that a reasonable search has been made for additional sources per WP:BEFORE I'm willing to change my vote to delete if assurances are provided that those searches were made Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a keep voter, have you found any sources? LibStar ( talk ) 08:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Good point, I've amended my vote to an oppose of this possible misapplication of WP policy, rather than a keep which would be an endorsement of this article's content Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] not sure what assurance you’d be looking for, but I did say in my nomination that I couldn’t find any coverage in reliable independent sources (RIS). To be more specific I meant online and in English. It is possible that there are offline sources or sources in Tagalog or Cebuano, so that’s what we’re here to determine. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, my esteemed compatriot Mccapra, your words are as clear as the first light of dawn. You have sought for truth, yet within the constraints of the digital domain and the English language. Such efforts are indeed commendable, yet do they not leave us wondering if more could be found elsewhere? In acknowledging the potential for offline sources or those in the rich tapestry of Tagalog or Cebuano, you have inadvertently made my case. It is this very possibility that fuels my argument for a 'keep' vote. For should we not delve a little further, cast our nets a bit wider in the vast sea of knowledge before we make the irrevocable decision to delete? By no means do I propose a herculean task, but merely an expanded consideration, to ensure we do not unwittingly discard a gem amidst the pebbles. Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there might be, yes, or there might not. The article has been tagged with WikiProject Tambayan Philippines for more than a decade but no sources have been forthcoming. The article creator asked for time to add sources but then didn’t add any. The deletion discussion has of course also been notified to the Philippines WikiProject so editors familiar with those languages can weigh in if they find anything. So there are plenty of opportunities for people who can find sources to do so. Mccapra ( talk ) 12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Neither the nominator or the speedy delete voter have responded in terms of online SIGCOV. Also nom please explain on what is RIS. Timothytyy ( talk ) 09:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RIS? Valereee ( talk ) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] reliable, independent sources? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] apologies yes RIS reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 09:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, sorry...I had missed that in the nom or I would have connected the two. :) Valereee ( talk ) 12:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - @ Valereee , Mccapra , Timothytyy , Jack4576 , and LibStar : - General related note to this nomination. This list was created in 2012. Manila F.A.M.E. International is a trade show, un-sourced and also created in 2008, and has images. Too bad neither of these were sourced, but I don't know how to remedy any of this myself. — Maile ( talk ) 18:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 23:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the ping, Maile66 . There do appear to be sources, I've added, haven't done a thorough assessment but I'm leaning Keep . Oldest provincial trade fair is a plausible claim to notability. If it survives I think we should probably just strip out the unsourced detail. Much of the prose looks like it might be in one of the sources. Valereee ( talk ) 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some sources have been added; relisting to allow discussion of these. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk ) 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep User:Valereee has added some sources that, while not overwhelming, I believe that this slips over the GNG line. That said, much of the article is un-sourced (e.g. the list of awards) and it would be best to remove those unless a source is found. (Anything removed can be added later when there are sources.) Lamona ( talk ) 09:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources added by Valereee to the article. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 01:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
West Yosemite League: No issues here for redirecting this to CIF Central Section . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Less than a month and a half ago, this NOM was involved in a class discussion for deletion including this league . Until they are stopped from this kind of antagonization, I expect they will continue to attack this class of article, high school sports leagues. As I said previously, there must be WP:SIGCOV of all local high school sports leagues. No local media could survive while ignoring the local sports played by the local high schools. Prove me wrong, maybe you can find one league without this kind of coverage (but don't claim success just because you did it behind my back). This league is not the exception. Previously I added one local newspaper covering this league. That did not appease this NOM's attack. I have now added another ten, including 3 newspapers and a television station along with sports-specific media, all covering this league. There is plenty more where that came from on the first page of Google. Neglecting to look for sources before making a nomination for deletion, even muted as Merge, is a violation of WP:BEFORE . That means look first. If the article is missing some significant coverage, use your editing skills to FIX IT before bothering the entire community to needlessly discuss deleting an article. Trackinfo ( talk ) 03:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JN are not legitimate keep arguments. Routine local coverage doesn't help this subject qualify for WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There appears to be extensive coverage of this league in local media - Newspapers.com brings up 25,000 matches for "West Yosemite League" and its games regularly receive significant coverage. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a suitable keep argument. We need WP:SIGCOV , and routine game reports from local outlets do not suffice to meet the WP:GNG . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I'm aware, being extensively covered on a regular basis is what makes for a notable league; that's why WP:NBASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "inclusion is routine, and can not be taken as evidence of notability". Let'srun ( talk ) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, inclusion in what? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, if you are arguing for Keeping this article, it would be helpful if you located additional sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Local coverage is beyond routine game coverage, offering examinations of the various sports leagues under this umbrella as a whole. Here are a few examples, but as was mentioned above, there are thousands of hits in local coverage for this, many of them beyond routine game coverage. There's annual sigcov of football league eg: [9] [10] There's coverage of league tournaments and sports seasons, eg [11] [12] Also, note that there are at least two local papers covering this league. — siro χ o 08:52, 14 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
板橋: -- Primium ( talk ) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . -- Primium ( talk ) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have hundreds in Chinese alone . Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. – Joe ( talk ) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , such disambiguation pages (which are not articles) has been much discussed in the past and is accepted practice. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force . older ≠ wiser 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Membership in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (385) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC. Folly Mox ( talk ) 12:17, 18 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
Suzan Sabancı Dinçer: Appears to be a rough translation from a language I don't speak, likely Turkish. It was AfD'ed on 28 June 2008. At that AfD, the creator said: "Keep. It is a new entry and It will be edited." Although I'm mindful that there is no deadline , I do feel it's pertinent to point out that this editor hasn't touched the article at any time in the fifteen (15) years since he made that representation. The only genuinely reliable source cited in the article is the Forbes rich list that tells us she's a billionaire from a billionaire family, and our criteria require more than one reliable source. — S Marshall T / C 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . — S Marshall T / C 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Finance , and Turkey . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . See the corresponding article in the Turkish Wikpedia at tr:Suzan Sabancı Dinçer and the references cited in that article. Bank chairpersons are usually notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Limited English coverage [12] . Give it a pass based on the explanation from the Turkish language site. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources in the Turkish article should be sufficient to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 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
Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark (disambiguation): estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom, unless another historical crown prince of Denmark named Christian is identified. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 13:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility , Disambiguations , and Denmark . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as unnecessary. -- Killuminator ( talk ) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete' Completely unnecessary. scope_creep Talk 16:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the for link for Christian, Prince-Elect of Denmark on the younger's page is sufficent enough. EmilySarah99 ( talk ) 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I could maybe see the value of this page if it listed the other four Crown Prince Christians of Denmark at Category:Crown Princes of Denmark and List of heirs to the Danish throne , but at the moment the page doesn't make much sense with only two entries. Celia Homeford ( talk ) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Who'd get those two people confused? GoodDay ( talk ) 12:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep but alter it . Under its current state it should be deleted based on WP:2DABS . However, as User:Celia Homeford pointed out, there were other crown princes of Denmark named Christian (similar to how there were several heirs in England named Edward, Prince of Wales ). The redirect should be expanded and a similar one should be made for crown princes named Frederik. Keivan.f Talk 14:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Changing previous ! vote and will fix the DAB per discussion above. Thanks Celia Homeford . Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:33, 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
Gukjeong chumyo: General search also brings up nothing that can establish notability. There may be information that can establish notability in Korean. If notability can't be established then content could be merged with Byeon Sang-byeok Traumnovelle ( talk ) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts , Animal , Korea , and South Korea . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep , it is sourced via pamphlet to its holding museum. Artworks on Wikipedia are considered to have notability if they have a museum source. It is by famous Korean artist Byeon Sang-byeok , so the article's existence here since 2009 has enhanced Wikipedia's Korean art collection. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a link to that guideline? I couldn't find any art specific notability guidelines. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge It's a very Korean painting that has always been in Korea, so an absence of web sources in English (but using a Korean title, presumably) means very little indeed. We only seem to have about a dozen articles on individual Korean paintings, which is far too few, given their distinctive and old tradition. Byeon Sang-byeok , the artist, is a significant figure, with one only one other article on an individual work. I don't doubt there are lots of sources in Korean; perhaps someone from the Korean project can find some. Johnbod ( talk ) 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep and no merge. Sufficient individual notability in Korean language [18] ( Kansong Art Museum ), [19] ( Kyunghyang Shinmun ), [20] ( The Dong-a Ilbo ), and more. I'm sure it's covered extensively in print books on art too. toobigtokale ( talk ) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you're familiar with Korean could you add these into the article? Traumnovelle ( talk ) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can quickly put some stuff in; my to-do list is pretty long so I want to prioritize other major articles if that makes sense. Lot of important missing info about Korea on Wikipedia toobigtokale ( talk ) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, I'll take your word that the sources you've provided establish notability and change my stance to keep/withdraw the nomination. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 22:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Style of the Swedish sovereign: ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 17:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Sweden . ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 17:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Too long and involved to be a BS article, but there is minimal sourcing with no inline sources. I'd be willing to give it a pass if we had some kind of coverage. I can't find anything, only articles about sovereigns in general. With one source, this could be seen as a copyvio as well. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Swedish royal titulature is in fact a subject of serious scrutiny. See, e.g., "Rex Vandalorum" and "What about the Finns:" . Srnec ( talk ) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This article needs more RSs, but it passes GNG easily and is eminently encyclopaedic. I see no COPYVIO here at all after reviewing the source. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No sensical reason to delete has been given. The titles and styles of Swedish monarchs are well covered. ★Trekker ( talk ) 19:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] where are they covered? I didn't found any coverage in the article!!!! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes WP:GNG with ease indeed. BabbaQ ( talk ) 13:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Rajendra Bajgai: Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He looks rather notable to me. His awards seem to have a national significance. See also this and this among other things. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: There are lots of significant coverage about him in reliable, secondary as well as independent sources to the subject, like Himalaya Times, Madhyanna daily, gorkhpatraonline etc. Fade258 ( talk ) 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there are plenty of sources here for WP:NBASIC . Note that NBASIC allows us to combine non-significant coverage from multiple sources to contribute toward establishing notability, which may be relevant here. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:15, 23 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
Tamer Balcı: Joeykai ( talk ) 20:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that Olympedia would give a biography – even if brief – about a non-competing Olympic athlete for a non-English country shows something from the start. Additionally, he appears to have been a pretty prominent actor, with several leading roles it seems in notable films ( this source mentions one of them as "iconic" in Turkish cinema" ). I'd lean keeping. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, from all indications, he has a SIGCOV bio in the book Historical Dictionary of Middle Eastern Cinema ; the German Wikipedia is in-depth as well and lists further sources. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets NBIO. I have added some sources but did not expand it much because most of them are in Turkish but there's enough to meet SIGCOV. I also added couple to a Further reading section that I did not have access to so only get a snippet in GBooks, one being an index to the Turkish biographical archives. Pinging @ BeanieFan11 : to take a look. I believe another editor is going to add some sources as well (see the talk page). S0091 ( talk ) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 ( talk ) 18:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . All indications were to me that this is notable; S0091's finds of him (including being in the Turkish biographical index – i.e. a pass of WP:ANYBIO ) prove it. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. I've added some extra Turkish sources on his sports career. I will look into his acting career tomorrow. Styyx ( talk ) 19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources found. Toughpigs ( talk ) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : @ Joeykai : I understand why you nominated the article for deletion but ask you withdraw it per WP:HEY so this does not have to go through a full 7 day discussion. S0091 ( talk ) 20:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there appears to be plenty of coverage of him. Aintabli ( talk ) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNOW Keep per improvements, thanks to User:S0091 for their great work on this. -- Habst ( talk ) 13:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Styyx is who pulled it together. S0091 ( talk ) 19:51, 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
Camerun Peoples: Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 19:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , American football , and Alabama . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly passes WP:GNG , see the sources I posted on the creating user's talk page: PFN , SI , HERO Sports , AL.com , Charlotte Observer , Winston-Salem Journal , etc. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with the above sources. Alvaldi ( talk ) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC , per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 15:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC , per BeanieFan11. Themanwithnowifi ( talk ) 13:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per sources found by BeanieFan11. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:14, 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
Colin Shindler: Conducted WP:BEFORE , but it's not that more sources will inherently push the article to keep; the subject is not notable as an academic. Longhornsg ( talk ) 18:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added twelve published reviews of four of his books to the article. It already contained one review of one. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR , and his work as the screenwriter for a notable movie also counts toward WP:CREATIVE (although it might not be enough by itself). The nomination argument is flawed: it is irrelevant whether a subject passes WP:PROF if we can find other criteria they pass. (Incidentally, I think the other Colin Shindler who writes about Israel may also be notable based on my finding many reviews of his books while looking for reviews of the subject.) — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough there from what I see for WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR for me. Govvy ( talk ) 10:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's a well-written, well-referenced 8000-byte article with more than 20 articles linked to it, an average of 14 views per day over the last 90 days, and it also has a disambiguation line that distinguishes this Colin Shindler from the other one, something unique to Wikipedia. Sammyrice ( talk ) 07:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as notable. I also took the liberty of moving the disamb phrase from Life and career section to the lead. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 11:14, 27 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
Pro-aging trance: Most mentions are by the person who coined it (see Google Scholar and Google News ). The page was subject to AfD in 2010 with result merged . It was recreated in 2022 in a substantially expanded form so doesn't qualify for WP:G4 . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The term was coined in 2007 at the latest, and has since been used in various scientific articles as well as prominent and independent media outlets, including The Guardian , BBC , Racine Journal Times , openDemocracy and Lifespan Extension Advocacy Foundation (see sources and literature cited in the article). It was even mentioned in an article by Deutschlandfunk , a German radio channel: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/die-abschaffung-des-alters-102.html . The explained phenomenon, although not directly mentioned, has also been the subject of many scientific studies; see reception section. With regard to that, I'd contest that the term is still a neologism and that the phenomenon has experienced too little coverage by reliable scientific and media sources to be notable. Maxeto0910 ( talk ) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please include links to relevant reliable sources directly here. I am convinced that The Guardian is a reliable source. What I'm not convinced of is that the Guardian has significant independent coverage of the concept of "pro-aging trance". I've glanced through sources and literature cited in the article and didn't find significant coverage otherwise I wouldn't have nominated. This Guardian source is in fact an advertorial article written by Aubrey de Grey, hence non-independent and non-reliable. [9] . The second Guardian source mentions the term exactly once in a quote directly attributed to de Grey It is a difficult job because he considers the world to be in a “pro-ageing trance”, happy to accept that ageing is unavoidable, when the reality is that it’s simply a “medical problem” that science can solve. [10] . This is not significant independent coverage either. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some more sources to the article. Anyway, I agree with Maxeto0910: there are quite a few reputable authors using the term "pro-aging trance" - e.g. Britt Wray, Kira Peikoff, Dylan Love, Zoë Corbyn and Mark Schweda (all of whom are quoted in the article), plus explanations of the term are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Rejuvenation Research , Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , plus it is cited in the scientific literature (see, for example, the works of Benjamin Ross and Lucinda Campbell). The fact that most mentions are by the person who coined the term is not surprising: it is mostly being used by anti-aging proponents to describe society's allegedly irrational attitude toward aging, and the anti-aging movement is (albeit ever-growing) still small. However, this is not sufficient reason to delete this article; I think the scientific discussion of the topic and the media coverage that the term has received should be enough to keep it. There are a variety of other suggested phenomena which have also not yet obtained wide scientific attention and still have their own article. Examples include Stockholm syndrome or, probably even more importantly, Bullerby Syndrome . Just like pro-aging trance, these phenomena are received within their own field (though not outside) and some reputable media have reported on them. So my conclusion is rather clear: Keep . Aquarius3500 ( talk ) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 17:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As context for the closer, @ Maxeto0910 and @ Aquarius3500 are the two major editors of this article (post first deletion). Maxeto recreated it and Aquarius expanded it. I notified both of them of this AfD in line with policy. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's an odd neologism but it does appear to have reputable coverage. GraziePrego ( talk ) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would it be possible to state at least one source to back up your statement of reputable coverage? I have not found independent significant coverage in reliable sources so I would very much appreciate if you shared what you found. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 14:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . What about Should We'Cure'Aging? A Reply to de Grey, Gregor Wolbring, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1), 2007 ? Hyperbolick ( talk ) 18:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four mentions of the word in an article that has been cited 4 times? Not sure this qualifies as significant coverage of the term. Also this source was already available when the first AfD concluded merge . AncientWalrus ( talk ) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Price of tea in China. Was it discussed before? Seems not. And "cited 4 times" is of utmost irrelevance. Can you provide citation numbers for everything you've cited as a source somewhere? And are you going to WP:BADGER everybody who disagrees with you here? Hyperbolick ( talk ) 19:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you consider rewording your reply, in particular the use of "badger" makes me feel attacked. AncientWalrus ( talk ) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear." So... Hyperbolick ( talk ) 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1st preference: Delete. 2nd preference: Redirect to Aubrey de Grey . A search on Google scholar of result from 2019 to the present shows that where the expression is used, it is as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views. There is no reason for a separate article on it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As pointed out by me and others, the term has received coverage from reliable sources (peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers) and the phenomenon described is also subject of scientific discussion (see, for example, Tom Pyszczynski's talk ). Yes, it is true that a large proportion of the sources are either from Aubrey de Grey himself, replies to him or about him. However, the same is true for Bullerby Syndrome and Berthold Franke. A search on Google Scholar is not the best yardstick here and should at least not decide everything. Instead, it would be more helpful if you could address my arguments (and the ones of the other proponents). Aquarius3500 ( talk ) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a topic has received coverage in peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and mainstream newspapers in the last ten years, I would expect Google scholar and Google news searches to be useful. The article has two citations to The Guardian - but one is to an article by Aubrey de Grey, and the other mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views ; it also has a citation to a 2018 article on the BBC that mentions it as a way of describing Aubrey de Grey's views . I did a search on Google News to see what that showed, but as the search only turned up one recognisable link (a Forbes article about Aubrey de Grey) , I concluded that Google scholar was more relevant. As for Youtube links proving notability - they don't. -- Toddy1 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . From the article's sources and the discussion above, I get the impression that the expression, although obscure, has been used, and not only in direct connection with the person who introduced it. -- a3nm ( talk ) 05:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there are tons and tons of people who think it is wrong to try to slow or reverse aging. We encounter all the time people who think you are playing God or you're going to cause overpopulation or other things. In the United States, people who've been doing outreach for almost 2 decades constantly get huge amounts of pushback from people thinking it's just wrong, and that we are supposed to grow old and die and that growing old and dying is an important part of life and is the only thing that gives life meaning – among other insipid reasons – and that is the pro-aging trance. People who just can't accept that reversing aging is something that can or should be done. I can link you to an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN of Bryan Johnson, and after Bryan Johnson speaks, there's a whole bunch of panelists who talk about how what he is doing is wrong, and how they are happy to be old and aging and happy that they will die. As you will also want a source to support a vote to keep, here is an essay by author Arthur Diamond (who should also have an article), which references de Grey in the same way someone discussing the Theory of Relativity would reference Einstein, but also adopts the phrase as valid in itself. This essay was also published in some newspapers. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Guerillero : Wondering why a discussion with six "keeps" to one "delete" (with some "keeps" backed by sources) would need relisting for "clearer consensus"; seems pretty freakin' clear. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many of the keep statements gave reasons that are either irrelevant or very weak. So getting a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus makes good sense. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like "clearer consensus" means something different from literally "consensus" then. What doubt is there that this clears the bar as set? Hyperbolick ( talk ) 09:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In Wikipedia, consensus is decided on by considering the reasons given by contributors, not by counting votes. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A clearly referenced article with multiple sources over a span of time that is obscure but certainly notable. I, too, wonder why it keeps being relisted when the consensus is so obviously keep. It certainly appears that the editors are going to keep relisting it until there's an excuse to delete it, which is not appropriate. Close and keep. Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:38, 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
Sideswipe (Transformers): Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 14:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , and Toys . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural Keep . Quick Gnews hits: - https://www.cbr.com/sideswipe-off-screen-death-transformers/ - https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/transformers-sideswipe-skywarp-team-up-exclusive-two-pack/ - https://www.wired.com/2009/08/autobot-sideswipe/ - http://www.actionfigureinsider.com/the-transformers-masterpiece-sideswipe-euphorium/ Suggests lack of Before and that there are sources that can be used to improve the article. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] bleedingcool is a PR piece about some toy that does not even appear to have been significantly rewritten from marketing speak. Wired piece does mention the character outside a name and seems to be a piece about some fan's lookalike car mod. actionfigureinsider is a review of a particular toy, not of the character. Those are bad, bad sources. Only the CBR can be argued to have some analysis of the character that goes beyond plot, but I'd say it's just few sentneces long. Given that the article has no reception section, and the best source (CBR) is meh, my vote is for redirect to the list of Transformers. I can't say merge as there's nothing in this article than I think is encyclopedic. If kept, this needs to be pruned down by 95% to remove fancruft plot summary and merchandise detail. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 06:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think I've said those sources are necessarily definitive, it was a quick Google search, and I am mainly in opposition to AfDs where the nominator plainly hasn't bothered with Before. Is Sideswipe notable? Dunno, not sure. Wouldn't surprise me either way. Not in a hurry to sink a lot of research into it when I have other things I'm looking at. But some random nominating a bunch of articles from a franchise they don't like because they "doubt" they're notable and claiming anyone who objects is required to write a GA-level article to prove otherwise is not something that should fly. As said all the Transformers articles are fancruft and basically shit. Not sure thats cause for TNT so much as an open casting call for someone interested in the area to come in and fix it. God only knows what the List of Transformers everyone wants to 'merge' these articles into looks like... Once again it is easy to find people who say merge or redirect but very difficult to find people who actually do any of the work. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 13:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep GNG is met, content problems can be dealt with via editing. Jclemens ( talk ) 19:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz (Transformers) (2nd nomination) — siro χ o 04:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete And possibly disambiguate per WP:DABMENTION . I am surprised people are looking at these sources and believing they are WP:SIGCOV . They are trivial mentions pulled off a Google search with no regard for how deep they go on the character, if they talk about them at all. Or, in the case of CBR, from a content-farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 ( talk ) 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per the sources listed above. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 05:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all the arguments above. BOZ ( talk ) 15:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as I agree with the arguments for keeping this are OK. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 16:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously satisfies GNG. InfiniteNexus ( talk ) 00:49, 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
David Hernandez (singer): Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Arizona . Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Austin, Tyler (2016-08-16). "Exclusive: Idol Alum David Hernandez Comes Out After Releasing Powerful Love Anthem" . Out . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Since the age of six, David Hernandez has found a second home on stage. ... Hernandez made his acting debut in a production of Annie before starring in other musicals. Just as he was finding happiness performing, however, Hernandez went to live with his father and his relationship with music entered rocky terrain. Growing up in a Mexican-American religious household, Hernandez confronted hyper-masculine ideals and beliefs that deterred him from the stage. Performance was looked at as feminine, a view continually contrasted with his younger brother's natural athleticism. Hernandez felt like he "needed to be more like him. " Music was quickly put on hold." Davis, Christopher (2021-06-14). "American Idol: What Happened to David Hernandez From Season 7. David Hernandez had a controversial run on American Idol season 7. Here's how David has reclaimed his career and identity after the show" . Screen Rant . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "David Hernandez had one of the most controversial runs on American Idol, but his journey after the singing competition series has been wholly inspiring. ... In 2016, David released a new song, "Beautiful", which was utilized as a vehicle for the star to come out as a gay man. Unlike when David's past, which was divulged during his run on American Idol, the singer-songwriter's public embrace of his LGBTQ identity was met with support and love. David has continued to release music including his album Kingdom: The Mixtape in 2018 and several singles since. David's newest song, "ily. ", came out on May 21, 2021." Matousek, Mark (2015-06-26). "PrideFest begins; David Hernandez among performers" . St. Louis Post-Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Eight years ago, it seemed David Hernandez would become another casualty of the major label machine. Open-mic nights led to a stint singing hooks for hip-hop songs and, eventually, a deal with Universal Music Group Distribution and Bungalo Records. But personal and creative differences would stall his first attempt at pop stardom. ... Hernandez has taken these lessons to heart in the years since. For his upcoming album, he took matters into his own hands, pouring his financial and emotional resources into its production." Kurov, Mike (2019-11-22). "David Hernandez is on the right track" . OutVoices . Vol. 31, no. 3. pp. 58–59. EBSCO host 139817457 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "David Hernandez became a famous face and voice on season seven of American Idol, he began a successful solo career and continues to be a popular performer at Pride events and music venues across the world. We talked to him about what it was like growing up as a young gay man in Central Arizona, a life-changing car accident, working on his next projects that include an album in Spanglish, and collaborating with another Idol on an exciting new musical venture slated to be released next year. Hernandez was raised by a single mother in Arizona and knows the area well." Holland, Scott (2022-03-15). " 'AI' Alum David Hernandez Talks New EP, Nude Coffee Table Book" . Hotspots Magazine . Vol. 37, no. 6. pp. 24–27. EBSCO host 157596570 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "American Idol’s David Hernandez will reveal body and soul this spring with the release of his provocative new EP, “Don’t @ Me”, and its accompanying book of intimate photography, “#NSFW”. ... David is continuing his nude artistic journey on OnlyFans, releasing beautifully crafted, artistic nude photography to fans." Holland, Scott (2020-05-20). "American Idol Alum David Hernandez Releases: "Sorry" " . Hotspots Magazine . Vol. 35, no. 21. pp. 8–10. EBSCO host 143467438 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "American Idol’s David Hernandez has recently released his new single and music video, “Sorry.” Produced by Alex and Deshawn Teamer (father and son team), and written with Michael Orland, the song is a metaphoric letter to those David has hurt in the past as well as those who have hurt him." Elber, Lynn (2016-04-05). "Checking in: 5 former 'American Idol' contestants" . El Paso Times . Associated Press . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "DAVID HERNANDEZ: The seventh-season semifinalist will tour this summer in North America and head to the Middle East to perform for U.S. troops. While describing himself as a committed balladeer, his new album (not yet titled), produced by Printz Board of the Black Eyed Peas, is pop-and-R&B influenced: "It's like Cee Lo Green meets myself. " Board's production team shot the video for "Beautiful," the upcoming first single." " 'Idol' stars to perform in Oxford" . The Anniston Star . 2009-11-06. Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Singer/songwriter/actor David Hernandez, an Idol 2008 finalist, has been writing and recording music since he was 15. His most important invitation to perform so far came when he was asked to sing at the Inaugural Kick-Off Celebration ball for President Barack Obama. And, the Phoenix, Ariz., native has landed a principal role in the movie Synthetic Truth." Christi, A.A. (2023-03-07). "American Idol's David Hernandez To Star In NAKED BOYS SINGING Off Broadway! In 2020 David starred in the hit Las Vegas production of Naked Boys Singing!" . BroadwayWorld . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "American Idol's David Hernandez is set to bare all again when he joins the off-Broadway return of the legendary Naked Boys Singing! beginning March 18th. David Hernandez made waves after being eliminated from season 7 of American Idol when his past as a stripper came to light. In 2020 David starred in the hit Las Vegas production of Naked Boys Singing!" Crowely, Patrick (2018-02-13). " 'American Idol' Alum David Hernandez Debuts Inspiring 'Shield (Coat of Armor)' Music Video: Watch" . Billboard . Archived from the original on 2023-05-14 . Retrieved 2023-05-14 . The article notes: "Pop singer and American Idol alum David Hernandez has released the uplifting new single “Shield (Coat of Armor),” inspired by a USO tour in the Middle East. The singer told Billboard he was humbled to meet servicemen and women and wrote this track in a session with his producer Eddie Wohl and Daniel Braunstein." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Hernandez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 18:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: My original nomination of this article was based on my interpretation of the criteria at WP:NSINGER . Reading the following - "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable." - it would be appropriate to redirect this article to the appropriate season of American Idol , which is what I probably should have done in the first place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Cunard 's comment above, Hernandez has clearly garnered considerable news coverage since his time on Idol . -- Jpcase ( talk ) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have been eliminating the runners-up ("best of the rest") of American Idol , but primarily on the basis of WP:BLP1E versus WP:MUSIC . In other words, if they did not parlay their 15 minutes of fame from reality television , then their articles get deleted. However in this case, the subject went on many television, stage, and radio shows, garnering significant coverage , albeit from trashy TV shows, Billboard , Out magazine, and tabloids. His work off-broadway and in Las Vegas pushes him over the top . Bearian ( talk ) 19:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
2024 World Friendship Games: Theroadislong ( talk ) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia . Theroadislong ( talk ) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Plenty of coverage is present from RS, including [ [20] ] and [ [21] ]. Some cleanup is needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . User:Let'srun 06:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Added international sources from which the information for the article was used. Balalaka21 ( talk ) 14:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 21:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it passes notability standards. Cleanup is needed but AFD is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 03:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Needs some work Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 12:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
The Magical Moment: The only cited source is the blog of the tweeter. A Google search turned up only Wiki mirrors and three booksellers, one of which turns out not to have the book available. There is essentially no coverage of the book, anywhere. Donald Albury 22:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This almost looks like a hoax. There is no coverage of the book in RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Just to be sure, I ran the same searches and found no RS coverage. This video from the "Paulo Coelho Forum" YouTube channel is almost a parody of the self-help genre, but unfortunately the book does not appear to be a hoax. Just eminently non-notable :/ Generalrelative ( talk ) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Echoing everyone above. I almost wonder if Coelho isn't even aware this book ever existed. -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Nothing to add, it seems obviously not notable due to lack of RS. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . As well as everything else, the article was started by Coelho's own publicity team and has remained virtually untouched since, so WP:PROMO applies here too. Sweetpool50 ( talk ) 09:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Looks like the book does actually exist. Using the title in Korea, I was able to find it in Google Books , where I also found the ISBN. Using that, I was able to find listings in both Amazon and WorldCat , complete with listings in various libraries. The Google Book view shows that it is official merch (so to speak) of the author. So now it's just a question of whether or not there's coverage. It looks like the book was likely never released in English, only Korean, so if any coverage exists it's going to be in that language. I'll see what I can find. Not fluent in Korean, but I am fluent in Google Translate, so there's that. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For whatever reason my computer does not want to open any websites that originated in Korea. It's sometimes picky, probably firewall related. I did find a few hits in Google News, but no telling if they're actually usable. Of note is that they do seem to be pretty sparse. Here are the results , if anyone can get them to come up for you. I ran the previews and it looks like one is a merchant site, but another mentions that the book was a bestseller, but I can't tell more than that. I'm going to ask at the Korea WP if any of them can run a search to see what they can find. Offhand leaning towards probably non-notable since the previews otherwise didn't look very promising, but I'd like a search in Korean first. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Search_in_Korean? . Short paragraph . Short paragraph . A dedicated if short-ish article/review . A very short paragraph . A short paragraph . Another dedicated f shortish article/review . With the two short-ish review, mimimum standard for GNG/NBOOK seems to be met. Remember about SYSTEMICBIAS, folks, and the need to do BEFOREs in non-English languages! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 02:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS. I'll ping the editors above who expressed concern about this being a likely hoax: @ Oaktree b @ Generalrelative @ Asilvering @ Doug Weller PPS. Regarding the reliability of the sources cited, the two longer reviews were published in ko:디지털타임스 and Kukmin Ilbo . Two of the shorter mentions come from The Dong-a Ilbo . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 02:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you may have misunderstood us? I don't see anyone here saying that this is "a likely hoax". -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be fair, I did, way up top. The book image looked like a bad photoshop cover and I couldn't find an isbn. It seems I've been proven wrong. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep based on the Korean language sources described; not the best, but it seems the book exists and has some (minimal) critical notice. To be fair, the market for Korean books is small to begin with, so I don't expect to find a dozen reviews. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Asilvering. This seems to be a coffee-table book by a person in Korea based on Cuelho's tweets, not a book by Cuelho as is implied. The sources Piotrus provides aren't particularly convincing, and suffer from the same problem as the article: they are about Cuelho rather than the book. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lenoresm's source is more convincing, and after Doug Weller's edits the article is no longer promotional. Striking my vote - editors more familiar with the Korean media will have to decide this. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I found this Kukmin Ilbo article about the publication of Coelho's Maktub in Korean, which notes that Magic Moment sold over 200,000 copies in Asia. For anyone new to looking up news in Korean, here's a link to a search for the book on Naver News, which is Korean news aggregator. (And here's the same link sorted by oldest articles, in case that's helpful.) There are many mentions of the book being on the Korean Publishers Association's best sellers list throughout 2013. Lenoresm ( talk ) 04:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep I'm convinced but I've also gutted the article, if anyone wants to restore, well, the material I removed was unsourced or sourced to Cuelho. I found a Phd thesis mentioning the illustrator and added that. But surely what we need is an article on Cuelho mentioning this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Is there an article about this book on the Korean WP? As its claim to notability is based on its reception in Korea, the existance of an article about it on the Korean WP might help here. (Understood that the Korean WP does not necessarily have the same standards for creating an article as we do.) - Donald Albury 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, but it is listed as a best seller in the article List of 2013 bestsellers in South Korea . :3 F4U ( they /it ) 07:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm heartened by the article Lenoresm found that (at least in google-translate-ese) says Coehlo "commissioned" it, but I still don't see any reason to keep this as a standalone article. All we appear to be able to say about it is that it exists and it sold over 200k copies; that's all the coverage is talking about, and it's not enough to build much of anything. The article is not, realistically, going to get any longer than it is at present. I'm not against stubs, but I don't see the purpose of this one - the chances that someone would be trying to find this book by searching Wikipedia for "The Magical Moment" seems slim-to-none, and they won't learn anything once they get there anyway. This would be more useful as a single sentence on Coelho's article, and as evidence for notability of the illustrator - who doesn't appear to have an article yet. -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering For the record, I think the Korean name of the illustrator is ko:황중환 . What I read in the reviews suggests he may be notable indeed, but Korean Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him yet (a copyvio for someone with that name was deleted in 2009). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 08:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Another review in the Seoul Shinmun and a review in Seoul Culture Today . At bare minimum, it exceeds WP:NBOOK and there is more than enough content to expand the article out from a stub. :3 F4U ( they /it ) 07:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above: Another review in the Seoul Shinmun and a review in Seoul Culture Today . I think these two put it over the line, so I didn't bother looking for more because this was enough for GNG. // Timothy :: talk 11:20, 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
Tamarack Developments Corporation: BEFORE search turned no reliable search at least. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added references from reliable sources about the death of a worker and reports of poor-quality construction. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 09:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus, which would repeat the past result, it would be nice to establish one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 Cookie Monster 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the references from a quarter-century ago look good to me. Nfitz ( talk ) 17:09, 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
Lyn Squire: I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:GNG . His writings claim a few mid-level positions at the World Bank, but I can't even find coverage of those in secondary sources. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Wales , and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Msrasnw ( talk ) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z ( talk ) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no claim that meets any of the 7 rules at WP:ACADEMIC . Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass WP:PROF#C1 . Reviews of Employment Policy in Developing Countries ( JSTOR 1973175 , JSTOR 2726474 ) and Agricultural Household Models ( JSTOR 2726474 , JSTOR 1242324 , ProQuest 1311343250 , doi : 10.1016/0304-3878(88)90028-4 ) also give him a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for WP:PROF#C1 . Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z ( talk ) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear User:Contributor892z , I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC) ). [ reply ] Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [20] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Contributor892z ( talk ) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have to agree with Contributor892z ( talk ). WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Fred Zepelin : so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment? Contributor892z ( talk ) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review , Journal of Development Economics , and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z ( talk ) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal : my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) ) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution)) [ reply ] @ Msrasnw : the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? ( Msrasnw ( talk ) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] [citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein : and @ Msrasnw : I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [21] . So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z ( talk ) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [22] . His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 and my opinion is that his publication record is not enough given that his most cited work came from publications in vehicles of his employer, which are questionable for research independence. He had a good job at a notable employer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Contributor892z ( talk ) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to WP:PROF#C1 notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z ( talk ) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy , Cynthia Dwork , and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Per WP:NPROF , it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z ( talk ) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing WP:NPROF , I am exactly looking for several high impact papers, such as these. Meanwhile, the highly cited book _certainly_ helps meet WP:NPROF . Reviews of it include [23] [24] . Other reviews of Squire's books include [25] (an edited volume), [26] . There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear WP:NPROF #1 pass. As stated above, c'mon . Curbon7 ( talk ) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A good case for passing WP:PROF#C1 , and a weaker one for passing WP:AUTHOR . XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:03, 11 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
Kevin Blatt: Subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies WP:GNG and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. Also as per WP:CREATIVE : The person is ' not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, with no real claim to fame. Does not satisfy criteria for Subjects notable only for one event: WP:BLP1E . Lethweimaster ( talk ) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Lethweimaster ( talk ) 13:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sexuality and gender , and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There seems to be a lot of coverage of the person [27] , [28] and [29] . Not sure he's a fixer, appears to be a "leaker", but that's another discussion altogether. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:49, 9 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! 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep The article definitely needs improvements, many lines are subjective and definitely appear to come off as a Conflict of Interest (being referred to as a "fixer" seems ostentatious and being known for "outrageous stories" isn't really substantiated) - but he does seem to have a few articles that would constitute significant coverage (at least two where he is the main focus, one of which from Vice, a major news outlet). However, I would agree that he does not fall under the definition of being "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors". A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Depressingly, the subject of the article does actually have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to meet the threshold of notability - the New York Magazine piece, the Wired piece, the Cleveland Plain Dealer article, and arguably the NBC piece. Also, he's kept in front of the media for a long time, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. As the old saying goes, nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public. Fiachra10003 ( talk ) 00:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Intro (End of the World): A cursory Google search and a look at the article's sources shows that the song's coverage occurs only in album reviews. ‍ PSA 🏕️ ( talk ) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . ‍ PSA 🏕️ ( talk ) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect : A way to delete the item. I see that there is no source that talks exclusively about the song. All the information about it has been written on pages that talk about the album in general, so it is not relevant. Something similar also happens with the rest of the articles about the songs from Eternal Sunshine except the singles, exclusively. Regarding articles like " The Boy Is Mine (Ariana Grande song) ", they have some sources and wikification that, in my opinion, are dubious. Santi ( talk ) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't agree with the idea that this song is not notable . It satisfies the first criteria, which although only states that a song might be notable if it charts, we should keep in mind that this is an intro and it has peaked in the top 10 in multiple countries, higher than some of the songs from Eternal Sunshine with articles. I agree that this song should have more coverage by itself, however. Gained has put a lot of effort into the article, and I don't think this one should be excluded. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, @ AskeeaeWiki . I'm really saying turn it into redirect just to go along with those I consider "more professional than me." However, I rely on this discussion for my arguments, and I don't know which wins. Believe me, I am very sorry that @ PSA wants to eliminate it for an argument that also seems valid to me, in addition to having helped him in a FAC in the past as anonymous. I don't know, I'm supremely confused than sure of what I'm saying. I think I'm not prepared enough to participate in AfDs, because I also opened one for List of Spotify streaming records and they all went against me for more justifiable reasons than mine. In summary, I just want everyone participating to keep in mind that I didn't give a strong argument but more out of confusion, because I think this would affect the validity. Santi ( talk ) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Agree with @ AskeeaeWiki . I think it indicates that this song may be notable that the song continues to gain a stronghold across Asian countries where it performing better than any album track. Additionally, a lot of work has been put into this rather high-quality article, which has enough detail for a standalone article. It can be continued to be worked upon and improved to get more independent coverage. Flabshoe1 ( talk ) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – It doesn't meet NSONG but I think it meets GNG, and the article seems reasonably detailed. Heartfox ( talk ) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Pinkydoll: Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Draftify with the intent of allowing the author to rescue content into a potential article on NPC streaming . Sourcing clearly establishes notability. All of NYT ( [55] ), Vice ( [56] ), Complex ( [57] ), and The Guardian ( [58] ) are significant coverage, independent, and should be reliable. Unrelated to deletion, a spot check on the sourcing reveals issues and possible BLP problems; the NYT article doesn't mention anything about her stepfather's death, for instance. I'm going to look a bit deeper at this; if they're significant, draftifying might be preferable here. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC); see comment below) [ reply ] I've fixed the sourcing issues I discovered (birth date, stepfather death, and using a sensational headline claim instead of the actual article claim); I think this is fine staying in mainspace. @ Benmite I'd personally push for a cleanup on the promotional language and claims (are celebrity viewers on her livestream noteworthy? Is the amount of money she made in one stream? I don't personally know, but it seems like it might not be), but there aren't serious neutrality or BLP issues I can see. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Returning to this to reconsider in light of the analysis by @ SWinxy and @ Alpha3031 . I can see the 1E arguments here. There are still stories being written about her (e.g. [59] , [60] ), but it is clear most of the coverage demonstrating notability came during a brief window where the subject went viral in mid-July. I don't agree that coverage is exclusively primary—there is biographical information in articles that is not coming from an interview with the subject—but the biographical information here is surprisingly limited (as noted above, I scrubbed the article of several unsourced BLP claims), and it's not clear to me there's enough information here to write a biography. I'm going to take some time to review the sources more thoroughly this evening, but there is clearly merit to Alpha3031's deletion argument. Regardless of her notability, I would encourage other editors to maybe dial down the moral panic comments; I'm pretty sure the Kids These Days™ didn't invent flash-in-the-pan celebrities. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, thanks for the ping. I've not actually evaluated whether the sources are independent . WP:NOR and RS cover this but primary sources may still be independent sources, this is probably expounded upon in most detail at Wikipedia:Party and person . N requires both though. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep, I think we're in agreement on that (i.e., secondary and independent are not synonymous, and these sources are certainly independent). As for notability, secondary isn't technically part of GNG, but it's an NBIO requirement and articles being based on secondary sources is an important stipulation of BLP. I've taken some time to review the essays that you've linked here in detail. They mention specific types of articles like eyewitness news and human interest stories. We can argue about if these qualify as either ("eyewitness" can be defined quite broadly for things like viral TikTok trends), but I imagine it'd be a quick road to getting bogged down in pedantry. To me, the better question is the one you got at in your original comment: using the sources available, can we write an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject ? Reviewing the sources in depth, the biographical details recoverable from them are thin. Most of these articles are about the trend of "NPC streaming," using Pinkydoll as an example since she is the originator of the trend; even the NYT article (which mentions her in the headline and does seem to focus on her content) is pretty sparse in this regard, though it's certainly the strongest source here. I'm convinced there's not enough significant coverage of Pinkydoll herself here for an independent biography. I do think the sources show that the NPC streaming trend is notable. Since we have no NPC streaming article, I'm making the somewhat unusual ATD suggestion of userifying or draftifying this page so that content can be moved into an article on that subject (I don't think "merge into non-existent page" is a thing, and a straight move wouldn't be appropriate). Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to meeting WP:GNG with reliable sources identified above. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/tiktok-npc-livestream-pinkydoll-1.6916479 , https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/style/pinkydoll-social-media-livestream.html , etc. which support notability and verifiability. What has our society come to though? - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG . I agree that it could definitely use some rewrites, I think it's suitable for an article to be here. - AquilaFasciata ( talk \| contribs ) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , sadly. Nfitz ( talk ) 20:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As per source analysis by Oaktree b . MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:BIO1E . I would consider her burst of popularity from the TikToks as a 1E thing. No lasting notability yet. SWinxy ( talk ) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Society has always had "entertainment" and "style" news, but that does not obligate us to cover every single tiktok trend, or significant participant thereof. In fact, we are explicitly discouraged from doing so. PROMO is not quite the correct DELREASON here, but this is as close to a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NOTNEWS and the derived WP:SBST as one is likely to get (except perhaps the last BIO-related AFD I participated in). True, there is no explicit treatment of this in NBIO aside from the abovementioned 1E, but the coverage-based criteria for WP:N are primarily a rule of thumb to measure what we might be able to marshal to meet our content policies. WP:NOT is one of those content policies, if a step down and perhaps a tad more controversial in application than the core NPOV, NOR and V. Fundamentally, the present coverage does not support an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject. The secondary analysis that we use to form the bones of an article are largely absent (there is perhaps some focusing on the trend itself, but I would prefer to defer judgement on this per WP:DELAY . It would be easier to determine the applicability of SBST given another few months). We can flesh out some facts, sure, but it is difficult to determine what is and is not appropriate to include. I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NEWSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY to exclude the coverage we have on that basis also. In short, I would consider the existing coverage neither significant nor secondary, instead primary and routine. As such, this is a delete . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Say what you will about what she does, but she's a pioneer in this massive trend and has perfected the "craft". I'm really not at all a big fan of it, but her fame and notability has certainly been earned. ☞ Rim < Talk \| Edits > 23:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The sources easily meet WP:GNG . KatoKungLee ( talk ) 16:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Oliyum Oliyum: Tagged for notability for over a decade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Would seem to be notable [9] , but this area of film isn't my expertise. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Have added References clearly notable Tamil song program was amongst the most popular in Tamil Nadu during the Doordarshan era. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:37, 22 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
Light Records: The second source literally leads to the Billboard Pro home page, so it doesn't help at all. I can't check the first source because I'm currently at a school where the link is blocked, so someone should check that. My Google searches on Light Records yielded nothing useful. TheWikiToby ( talk ) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Albums and songs , Music , and Companies . TheWikiToby ( talk ) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have repaired this nomination, which had malformed syntax that was transcluding Wikipedia:Notability and thus breaking {{ subst:afd2 }}. No opinion or comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Merge . Several possible merge targets here, including its founder, its co-venture partner, and its parent label. I suspect there is coverage of this label in Christian-interest magazines, though; a little digging by specialists might turn up more WP:ATD here. Chubbles ( talk ) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - it's hard to overstate the impact of Light Records on Contemporary Christian Music. Absolutely one of the most important, influential labels in the genre. If you go to Google Books, and search "Billboard Light Records", then click on one of the issues and search "Light Records" at the "Search all issues" you'll find a plethora of coverage. Also significant coverage in "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" ISBN:9798216065562. (addendum: the Wikipedia Library is down for me, so I can't search JSTOR or Newspapers.com.) 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 02:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Billboard, and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Hale Area Schools: Tooncool64 ( talk ) 06:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tooncool64 , true, but this article is not about a school, but rather a school district. — Jacona ( talk ) 11:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools , and Michigan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as Jacona noted, this is a school district, not a school. Although the article does need improvement, standard references that are available from the government via NCES are enough to meet the notability requirements for geographic locations like school districts. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 20:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts , "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts , which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography) . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Merge to Ogemaw_County,_Michiganand or Iosco_County,_Michigan as appropriate. The policy cited by the above vote uses the phrase near-presumptive , so school districts are almost presumed notable. According to WP:N, presumed simply means an article can be created without checking for notability, but if the article is challenged then if must be proven to meet WP:N or be deleted or merged. The article does not meet WP:N. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Kvng , and per WP:N (Geography) Cray04 ( talk ) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per Kvng. I note James.folsom's point that "near presumptive" is not an absolute guaranty of notability, but this school district contains schools, including a high school, and those schools do not have pages. Where schools are not notable for pages they should redirect to the school district, but if we delete the school district page, that's not possible. So on a practical basis I lean keep here. Except that is not notability. If it were found the high school were notable for its own page, would we then have to delete the district? Well no, because anyone searching sources will find plenty of mentions of this district. Largely these are in national registers and directories (e.g. [47] , and you could argue that those are primary sources, but you could argue that of any school district. The district is not notable because it meets GNG with secondary sourcing. It is notable because it meets GEOLAND. This is based on a long established consensus that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia, it is also a gazetteer ( WP:GAZ ). As such, the fact that the school district exists and is nationally recognised to exist in multiple directories is enough to meet this notable place criterion. I am not going to paste in all the source links but note the books search , the scholar search and the 4 newspaper mentions [48] . I think this is a clear keep as long as any school district is a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment My reading of WP:GAZ is is that things still need to meet WP:N, as all geoland article have to meet WP:N. All these policies make clear Wikipedia is not repository of everything. There are standards for articles, what do you think this place is going to look in a thousand years if this loosy goosy interpretation of the policies continues. The county article has notability because because of legal recognition and the school district article could be moved there and the schools could be listed by district within the county article as well. This is actually what makes the most sense. And this should be the case with all the school district articles unless they are wildly notable. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The nomination provides no rationale for deleting this article, apparently confusing it with something else. In any case, the arguments above by Kvng and Sirfurboy🏄 are sufficient to show that this article meets the appropriate notability standard for a school district. Jacona ( talk ) 16:28, 10 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
Beyond the Stars: I searched Newspapers.com and ProQuest for reviews but other than an interview with Olivia d'Abo and a couple blurbs only found listings. While its seems it was an all-star cast, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). S0091 ( talk ) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, It does not change much about the film's notability, in my opinion but, I'm sorry, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). is at least not accurate concerning Slater. His breakthrough was earlier, as the article about him or sources I added to the article about this film clearly state (the LAT even called him a veteran actor then.... (he was 18, yes)). Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah yes, I see that now. S0091 ( talk ) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . S0091 ( talk ) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : despite the article name, this isn't an astronomy topic. Praemonitus ( talk ) 00:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Added sources. (More exist). Does meet WP:NFILM - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It would be very difficult to imagine how a film with a cast like that didn't meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This needs more than just existing or having notable people, as neither of those are notability granting on their own. So far I'm searching Newspapers.com and I can't find anything about this other than talk about it filming. I'm searching under both the working and final title and there's just nothing other than a few PR type blurbs in articles about the actors in relation to something else entirely or an announcement that it's filming. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like it had a limited theatrical release per the wording "some theaters". My thought is that this wasn't quite direct to home video or made for TV fare, but it wasn't that far off either. This would explain the lack of reviews and other attention. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Here's my rationale: there's just not much out there about this. It looks like this was a film that was quietly given a limited theatrical release in hopes of gaining an audience, but when that failed it was shuttled to TV where it just fell further into obscurity. I can't find any sourcing beyond a few mentions of filming, all of which look to be based on the same press release, and a few offhand mentions in articles written about the actors in regards to other projects or topics. Of the sourcing in the article, what we have is pretty light. I'm definitely of the "a review is a review regardless of length" camp, but I only really recommend using those when there's at least one meaty review to bolster them. One of the more lengthy mentions is the Italian source, which I will note was self-published. I don't see where the author is particularly seen as a RS themselves so I have to consider this a SPS that is unusable as far as notability goes. Other than that we have very brief listings in Videohound, Leonard Maltin's 2013 Movie Guide, and The Sci-Fi Movie Guide. These sources are frequently challenged in AfDs and I seem to remember a general agreement that Videohound is unusable for notability purposes since it does actually go out of its way to include every film possible. Maltin is somewhat usable as it is a bit more exclusive, but it still gets flack when it comes up. The Sci-Fi book is a bit more specific, but the listing is so short and feels like more of a database listing than a review. None of these are really great or strong sources. Other than that, the other sources are basically just mentions of filming or database listings that say that the film exists without giving any sort of discussion. This just doesn't pass NFILM based on the available sourcing and I can't find any evidence that there ever was more substantial coverage. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just added an assessment in FIlmDienst. Not sure you'll find it meaty enough, but still. The German WP mentions, among other things, 5+2 pages about the film in a biography of Stone. I couldn't check that claim, though. I for one, don't think they are needed as, all in all, I found this can really be considered OK. Yours. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] +1. Added French meat for you @ ReaderofthePack : It does in my view seal the deal, but see for yourself. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found this which has a bit background and the cinematographer's perspective but it also states is was never released in theaters. ?? S0091 ( talk ) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think Leonard Maltin's guide, plus the German and French reviews put it over the top. Clearly an unsuccessful, obscure film, but with a cast like this, surely notable enough to warrant a page. Toughpigs ( talk ) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maltin's guide is a listing and the German source is a a brief synopsis, not a critical review. I can't independently assess the French review but based on the quotes provided it does appear to be a review. The cast in and of itself matters not unless WP:NFIC is proven but that does not seem to be the case. S0091 ( talk ) 19:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think Leonard Maltin's Guide counts, as NFILM pretty explicitly states that To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database (though I have no strong opinion on the other sources). VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough coverage present to pass WP:GNG Donald D23 talk to me 02:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per good sourcing with famous cast members. Davidgoodheart ( talk ) 04:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this article does have sufficient coverage to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 ( talk • contribs ) Keep - Per WP:HEY and with thanks to Mushy Yank and others for adding sources. There has been a lack of sourcing discussion on this AfD, and a few reviews at the time of release do not show notability, although, per WP:SUSTAINED , they might if they happen over a long period. However, sources added to the page include the Sci Fi movie guide and other books, that collate this and do demonstrate sustained interest. I think the three books added to support the text "Beyond the Stars was noted for its ”interesting cast’." themselves probably meet the criteria for GNG (significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources, although with Readerofthepack's caution noted too). On a more personal note, I actually watched this movie years ago. On the other hand, I had all but forgotten its eminently forgettable script. But a movie doesn't have to be good to be notable. As has now been added to this page, this one is notable for being a bad movie with good actors. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Jack Lutz: Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing . Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — His work seems to be notable and significant in his field, which is enough for WP:NACADEMIC . Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 07:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa and Kansas . TJMSmith ( talk ) 11:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . TJMSmith ( talk ) 11:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep His works have been cited a respectable amount . Through elicit.org, I found that quite a few of these papers either build upon or critique (but don't discredit) his hypotheses, so they'd be quite usable here. I won't link them all, but for example, a Springer textbook ( Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity , 2010, Downey & Hirschfeldt) provides significant coverage of his ideas across multiple chapters. — DFlhb ( talk ) 16:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's not a lot that we can source and put in his article beyond his basic career details and the concepts he's credited with, but I think those are enough. If it were only based on citation counts my keep would be weak, but putting a name to the concepts credited to him, and the (justified) existence of separate Wikipedia articles for those concepts, makes the case stronger. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein, a mix of PROF-C1 and being credited with significant concepts in the field. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1. -- hroest 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The first two references cited do not pertain directly to the individual subject. The other sources are not independent of the subject. The Google Scholar page does indicate some significance with the total citation count, but it is weak. There are no honors, awards, or past chair designations in organizations either. There should be more for this article to be useful to the academic readers of the encyclopedia. Multi7001 ( talk ) 04:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You appear to be evaluating this article based on the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG . This is a case for WP:PROF , not GNG. For PROF notability, we still need claims to be verifiable, but as long as the claims meet at least one PROF criterion and the sources that verify them are reliable, there is nothing requiring the sources to cover the personal life of the subject in-depth nor to be independent. And in this case we do have independent sources covering the subject's research contributions in-depth, which is exactly what one would expect and hope for in the case of someone supposedly notable for their research contributions. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you misunderstood the commentary; it did not pertain to WP:GNG. For the notability criterion of WP:PROF, the subject nearly does not meet any of it. The significance of the individual's research work should be demonstrable through multiple reliable, independent sources, which it lacks. Furthermore, there are no honors, awards, or chair designations. The role of director in a low-scale university laboratory is questionable. The citation count on Google Scholar is not high. And the remainder of the references originated from the subject, the subject's colleagues, or the subject's employer and do not indicate a strong impact on his profession. Multi7001 ( talk ) 13:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 11 publications with over citations each is quite high, for this theoretical area. Beyond that, we have works directly attesting to the significance of the topics Lutz has developed and explaining them in depth. The remainder of the references are not intended to establish notability, only to verify the details in the article. And multiple PROF criteria are not required when one is passed. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 15:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The significance of his research work is debatable, which is why I am not either in favor of or against this AfD process. What should be noted is that the Wiki page for Lutz's resource-bounded measure has no functional references. And any search for them does not yield any indication of a significant impact on the profession, aside from a few mentions in peer-reviewed journals. Regardless, most AfD participants will likely agree that the research work has at least some importance that merits consideration. Multi7001 ( talk ) 21:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein, passes NPROF-1. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Anders Holmer: No evidence page passes WP:AUTHOR --being nominated for an award does not garner assumed notability. WikiLibrary search did not return any WP:RS . Cabrils ( talk ) 05:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a simple google search reveals several book reviews in WP:RS : [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] . Geschichte ( talk ) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Authors , Visual arts , and Sweden . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Geschichte's sources are all good, but they're short. It's too early in his career for more substantial coverage. But when I was looking for more, I found that at least one of his books have been translated into English. Here are its reviews in Kirkus [33] and PW [34] . I'm confident there will be more. But because it's children's literature, I'm also confident they'll be short. -- asilvering ( talk ) 12:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep nominee for both the August Prize and the Beskow Plaquette, with substantial coverage in mainstream Swedish press. The article is weak, but notability is not a problem, not nearly. Draken Bowser ( talk ) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Brief reviews as given in a few other comments have been found, but we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think this passes "has won significant critical attention". / Julle ( talk ) 17:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Clear pass of GNG, while not respecting NAUTHOR. Substantial sources found on Google worth adding onto the article. Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:BIO. And WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 14:55, 27 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
Blanchefleur: This name fails WP:NNAME , WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV , and WP:NOTDICT . All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough to warrant their own articles. It also seems like this article was created in an apparent act of vandalism, then converted to an article about an unnotable fictional character, then converted to roughly what it is now, rather than just deleted in the first place. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements , and Lists . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Unreferenced violation of WP:IPC and possibly WP:OR . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : What do you think of the article now? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 18:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ AllTheUsernamesAreInUse The article has been expanded, but I don't see how this topic is notable. The first half of content added is related to Floris and Blancheflour . The second part seems to talk about this character in Perceval, the Story of the Grail . As far as I can tell, this is very bad compilation of plot summaries or analysis of some characters named Blanchefleur, which seems ridcolous - our article on Piotr , for example, should not be a compilation of "plot summaries and analaysis of random characters named Piotr". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, unreferenced is one thing, but there's others. First of all, User:Cuchullain had a hand in this, and that's a good sign. Second, "popular culture"--sure, romance was a popular genre, but that shouldn't be used as a putdown. The Aeneid was popular too, and the bible was, or "what does Ingeld have to do with Christ" wouldn't have been a very good argument. (It's not, but for a different reason.) Third, all the ones listed are featured in highly notable texts/cycles/etc., and they are not unimportant characters. Keep , obviously. Drmies ( talk ) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Drmies Hmmm, take a look at my reply above. Right now I feel this is a badly messed up name page in need of WP:TNT . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Piotrus , I did. It is very disappointing. A bad compilation--well. Drmies ( talk ) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you find the article disappointign and a bad compilation, why are you voting keep? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 02:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think they may have been referring to your response, not the article. Anyway, I completely understand Piotrus' concerns, but it doubles as a symbol as Drmies explains, and I believe there may be enough coverage and study of the name in that aspect to keep the article. It is clearly the subject of several nontrivial essays. I do believe that the 'Blanchefleur in the Grail' section falls into the purview of Potrius' concerns, though I do not advocate for its removal. I believe I may gravitate slightly more towards Drmies' point of view, but I will let the community decide the fate of the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 06:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Drmies. Even if it is not kept, at the very least it could be converted into a DAB page, but Drmies's work shows that that should not be necessary. -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's clearly a name page, so I don't think it would be right to turn it into a DAB, but Drmies' sources may merit notability anyway. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what it is, actually. I guess it's a page on a name with a bunch of links to their occurrences. I have secondary sourcing (OK, one tertiary one) for all but one of em now; it's a work in progress. Drmies ( talk ) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure if you're familiar with name pages or not, but that second sentence pretty adequately describes them. There generally must be at least at least two Wikipedia articles about people with the name for a name to be notable, but not necessarily if there is adequate sourcing. I'd say the sources you have added do seem to have merit, but I guess my primary concern would be that it reads more like a study on the characters rather than on the name itself. I'm feeling fairly neutral towards deletion now, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 23:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AllTheUsernamesAreInUse , the thing is that esp. in medieval literature a name is often also a concept. In general, names denote a variety of things, and not every Gawain is the same Gawain . Nor is Mordred always King Arthur's son; sometimes he's his nephew. And particularly with side characters, especially women, they are sometimes also emblems, allegorical or other representations of certain values and ideas, and that's what we have here. That's why I included what you might call character studies: the concept of Blanchefleur (this is how I would write it up for publication) is generally that of a standard beautiful woman in romance--sometimes a "seductress", sometimes an emblem of purity. Readers of romance will sense that these two meanings are not unlike the two gardens we see in medieval literature--the garden of love and the garden of Eden (see Locus amoenus ). That's just how it works in this literature, which does things differently from how moderns do it. A name can also be an idea, and conflicting ideas can exist together in ways that we wouldn't think of. Drmies ( talk ) 00:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well you clearly know a lot more than me on this topic, so I'll take your word for it, but I'd also like to see you address the comment made by Piotrus above, as that is a better explication of my line of thought. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 02:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse , I don't know, but medieval literature, that's what I used to do for a living. I'm not going to respond to that because, and I'm a bit surprised that this comes from him, it's a loaded question. Plus I don't really have the time or the inclination to explain, at length, that there is a huge difference between the name/concept/idea "Blanchefleur" and the name "Piotr". It's indicative of a fetishization of names in the same way that people fetishize nationality--one draws up rules based on modern ideas and then applies them retroactively. A much more exciting read, more exciting than my rambling about names, is this classic about nations and nationhood. Drmies ( talk ) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article has substantive content and nearly a dozen references now. In addition, I've found dozens more lengthy descriptions and explications in books about medieval literature. Softlavender ( talk ) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC); edited Softlavender ( talk ) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there is plenty of content on the name and its related concept to justify the existence of an article, and sourcing is abundant. Lady of Shalott 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Drmies has already explained everything I thought I'd have to when I saw this AfD. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Chinna (art director): Copious tone and copyediting issues. jlwoodwa ( talk ) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . jlwoodwa ( talk ) 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . See this (Note, August 2): See comment below)(which raises a massive copyright violation issue but there was no need, I thought, to flag yet another issue ... a big cleanup would be necessary) or this . Various articles on this . Mostly, I've checked a few films in the considerable list of his alleged participations and they seem to be correct. (examples: [10] [11] . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 22 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! 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: the link number 1) above has for some reason turned "dead" on the TOI website- But it leads, if one clicks a few things, to the following text (copied verbatim by the article, as indicated): "Chinna is one of the leading art director in Indian cinema. His debut venture was ‘Kalisi Nadudham’ (Telugu). He started art direction together with his guru B Anand Sai (son of senior art director B Chellam). His started his career as Assistant Art Director for the Tamil movie ‘Roja Malare’ starring Murali. Next was ‘Santosham’ followed by ‘Enasare Asave’ and so on. Then Shifted to Hyderabad for ‘Tholiprema’. Again together with his guru Anand Sai, he did Telugu movies like ‘Tholiprema’, ‘Thamudu’, ‘Badri’, ‘Kushi’ and ‘Prematho ra’. In July 2017, his name was included in the list of 12 personalities of Telugu cinema, including actors, directors and producers, against whom the Telangana Prohibition and Excise Department had issued notices under relevant sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, asking them to appear before its special investigation team (SIT)." (The layout is currently terrible for some reason) [1] The TOI also provides a filmography , which, makes me think he meets the criterion#3 for Creative professionals for his various contributions to notable films ^ "Chinna" . The Times of India . ISSN 0971-8257 . Retrieved 2023-08-02 . My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Serkan Ramanlı: Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — He seems to be a parliamentarian which isn't mentioned in the article. [34] Semsûrî ( talk ) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Semsûrî Hmm, okay, but none of the offices I see here are NPOL passable. Unless there's something else you mean with "parliamentarian". Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By parliamentarian I mean he's a member of the national parliament since 2023 which I assume passes NPOL per: " Politicians and judges who have held international, national , or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office..." Semsûrî ( talk ) 12:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, well, now the article clearly says that as it was not before, and I couldn't a source that says that. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Law , and Turkey . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Based on clear WP:NPOL pass now. I will withdraw this. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Evildoers Beware!: Was about to BLAR it, but would be challenged. PROD would also be challenged too. No sources I can find online. Toadette Edit! 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 18:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Mustard Plug : Found a handful of zines, but nothing reliable. QuietHere ( talk \| contributions ) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reviews in [4] Ox Fanzine (German printed magazine), Visions (German printed magazine), Skin Up (German zine), [5] Sputnik Music (marked as staff review), Punknews.org , [6] Allmusic (short). And these are only the ones that have survived online for a 1997 album. Geschichte ( talk ) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources Geschichte found. -- Here2rewrite ( talk ) 16:48, 14 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! 21:30, 14 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
Jennifer Pan (professor): A Senior Fellow does not seem to be a qualifier. Zaathras ( talk ) 14:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Her book, Welfare for Autocrats , is certainly notable (per WP:NBOOK ), having been reviewed in multiple reliable sources. pburka ( talk ) 14:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Keep The article was submitted to AfC and was kicked back. Last night it was moved back to draft by LilianaUwU as it 1) is not ready for mainspace 2) the person who keeps moving it to mainspace has a history of moving articles from draft to mainspace and they get moved back again for various reasons 3) this article came from another users draft space 4) For one book they did five citations of which only two are reviews and 5) they introduced a lot of cs1 errors in the article that have to be fixed by hand. She doesn’t meet WP:NACADEMIC . While her book Welfare for Aristocrats does seem to have some weight behind it [1] and a few others. I do lot see them meeting any criteria of WP:AUTHOR . The citations listed next to the book in the article are mostly abstracts of the book and to purchase them / not acceptable as sources (I removed them and editor added them all back). Based on evidence submitted below by an administrator showing the citations and such (I do not understand the back door thing) but I have changed my statement to keep. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 15:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Jiang, Min (October 2022). "Book Review: Welfare for Autocrats: How Social Assistance in China Cares for its Rulers by Jennifer Pan" . The International Journal of Press/Politics . 27 (4): 971–974. doi : 10.1177/19401612221102056 . ISSN 1940-1612 . Retrieved 24 May 2023 . Keep . One well-reviewed and notable book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR notability by itself, but her high citation counts on Google Scholar [8] are easily enough for WP:PROF#C1 . The history of new-page-patroller violations of WP:DRAFTIFY in an attempt to backdoor-delete this is also not a reason for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with DE. Between the book and two >1000 citation papers she meets WP:NPROF . AfC is not mandatory and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP . pburka ( talk ) 16:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per David Eppstein and Pburka. -- Jayron 32 17:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein Thanks for fixing the ref I couldn’t remember what the coding was. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D ( talk ) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and I agree with David Eppstein and Pburka. CastJared ( talk ) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep — The subject of the article is a professional acquaintance (but not WP:COI ) and contacted me after someone emailed her about the ongoing AfD. I agree that the subject easily meets the WP:NPROF#C1 bar based on citations and impact. I asked Dr. Pan for a list of potential press publications discussing her and/or her work with the idea that that might be useful for ongoing efforts to improve the article. She sent me quite a few pieces in high quality reliable places. I copied all the links onto Talk:Jennifer Pan (professor) . — m a k o ๛ 19:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Union Stadium: The only search results on JSTOR are a university paper in Wisconsin and a local paper in Ohio, both of which are hardly reliable sources for a stadium in South Africa. For this reason, I feel the article does not meet general notability guidelines . WikipediaNMP ( talk ) 09:17, 26 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 26 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I had a hard time figuring out what this was supposed to be, but references show that it has significant historic importance but has fallen victim to the times. Some examples: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] . Geschichte ( talk ) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Geschichte's sources which show GNG. (Sources found by nom are probably for a stadium in the USA.) SportingFlyer T · C 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per all above. Svartner ( talk ) 04:27, 28 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
Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant: Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus ( talk ) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt . All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus ( talk ) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] “ I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally. ” — Ulysses S. Grant Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal , Military , Politics , United States of America , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/ WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA ( talk ) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [20] , we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH , if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett ( talk ) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 ( talk ) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case. The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II . It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers ( talk ) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus ( talk ) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothat darkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources. "Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach. The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett ( talk ) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothat darkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources . Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 ( talk ) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As an American equestrian , I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents , and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians . Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia .) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians . Obversa ( talk ) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As noted by User:Intothatdarkness , both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War , also ridden by Abraham Lincoln , was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates . Obversa ( talk ) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Obversa : So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF ? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus ( talk ) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility . I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa ( talk ) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 ( talk ) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated. .-- Gwillhickers ( talk ) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To everyone else . Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers ( talk ) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please read WP:INDENT . Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus ( talk ) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article. . -- Gwillhickers ( talk ) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not enough indents! Polygnotus ( talk ) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] giddyup ? Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington , another noted equestrian. Narky Blert ( talk ) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. "Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here. I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse )- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses. I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 ( talk ) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here . -- Gwillhickers ( talk ) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (having already !voted). This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments , a 2020 nomination which the community found to be ill-judged. Narky Blert ( talk ) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. -- Coemgenus ( talk ) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, Refocus, Rewrite : The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 ( talk ) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothat darkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 ( talk ) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothat darkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 ( talk ) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothat darkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Christian Credit Union: No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 ( talk ) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, North8000 . I think the Christian Credit Union in Edmonton probably meets notability; however this is not well demonstrated in the current stub. I think the bank will meet notability because of its strong cultural connection to Edmonton's Dutch community. It is where the vast majority of Edmonton's Dutch community has banked for almost 75 years and the bank has hosted and sponsored a range of cultural events in the city. I am happy to continue working on it in Mainspace, or someone can move it back to draftspace where I will attempt to demonstrate this. Tracklan2 ( talk ) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tracklan2 : Cool. From a Wikip[edia standpoint that requires finding and including an independent (of the credit union) source or 2 that covers them in depth. For example, a Dutch community source that does that. If you could do that in 1-2 weeks we could settle this right here as a "keep". Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I just expanded the article a bit and added a handful of citations Tracklan2 ( talk ) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - that's a lot of references over decades - including National - here's a better link for the National Post article, for Wikipedia editors. Nfitz ( talk ) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Am I allowed to vote keep even though I'm the one who wrote it? The Christian Courier articles from 2002 are independent of the bank and discuss its history and mission/vision in depth. I agree with Nfitz that the national coverage and ongoing coverage across decades and publications is significant. Tracklan2 ( talk ) 4:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, you are allowed. (although we don't call it a vote :-) ) North8000 ( talk ) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of the nominator on whether recent additions assuage their concerns. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep/withdraw Creator has made many source additions including a rock-solid-GNG source (which looks like it was hard to find). Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 13:41, 1 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
Nicholas Suman: Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – The player doesn't seem very famous outside of Australia, but he seems to have WP:SIGCOV in the country's sports media like the offline sources of The Press & Journal and Evening Express . Svartner ( talk ) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sufficient sources already present which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources indicate notability. Blethering Scot 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment All newly added sources either fail YOUNGATH or are routine transfer stories. Dougal18 ( talk ) 08:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to be an easy keep. The player doesn't need to be world famous to be notable. Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:03, 30 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
List of Reformed Theological Seminary people: Shellwood ( talk ) 10:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve : This list is lengthy enough that it would make the main article unwieldy, and it corresponds to Wikipedia treatment for similarly lengthy lists from other religious institutions of tertiary education. (See List of General Theological Seminary people , List of Virginia Theological Seminary people , List of Columbia Theological Seminary people , List of Fuller Theological Seminary people , List of Westminster Theological Seminary people , List of St. John's Seminary (California) people , List of New Brunswick Theological Seminary people . ) I'm willing to work on adding citations, but per WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE , let's keep and allow time for improvements (unless editorial consensus is also to delete/merge the other list pages cited above, but they have not been nominated). Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If the article gets more citations, I feel like it could be important enough to merit its own article. It could use a bit of polishing, but the article itself has its place here. ❤History Theorist❤ 06:01, 14 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! 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 22:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep List articles are (like categories) largely a means of navigation. As such they do not need references: the references will appear in the listed articles. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 18:18, 22 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
Michael Fell (artist): Some include trade publications, which is doubtful. There are a few obituaries, like source 6, but seems to be written by a family member sharing the last name (Mark Fell). TLA (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , Visual arts , France , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also evidence of notability in the fact his work is in the British Council collection: source 5. 86.16.5.172 ( talk ) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article cites at source 2 an obituary from Jackdaw (a specialist art magazine) by Andrew Wilton. Whilst the article is not accessible online, Wilton is a noted authority on British art and was the Keeper of the British Collection at the Tate : https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/wilton-james-andrew-rutley-1942 86.16.5.172 ( talk ) 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Evidence of notability includes a British Museum artist biography and the fact that his work is in their collection. Source 3. 144.82.8.103 ( talk ) 12:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article also cites by ISBN a book on the work by an art publisher, Unicorn Press. 86.16.5.172 ( talk ) 23:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . There's more coverage (in French) at [23] and [24] . He also has four prints in the collection of the British Museum [25] . That alone goes a long way towards WP:ARTIST . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ARTIST after the addition of the Ashmoleon gives him works in the collections of more than one major museum. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 00:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per David Eppstein plus "Fell’s work is the subject of a forthcoming book, The Art of Michael Fell . Unicorn Press. 2023" (EDIT: plus the addition of new reliable sources after I wrote this) Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: the sources now mentioned seem quite promising. I don't know French, so I can't fully verify it. Would love to see a bit more input before I withdraw. TLA (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added references to: (a) biog on website of Royal Society of Painter Printmakers (source 1); (b) work held at Ashmoleon Museum, Oxford (source 7); (c) French press coverage of exhibitions in Gascony (sources 14, 15 and 16). Hope that is helpful. Thanks. Darkusfell ( talk ) 14:27, 18 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
Gether: The topic is rather obscure (the subject "appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible, and both times is only mentioned in passing in genealogical lists") and cited sources are just SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing on some genealogical lists. My BEFORE failed to find anything better. I hope participants in the discussion here can find better sources or suggest a place to merge and redirect it in the spirit of ATD (final clarification: I am AfDing it partially in an attempt to save this from deletion on pl wiki, where it was nominated, and where no good keep arguments are presented - but to be clear, right now, as I said, I am afraid this is not meeting en wiki GNG guideline, either). Can we rescue this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 04:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bible . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 04:09, 3 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! 04:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the fact that the Polish wikipedia is having a discussion about this subject need not influence us. And if I'm understanding correctly, we're considering deleting this because its nominator would rather it weren't deleted at the Polish wp, which seems a strange situation. I have no strong views either way, but would be inclined to keep the article unless anyone really objects. The Hebrew bible is undoubtedly one of the most influential books ever written, with a couple of thousand years of proven enduring interest; I'd rather have stubs saying what little is to be said about its minor characters than fill WP with fancruft on minor characters in TV shows and computer games (yup, other-stuff-exists argument!). I don't know where we could redirect to. Elemimele ( talk ) 05:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Christianity . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional fun fact from pl.wikipedia: "According to Arab tradition, he is the father of Thamuda, who according to the Koran is Salij's brother." de.wikipedia has the citation but lost the sentence: Samir Mourad: Islamische Geschichte – Eine analytische Einführung. Deutscher Informationsdienst über den Islam (DIdI) e. V., 2007, S. 89. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - we traditional keep articles about minor Biblical figures but a genealogy-only entry by itself is really pushing it. What makes this article keepable is the subsequent Jewish, Christian and Islamic commentary - they put sufficient meat on the bones to justify an article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 06:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The entry in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature ( on p. 841 ) speculates about various etymologies, and the author cites the views of four other scholars so there's clearly been secondary analysis of the name. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 10:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the scolarly coverage identified above, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. The references sure add up! Also procedural keep per WP:POINT . I am taking the liberty to express both opinions alongside as their results are the same, while drawing attention to the fact that I hold both positions! gidonb ( talk ) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
GoGoGo Airheart: The article only relias on primary sources. The only argument for notability is that their albums were published by a notable indie label. In my opinion not enough to meet notability criteria. Broc ( talk ) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Broc ( talk ) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but did find an AllMusic staff written bio here together with album reviews here , here , here , and here , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Atlantic306 : one single review still does not make the subject notable, as it is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Unless we find additional sources, I think the page should still be deleted. -- Broc ( talk ) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are four album reviews at AllMusic but I agree more is needed, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 13:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep moving to full keep in view of these additional sources: Pitcfork here and here , San Diego Reader here , Exclaim here and here , PopMatters here , and here and Denver Post [ here to go with the four AllMusic sources. The music specific sources are listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources . Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for finding this sources! I would agree that it is sufficient coverage to fulfill WP:GNG . Would you like to move the sources over to the article, so that the effort was not in vain? Broc ( talk ) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wow a band with 6 LPs under their belt ( https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/gogogo_airheart ) isn't 'notable' enough for Wikipedia. This dude ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hulewicz ) produced less (and considerably worse) music, but no one's taking him down. 2A00:79E0:11:370:692B:E9CD:2888:94E3 ( talk ) 11:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let alone WP:OTHERSTUFF , Hulewicz recorded over a dozen albums between 1969 and 2013, a way longer and more productive career than that obscure and short-lived punk band. He was a Meritorious Activist of Culture , an Order of Polonia Restituta Knight's Cross and a Gloria Artis Medal recipient. He is featured in books about the history of Polish music. If your argument was intended to help the band, it is not. C avarrone 09:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes WP:GNG , per the sources identified by Atlantic306 . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:07, 4 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
Voting house: - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America , Kentucky , and Virginia . UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station . Reywas92 Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram ( talk ) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer T · C 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to patrollers/closer : see User talk:Rechtman#Nomination of Voting house for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Voting House for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks ( talk ) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found at least one article on the concept: [1] along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer T · C 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per User:SportingFlyer , but without User:Rechtman 's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation): "Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY" . The Living New Deal . "Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold" . The Daily Independent . June 15, 2015. "Brushy Voting House #6" . Clio . and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name. Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [2] ). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title ( Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky) ?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks ( talk ) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed. "Rowan County, Kentucky WPA Stone Voting Houses" . National Park Service . Retrieved 2024-02-04 . Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name " vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks ( talk ) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) LegalSmeagolian ( talk ) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Merge with the polling place article Fine, Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon. The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it. James.folsom ( talk ) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ James.folsom : does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks ( talk ) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DMacks : Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T · C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you ! voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks ( talk ) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page. James.folsom ( talk ) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle ( talk ) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] the statement of significance being that "The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies." (the other statemesnts just change the name of the place) To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [13] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [14] [15] [16] ) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [17] . A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB . Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod ( talk ) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink ( talk ) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Bearian ( talk ) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per @ Bearian Mr Vili talk 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper ( talk ) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Francisco de Marco: MirrorPlanet 🪞 🪐 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil . MirrorPlanet 🪞 🪐 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable serial killer. Easily meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. Disturbing subject, but the deletion rationale is incorrect based on the article as it currently stands, note especially that this article is a biography, and LASTING and INDEPTH are part of WP:EVENT . Additionally, GNG is met with sources in the article. — siro χ o 08:04, 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
Chinese lunar coins: I can't see a good WP:ATD . Boleyn ( talk ) 18:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 19:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The notability is there (random assortment of first stuff I saw, there's likely better sourcing out there): "面值"一元"卖百元？当心，这类龙年纪念钞买不得-新华网" . www.news.cn . Retrieved 2024-03-04 . 郁祥桢 (1995). 钱币丛谈 (in Chinese). 上海古籍出版社. ISBN 978-7-5325-1852-4 . "【纪念币面面观】纪念币上的中国龙_中国银行保险报网" . www.cbimc.cn . Retrieved 2024-03-04 . Only problem is that the entire article is unsourced... (which is why this is not a "keep") Jumpytoo Talk 05:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article just needs to be cleaned up (adding sources). Abstrakt ( talk ) 02:29, 14 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! 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Are the sources added to the article sufficient? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . Interesting topic, but trying to rescue this by adding one footnote to a cite of dubious reliablity where we have two paragraphs of text that look like advertising ( [1] ) is hardly useful. This seems like an interesting and plausibly notable topic, but the current exceution is terrible, and there is even no interwiki to Chinese article to judge if this is better covered there. The article is also linked from the body of only one article (unreferenced) and as a see also. Sigh. Ping me if better sources are found - right now it is hard to be sure the topic is notable, and certainly WP:OR is a major issue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 03:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because the sources listed by Jumpytoo and added by LeapTorchGear to the article show that Chinese lunar coins meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion , this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required : Wikipedia is a work in progress . Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles . Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard ( talk ) 12:49, 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
Gail Eskes: Shellwood ( talk ) 20:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I had to go back through the article's history - apparently, she studies(d?) brain function after a stroke, specifically in relation to fatigue: Feb 1999 , Nov 2003 , June 2015 ; and cognitive motor function: Dec 2013 . There also seems to be a lot of work on general cognitive function and with children: 1990 , July 2005 , 2009 , 2010 , July 2012 , Apr 2015 (There are a lot more - 10 pages minimum on Google Scholar .) When I searched her under "news" in Google, I got this paper she was an author on. I got two returns on Internet Archive , both articles she co-authored. There was a lot of material removed from the article as unsourced, but it was inline sourced like an essay (author, year; no title, no URL). It looks like it was all WP:OR . She's an expert in her field for certain, and I did find some articles about her research implementation ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ; scanned, didn't do a thorough read through), but that's it. Everything else that returned is all her own material. I'm not finding much on just her. If the article were rewritten to focus on her research, would that be sufficient to keep it? (Would it be BLP then? Would it move to another type of article?) OIM20 ( talk ) 21:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I'm seeing several articles with hundreds of citations on Google Scholar, including some with the subject as first/last author, in what I believe to be a medium citation field. I think it is a marginal pass of WP:NPROF . Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to citation record meeting WP:NACADEMIC -C1. There is also some media coverage of her research , but it's mainly the citations. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 11:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Biomedicine is one home of big author, big citation papers, but with H41, I think this person pass NPROF. 128.252.154.1 ( talk ) 17:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:Prof . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep - Thousands of citations on a few dozen of papers likely passes WP:NPROF . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:PROF#C1 . Strong citation record even for a high-citation field. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with 19 papers that have 100+ citations this should be a clear keep and a testament to an impactful career. -- hroest 18:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:PROF . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Alan Hirsch: Current sourcing includes a lot of primary sources and not enough to meet WP:BIO . Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar ( talk ) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Sweet spot (sports): Drowssap SMM 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . Drowssap SMM 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions . Let'srun ( talk ) 23:06, 25 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! 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – this is a well-defined and widely-covered concept in both baseball and cricket, with extensive sourcing to prove it . Left guide ( talk ) 06:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP , the references shared above, and the depth of the concept in general. I am surprised the article has zero references. It really needs to be filled out. - BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 06:11, 2 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! 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy, and 15 years is long enough. The Heymann criterion should be to add two reliable sources within the next seven days after this second relist. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 05:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - per WP:NOTDICT . Already covered at Glossary of baseball terms#S and could readily be added to similar articles for other sports. Nigej ( talk ) 10:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Let'srun ( talk ) 16:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Seems more in place in a dictionary. AA ( talk ) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It seems rather interesting and odd that none of the delete ! voters above have addressed (or even mentioned) the sourcing provided in this discussion long before they arrived, so I don't see how they could carry much, if any, weight. They look like drive-by editors casting personal opinions who didn't bother to read this discussion, review the sources, or consider important matters like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN . Meanwhile, in addition to the sources previously presented, I also found these two books which offer extensive in-depth secondary analysis of the sweet spot concept, further strengthening the case to keep the article. Left guide ( talk ) 02:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:GNG with the multiple sources of significant coverage (for multiple sports even) identified by user Left guide above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP (but adding sources to the article can only mitigate false impressions). — Bagumba ( talk ) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. What do those editors arguing Delete think about the sources brought up in this discussion? Could any of those advocating Keep add them to the article? If this subject is mentioned elsewhere, then why isn't anyone arguing for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD? This is a juggling act. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The above sourcing covers just baseball and cricket. For tennis, there's this article from a university engineering department magazine which offers a rather large section dedicated to the sweet spot concept; at the very bottom it also cites as one of its references H. Brody, ”The Physics of Tennis II: The ‘sweet spot’. ” American Journal of Physics , vol. 49, pp. 816, 1981. , which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal offering dedicated coverage of this concept. Then there's this book published by a university press; chaper 2 is titled The Sweet Spots of a Tennis Racket and spans 16 pages (23-38). Left guide ( talk ) 05:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sourcing is adequate. This is more than dictionary definition and I see lots of room for expansion. BusterD ( talk ) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : We've been given lots of sources about the baseball sweet spot, the cricket sweet spot, the tennis sweet spot, etc. What we're lacking are sources about the sweet spot in sports generally. Are there good sources discussing the concept as it applies to all sports. So while the concept relates to many sports, I'm still not convinced that we need an article on it. As I noted above the concept can be covered for specific sports, either within an existing article or even as separate article if there's enough content to justify it. Nigej ( talk ) 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could be a WP:BROADCONCEPT page: Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, even though there is an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics. — Bagumba ( talk ) 11:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You raise some very good points to consider. I'd argue there's enough sourcing to justify separate articles on the sweet spots for baseball, cricket, and tennis if a split is a palpable resolution. However, there is also plenty of generalized interconnected coverage of this concept across all sports, tying them together; some examples: On page 719 of this book , it says: If we compare baseball and tennis with cricket, baseball bats are made up of solid wood or hollow aluminum barrels and tennis rackets are made up of composites. All the batsmen know that there is a special spot on a cricket bat where the shots feel very smooth. It sometimes feels so good that there is almost no sensation at all that the bat hit the ball. It is the same with a tennis racquet or a baseball bat. These areas have been given various names such as sweet zone, sweet spot, etc. A sweet spot is a position that is identified by the batsmen at the best location of the bat with which the ball comes in contact and gives the maximum exit velocity. There's also page 202 of this book which demonstrates and explains a mathematical physics equation needed to find the sweet spot; included in its commentary is This is the ideal point at which to hit a ball with a bat (sometimes called a 'sweet spot' in sporting applications — cricket, tennis, baseball, etc.) Then page 365 of this book is unfortunately sandwiched between two pages not visible to me on preview mode, but from that page alone it says Considerable work has been done on the physical interpretation of the 'sweet spot' and its location on the cricket bat using the research on baseball bats as the basis. It is possible to establish such correlations as the mechanics of swinging the bat is similar for both games. The length and weight of the cricket bat and baseball bat are also similar…Based primarily on extensive research on tennis racquets and baseball bats, today it is widely accepted that there are other impact locations on the bat that are capable of producing the greatest post impact ball velocity. That page alone also cites about ten other sources inline which can be referred to. In this book , Chapter 4.5 titled "Angular impulse and the centre of percussion" begins with Have you ever wondered why a cricket bat, a baseball bat or a tennis racquet has a sweet spot? This is the point on the bat where the ball seems to be hit most cleanly, without producing much vibration in the handle followed by a demonstration and explanation of the mathematical physics equations required to calculate the position of the sweet spot. These sources show a great deal of analysis on the sweet spot concept in a manner that cohesively ties all the sports together. These are mere snippets (as in there is a lot more about sweet spots than just what is quoted) so as not to needlessly overwhelm this discussion, but please read and go the sources to see the full depth and breadth of coverage for yourself if you still have any doubts or questions. Left guide ( talk ) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article has been improved dramatically since its nomination and Left guide's research clearly shows there is extensive sourcing on the concept which can be used to improve the article further. Hatman31 ( talk ) 19:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good sourcing and I can see future improvements in place. Can't see this being merged to something. 🍪 Cookie Monster 04:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Jupither: No WP:SIGCOV in reliable and independent sources. Sources cited in article are (1) primarily about the lead singer, incidentally referencing the subject; (2) AllMusic which is of disputed reliability (and in any event is a single paragraph); and (3) a primary source. WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else to support notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I've found significant coverage in three different newspapers [15] , "EU-sponsrad turné för nytt Skellefteå-band" in Östersunds-Posten 2000-12-05 and "Det är ju Jupither! Snart känner ni igen popkometerna" in Nerikes Allehanda 1999-11-24. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBAND . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 18:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage in any language is sufficient, and though I do not speak Swedish, I assume good faith on the part of the above searcher that the references cited qualify. Chubbles ( talk ) 05:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot read the article at the link but I will also WP:AGF , withdraw my nomination and change my ! vote to keep . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 22:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Early life and work of Clint Eastwood: Specialist information such as this can be read in an autobiography if the reader wishes to know. There have been two previous AFDs but I believe content forks such as this are now very much out of favour and a new AFD is required. I don't have any prejudice against merge and delete. Desertarun ( talk ) 09:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I think you should have a prejudice against merge and delete because that would remove attribution from the merged material. Thincat ( talk ) 10:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Noted, struck. Desertarun ( talk ) 10:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clint Eastwood has over 10,000 words of readable prose, which is above the suggested amount for considerung splitting at WP:Article size . Given agreement at its talk page, the main article should be reduced in size before merging this stuff in. Thincat ( talk ) 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete this sort of article is just overdetailed fancruft. Gugrak ( talk ) 16:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We have early life articles on some very notable people, Clint Eastwood I would consider notable enough. This has a few thousand views a month. It could be condensed in places to reduce the cruft concern but I think we're better off as a resource having more detail than the main article on his background, and there are plenty of sources which document it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Clint Eastwood article is 72686 characters. This article is 25037 characters. This is just necessary and appropriate splitting. I do not think the nominator has made any claim about this not being a notable topic. I also do not think "content forks such as this are now very much out of favour". Lightburst ( talk ) 19:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I would say we don't need an "early life" article for Clint Eastwood nor most subjects, but I would say that when the article gets to a certain size, splitting it is a useful navigational aid as discussed in Wikipedia:Splitting . I don't see any evidence that splitting has drastically changed from an accepted outcome at the second nomination in 2019, but is "now very much out of favour" either. Jacona ( talk ) 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
The Marigold: This is written principally in-universe, without showing much evidence of real-world significance -- the attempted notability claim is that it was a "Canadian independent bestseller", but that's sourced only to an informal list personally compiled by a writer for a single minor literary magazine, which undermines its own reliability with an "I acknowledge that this list is not at all perfect. It is only a small sampling of the data out there" warning, and thus isn't a notability-making bestseller list. The only other source cited here is a single book review, which is fine but not enough all by itself -- even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Additionally, it warrants note that the author doesn't have a WP:BLP at all -- and while that isn't a speedy deletion criterion for books in the same way that it is for musical albums whose artists don't have articles, it does still raise the question of how the book can be notable enough to warrant an article if its author isn't. There just isn't anything here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this novel from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: it's really hard to assess books because the publishing industry contains as many publicists as it does publishers. No book is released in print without, behind the scenes, the publishers going to a lot of trouble to arrange interviews with anyone likely to publicise the author, wangle reviews wherever they can, and do everything possible to raise the book's profile. It's really hard to sift through the large quantity of Google hits on this book and work out which are truly independent, which not. In a way, I'm sceptical about articles on books, and feel that they are only warranted if a book has sustained coverage. We will probably only know whether a book is truly notable a couple of years after it appears. And it seems odd that we consider deleting The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse which is still on sale (in multiple formats including audio books) more than 100 years after it was written, because a Google search can't find reviews (ummm... there wasn't an internet when it would have been reviewed...) while possibly keeping this one, because it has got reviews, having been born in the publicity/internet age. I almost feel we should have a near-moratorium on books (and films!) that have just been released, but getting a Wikipedia article is now a standard part of the publicity expected by the industry. Elemimele ( talk ) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - changed per Oaktree b , and added the citations to the article, albeit in bulk form. Still needs cleanup, but not deletion. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's had coverage in the Globe and Mail [5] , then in the CBC [6] and here (but I think it's the same review as the first one, reworded and reprinted [7] . Here's one more from CBC [8] and the Toronto Star [9] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per forementioned reasons above. Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983: seems fan made, no real substance, not really a WP:N thing. New3400 ( talk ) 01:37, 8 August 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 August 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Events , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:30, 8 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! 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing found in Gnews or Gnewspapers. There might perhaps be coverage in British newspapers at the time, my Gnewspapers seems to be limited to American/Canadian sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Well, it happened [38] but those are photos of the event from a newspaper. This has a little info [39] , one of the seven notable events at the area [40] , [41] coverage from the football club about the event. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And this [42] Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT . There's coverage across 4 decades. Book published by Hachette from a couple years ago [43] with several pages of sigcov. Birmingham Mail had coverage ~30 years after [44] , Birmingham Post had a small amount of coverage 22 years after [45] . — siro χ o 02:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:GNG WP:EVENT . Re "article detailing a concert that happened in villa park" well, yeah, that's what it's meant to do. I've never really understood the argument "fan made" - if you have no interest in a subject matter, why bother creating an article? — Maile ( talk ) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Mary and Robbs Westwood Cafe: MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 01:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : while the dailybruin article includes an interview in-part; most of the article documents the cafe and amounts to SIGCOV. There is no indication that dailybruin is not a reliable source. The fact that a source is local is not an issue. Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This cafe set some kind of longevity record by operating in the UCLA neighborhood for 83 years. The KCET source is a pubic broadcasting TV channel in Southern California, and gives an informative write-up about how the cafe has evolved from the 1950s era one-counter soda shop in a drug store, to a full restaurant today. — Maile ( talk ) 03:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Food and drink , and California . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. There is no requirement that I am aware of in WP:RS for non-local. Lightburst ( talk ) 20:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not the most delightful to read article about a diner-type restaurant ever (it could use some TLC drawing on sources already included), but sourced and notable topic. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Public interest technology: MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I can tell, and I am currently researfching PIT, writing a book on it and looking at it from the POV of the SciPol Wikiedia project, there are a couple of books on it, an NGO network and a university network supoorting it, with lots of webpages covering it, and that's it, as it only started in 2020. What does not help is that the public Interest main article is crappy. My gut instinct based on that is to add a decent summary of PIT to the public interest main article and then delete the PIT article. Still, I'd like to think about it for a while. Johncdraper ( talk ) 08:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This seems to allude to the fact that the public interest main article needs work and expansion, not that this article shoulde be deleted. There are several topics not covered on public interest other than the technology aspect. As for the field being new, the growing work around it, specifically in the academic work, might be reason enough for it to continue growing on its own. Darrowlykos ( talk ) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning to keep - Variety of sources in the article are reliable and dedicated to the subject - so this is definitely a thing . As an umbrella article public Interest has a short summary and links here - which should be perfectly fine. Also - Johncdraper has done some cleanup since the nom. Resonant Dis tor tion 20:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC Keep per WP:RS and WP:GNG albeit the article seems to need an overhaul. For example, Bruce Schneier is not even mentioned or in the refs, he does a lot in this area using this term, e.g. see here . I don't think the article is promotional but haven't checked it thoroughly. It probably needs expansion as well as some restructuring, e.g. structuring by field of technology (e.g. Software, etc). Note that many sources use this terminology, however many about relevant topics use phrasing like public interest alternatives for important AI tools 1 despite also being related. It would be good to transclude a brief summary with a wikilink to the article at Public Interest but merging this article to there would be too detailed. Prototyperspective ( talk ) 09:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep