Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Ultrakill: While it has received some coverage from reliable sources, none have offered any critical commentary outside of a listicle. To my knowledge, the only site that has done that so far is Kotaku . Not even RPS gave any critical commentary. Maybe when the game is out of early access it'll get proper reviews and worthy of a standalone page, but for now I think WP:TOOSOON applies. λ Negative MP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . λ Negative MP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] as i said in the talk page, there were the 3 minimum sources... but one of them was about the sex update, which got removed twice for being about the sex update (funniest shit i've ever seen). if it can be reinstated and stay there, i think it can just barely stay cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The game is already very popular and well known in the retro shooter community, there are tons of Youtube videos about it that could be used as sources, the game already has sold over a million copies according to several tracker sites and it's to be expected that it will remain this popular throughout its early access period and its eventual release. Games nowadays can often remain in Early Access for a long time while actually already being well known and received. I'm not sure how exactly the sources are counted for notability, but I don't think they have to be reviewing the game just to prove that it's notable? It might not be enough to prove certain things about the game, but isnt the mere existence of several articles about it enough to prove that it's notable? Tajoshu ( talk ) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] per wp:rspyt , user-generated content, like youtube reviews where some guy talks about how ultrakill is like getting your blood replaced with adrenaline via the urethra or something, are considered unreliable. if it's a video from a source already considered reliable (like ign or something), it inherits its reliability. as is, though, not enough of those exist yet that aside, my comment still stands that it at best only barely meets the minimum requirements if the statement on the sex update gets to rematerialize into the article cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The game already passes GNG even in its Early Access state, with previews in three reliable sources . I also found an additional piece of SIGCOV from a different PC Gamer author. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i added the sources :) idk i hope it's enough -twixbat ( talk ) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't know if they're reliable enough but i added some more sources and reviews in the reception section! how many more does it need? (i added 2 more) -twixbat ( talk ) 00:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] also i found some more im gonna add later but i have to go to school now so :( it will have to wait twix ✦ talk to me! 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] incidentally, should something be done about sources 4-22 all being ingame text? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] support , in addition to the dearth of reliable sources the article is written more like a fan guide than an objective overview Ivannilych ( talk ) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to clarify what your "support" means, you are in favor of deleting or keeping the article? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems like they are in favor of deletion. But I should remind the user that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup ( WP:NOTCLEANUP ), nor is a lack of sources in the article grounds for deletion when sources exist that are unused in the article. ( WP:NEXIST ). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tentative keep - Although the current article version is incredibly bloated by overly detailed gameplay, plot, a dozens of citations to game text ( WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ), the subject does seem to meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion ( WP:GNG ) based on sigcov in RS'es. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] that third part was dealt with while you were typing this (probably), taking the other two back to the talk page, because it turns out i completely forgot to send a message ages ago cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it's weak, but it seems to meet notability thresholds per other users' observations. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Ultrakill is one of the most well known "boomer shooters" if not the most, and deleting this page is definitively a double-edged sword. On one hand this page is a useful reference for a quick overview of the game. But other the other hand, it contains numerous claims that are wrong or aren't fit for the game's Wikipedia page (that despite repeated edits to correct these issues, are bringed back for some reason). But I believe it would be best for it to be deleted or deactivated for the time being. There are already wikis dedicated specifically for the game and are actively maintained and updated with detailed information that better represent the current game. The lack of sources is obvious and there currently isn't really any solution, I've thought of possibly backing up information with the help of citations from the developer commentary streams (one of which that has released just last week, offering up-to-date information about many things). But the main issue is obviously more about the lack of any review on the game, and the few that exist date back to when the game's team was first merged with New Blood and that the game entered early access. These aren't as relevant anymore with how much the game has changed and expanded. Once the game reaches its full release and that a multitude of reviews start popping up again with information and critics that better reflect the game as it has become, then I believe it would be relevant again to have a new page for Ultrakill appearing here. I do want to point out that I'm not a common user of Wikipedia at all, this is just my conclusion as someone who often plays this game and is active in its community, I tried my best to inform myself on the deletion procedures but I might not have grasped some things correctly. I still stand by my opinion that this page doesn't currently need to exist considering its content. - FrizouWasThere ( talk ) 03:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD is not cleanup . Its "content" is irrelevant and articles are a work in progress. What matters is whether there are sources to prove its notability, and there are numerous previews of the game. As long as the page is not a complete loss - and it's not - it can be fixed. It obviously still needs cleanup, but again, that's not relevant to a deletion discussion at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rewrite Out of an abundance of caution, I should disclose that I am the an administrator of the ULTRAKILL Miraheze Wiki, which is a potential conflict of interest. I agree with zxcvbnm's judgement that ULTRAKILL passes the GNG guidelines and is fairly iconic nowadays even in its early access state, with a significant cultural influence in many spaces. In addition, it has likely sold upwards of a million copies and is very highly rated, which I believe makes it more noteworthy as well. However, the article requires a rewrite at the very least. As I've previously mentioned concerning this article, Wikipedia is not a game guide and none of the information is essential for anyone interested in a general overview of what ULTRAKILL is ­— and, quite frankly, the article does not do a very good job of representing ULTRAKILL as a game either despite its gratuitous detail, largely missing its heavy stylish action influences and claiming that its movement mechanics resemble Quake and Doom , which they simply don't. The Wikipedia article should only be concerned with a general overview of the game, instead of listing every weapon included in the game, going into detail about bonus content, hard damage, or including a whole paragraph about a mod that one of the developers made for the game. I think ULTRAKILL is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the article's current iteration is of rather low quality. Corviraptor ( talk ) 04:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rewrite I concur with the above that the game has reach fair notability among reputable sources, and it is likely to grow further as the game approaches its full release. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite sections of the article to better fit Wikipedia's style and scope. Feedback and edits are appreciated. PencilVoid ( talk ) 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article now cites five independent sources (there were only two when I tagged it last month), four positive reviews and one report. The latter is the only one that makes an independent claim of popularity ("has been met by a new wave of positive user reviews for the already popular shooter"). Are positive reviews enough to establish notability? NebY ( talk ) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether a review's positive or negative doesn't actually matter? There have been games with completely negative reviews that are notable, see Ride to Hell: Retribution . All that matters is that reliable sources saw fit to mention the game in a significant way. So far, Kotaku, TheGamer, PC Gamer have all done so, in the case of PC Gamer, several times. This means it just scooches past notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep It does just seem to edge over the line for notability, PC Gamer is reliable, the articles from Kotaku is from when it was reliable and TheGamer just before. Shaws username . talk . 11:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The rewrite seems to have fixed most of the issues with the article's quality, and ULTRAKILL appears to pass GNG anyway. 🔥HOT m̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃ 🔥 ( talk ・ edits ) 14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has enough sources to pass GNG StreetcarEnjoyer ( talk ) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rewrite I agree with Corviraptor vghfr , harbinger of chaos 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nitin Dubey (singer): Almost identical to content previously deleted and salted at Nitin Dubey * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , and Chhattisgarh . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because many good reliable sources exists, such as 1 , 2 , 3 . 4 and 5 . BTW, there were several dead links, which I replaced with archive.org version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandSimon ( talk • contribs ) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BTW, previous page was deleted in 2012, so it cant be identical after 12 years. There is so much more news since then. He has played over 2500 shows in India. He is most popular representative of Chhattisgarhi folk singing style from chhattisgarh india, so meets Criteria #7 from WP:MUSICBIO . Also meets criteria #5, has released albums on 3 prominent Indian labels Ultra media & entertainment , Shemaroo Entertainment , and Saregama . RolandSimon ( talk ) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I read the English language sources and they satisfy GNG. I've no reason to believe the non-English wouldn't check out making this person highly notable. The proper name page needs unsalting, the original salt took place 12 years ago and the world moves on. Desertarun ( talk ) 19:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : and Move to Nitin Dubey (due to unnecessary disambiguator). - Meets GNG with a bunch of secondary sources that are independent, reliable, and provide SIGCOV. In relation previous article that was deleted in 2012, all of the sources have been published since then. GMH Melbourne ( talk ) 02:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Samira Winter: I can't find any in-depth coverage about her, and most of the citations in the article and on the internet are about her band . Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil . Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the LA Weekly piece is significant coverage here as is the Vice piece here , and this AllMusic bio of her band here . There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Every one of the sources I can find, including the LA Weekly article, discusses the singer within the context of the band. Even within her own article here on WP, the albums are from the BAND "Winter," not the PERSON "Winter." If we had an article on the band, I could easily be persuaded to merge and redirect, but I don't think this singer has enough notability on her own to have a standalone article. Joyous! Noise! 18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Winter (indie rock band) (or similar, since there's also an American death-metal band named "Winter"). The coverage seems focussed on the band rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with the proposed move, which will require a re-write. If that happens I'll do the rewrite if no one else volunteers, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Winter (indie rock band) or something similar, and rewrite accordingly. Note that the band also has two album articles here: Supreme Blue Dream and Ethereality . I am not so sure about notability for those albums, but they have some basic media mentions indicating that this project is a band called Winter that is headed by Samira W. The band has some additional reliable sources found by Atlantic306 above, so there can be a basic article on them as a band. Samira W. does not qualify for one based only on herself. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Božo Broketa: BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Failed V, 404 :: 1.  "Božo Broketa".  Croatian Olympic Committee. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 14 September 2017. Database style page :: 2. ^ Profile - AFC-Ajax.info Failed V, no info on subject :: 3. ^ Grad Dubrovnik povećao davanja sportu za osam posto Database style page :: 4. ^ "Player Database".  EU-football. Retrieved 25 June 2022. Database style page :: 5. ^ "Božo Broketa".  Olympedia. Retrieved 13 October 2021. Fails SIGCOV, brief mention, stats, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: "Božo Broketa", Football Lexicon , Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute.  Zagreb, 2004. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A quick google search finds e.g. https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/tag/bozo-broketa where Slobodna Dalmacija documented fans commemorating the 100 years of his birth and provided a biography. That's a clear potential for WP:SIGCOV . Did your WP:BEFORE investigation just ignore all non-English sources? -- Joy ( talk ) 07:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , Croatia , and Yugoslavia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - These deletion nominations of clear topics of interest are getting ridiculous, especially from this user ( User:TimothyBlue ), - yet another deletion nomination from a user whose most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever ). What makes these nominations more ridiculous is that I easily found [91] , [92] , [93] , and [94] , and these are just the sources published recently about a 1950s player (which shows his significance in Yugoslavia) not to mention the many offline sources and the fact that he has a football school named after him . Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 10:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I feel he passes WP:GNG with these WP:THREE sources [95] [96] [97] Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets GNG per above sources. I don't understand why you're going after the historic players who were actually among the best players of their time, rather than the one-sentence zero/one-source stubs on modern players who had little impact. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 13:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This nomination is a waste of editor time; article satisfies WP:GNG particularly through the in-depth piece from Slobodna Dalmacija as well as the dulist.hr piece. I'm also confused by the nominator's evaluation of Miroslav Krleža's Nogometni Leksikon entry; it is not just a brief mention in a statistics database but rather a paragraph summarizing his career which helps count towards SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk ) 18:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG, and horrible BEFORE by nominator. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 17:58, 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

Save Max Sports Centre: As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Football . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – Per nom. Svartner ( talk ) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete This fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. The article is not even written in encyclopedic way. It is written as notes- Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 21:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GiantSnowman ( talk · contribs ), I have provided sources below. Cunard ( talk ) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Cunard ( talk ) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Jen, Leslie (2007-11-01). "Bend It Like Brampton" . Canadian Architect . Vol.  52, no. 11. pp. 22–26. ProQuest 213347214 . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . According to the About page , "Canadian Architect is the journal of record of two national professional associations: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society and is the official magazine of each association – carrying both the RAIC Journal and the AIA Canada Journal within the pages of Canadian Architect magazine." Leslie Jen is the former associate editor for Canadian Architect . The review notes: "A predominantly white and silver colour palette is offset by the judicious employment of vibrant saturated colours in a plethora of applications, colours specifically chosen to communicate the active and energetic colours associated with athletics and athletic attire. To that end, horizontal bands of coloured glass are used sparingly on the curtain walls to animate the faades and to create jewel-toned splashes of light on the interior. High-contrast black and white tiles define the floor surfaces, a clever reference to the colours–or lack thereof–found in soccer balls and referee jerseys." Craig, Sheri (June–July 2008). "Putting the community into the centre" . Building . Vol.  58, no. 3. pp. 20–23. ProQuest 229980346 . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The article notes: "One example of the imaginative use of materials is Brampton, Ont.'s $26.5-million Soccer Centre, completed in May, 2007. The 152,000-sq.-ft. building includes four indoor soccer fields, bleachers, change facilities, a community wing and main lobby. It was designed to be easily converted to hockey and other indoor sports and is sized and scaled to operate with four independent programs running at the same time, including trade show events and other community activities." Brampton Guardian articles: "Soccer at the centre of new state-of-the-art recreation facility" . Brampton Guardian . 2007-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The article notes: "The new Brampton Soccer Centre offers more than just soccer but make no mistake-- soccer will be at the centre of it all. ... The new facility, at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway East, at the intersection of Sandalwood and Dixie Rd., will be a year-round home for local soccer groups. Four indoor field houses are expected to get plenty of use. Each field measures 85 by 200 with seating for about 350 spectators." Frisque, Graeme (2018-06-30). "What's Going on Here? Renovations underway to transform Brampton Soccer Centre into multi-sport facility" . Brampton Guardian . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre was opened in 2007. The more than 120,000 square-metre property features four turfed field houses in a 14,200 square-metre indoor facility. The centre also currently features exterior fields and amenities including a splash pad. The city is looking to expand on the current soccer, dance and youth programming currently available at the site." Frisque, Graeme (2020-10-31). "Brampton Soccer Centre getting new name and sponsor" . Brampton Guardian . Archived from the original on 2024-04-13 . Retrieved 2024-04-13 . The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre won’t be called that for much longer. The complex located at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway E. will be renamed the Save Max Sports Centre after the City of Brampton signed sponsorship agreement for the exterior naming rights with Save Max Real Estate Inc. The deal, announced by the city in a release on Oct. 26, is for 15 years and $2,512,500." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Save Max Sports Centre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. However, the article should be renamed as Brampton Soccer Centre as we do not use sponsored names for soccer stadiums. Giant Snowman 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources shown. Meets WP:GNG . Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep According to sources found by Cunard, subject seems to meet WP:GNG . Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The sources show this is just a run of the mill municipal sports complex. Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG . SportingFlyer T · C 20:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article in Canadian Architect , the journal of record of two national professional associations—the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society—meets WP:AUD . However, Save Max Sports Centre is not required to meet WP:AUD . Save Max Sports Centre is a building. The relevant guideline is WP:NBUILD , not WP:NORG (which WP:AUD is a part of). Cunard ( talk ) 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Duke Maximilian of Württemberg: The article even contains phrases like "It is unknown where he spent his childhood..." and "Little is known about his ... life at the moment" to highlight its triviality and nonsignificance. DrKay ( talk ) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany . DrKay ( talk ) 18:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : No "inherent" notability with this nobility; by this point, Württemberg was ruled by a king, and as such duke appears to be an honorary title. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passing WP:NPOL . Could also pass GNG outright, I'd like to see what his entry in the Biographisches Handbuch der württembergischen Landtagsabgeordneten 1815–1933 says. Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete was unable to find any sources, checked Google, Google Scholar, and the newspaper archives. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as a member of the Estates of Württemberg he meets WP:NPOL , surely. Ingratis ( talk ) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now. I can see an argument that he scrapes by on WP:NPOL grounds, although I given what the article says about his attendance it seems unlikely that he was a notable political figure. The best place to cover him I think would be an article such as Second Silesian Line, House of Württemberg or Carlsruhe Line, House of Württemberg covering Duke Eugen of Württemberg (1758–1822) and his descendants who may not be notable enough to justify a standalone article. That's how Maximilian is treated in sources such as [3] and the literature it cites. But no such article currently exists, so per WP:PRESERVE let's keep the cited material we have. Jfire ( talk ) 20:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's important to keep information like this on Wikipedia because it provides historical context and helps us understand the lives and contributions of individuals like Duke Maximilian. By preserving his story, we can learn about the royal lineage, cultural influences, and societal roles of that time period much like his involvement and part in Estates of Württemberg of which he should meet WP:NPOL . It allows us to appreciate and study the past, which is valuable for historical research and education. Azarctic ( talk ) 1:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC) It may benefit you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:03, 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

2023 Mykolaiv attacks: This strike only caused three deaths which by this war's standards is not too remarkable (sad world we live in). The damage caused to a Chinese consular building could assure some notability however it appears no country has reacted to it so its potential is unexploited. Also, Mykolaiv has already been struck before during the year. On top of everything, the title is ambiguous. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine . Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just seen a red link and decided to make a page about it. Should this attack be incorporated into another article if it hasn't been already? Pburkart ( talk ) 22:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Pburkart . First of all, you created the article using ChatGPT ( [1] ), which is a big no-no. Additionally, editing of articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine war is restricted to users who are extended-confirmed (tenure of 500 edits and 30 days), see WP:RUSUKR . Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The whole idea behind Wikipedia is that articles are built over time. I provided a stub. I could have simply said, "In 2023, the Russians attacked Mykolaiv", but that wouldn't have contained as much information. So I used ChatGPT to assist me in creating the article stub. I don't really see the problem with this. If those who are extended confirmed wish to delete or keep it, then there is no issue there either. Pburkart ( talk ) 12:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It was transformed into an umbrella article about 2022–2023 bombings of city. Teterev53 ( talk ) 01:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Russia , and Ukraine . Skynxnex ( talk ) 02:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to its expanded focus on all attacks made on Mykolaiv from the war's start to the present moment. TH1980 ( talk ) 04:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment by nom it's getting close to a keep from me. I'd appreciate it if we could have a 2022 attack other than those two with an article be included. If this article only included three attacks one of which is not notable and the other two having their own separate articles I wouldn't want that kept. I think the article should have one attack without its own article from each year. Super Dromaeosaurus ( talk ) 06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it looks to pass notability requirements and the article is quite expansive. ✶Mitch 199811 ✶ 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : WP:HEY , with preference to merge at least Mykolaiv cluster bombing and possibly Mykolaiv government building missile strike into here. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Puerta Real (Granada): I can't find non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources, only mentions of the name in the context of directions and addresses, but never descriptions in detail (not in English, at any rate). The article defines it as a neighbourhood, but it is not an official district I can identify: downtown Granada is called simply Centro (e.g. see Spanish Wiki articles Distrito Centro (Granada) or Distritos de Granada ). Even the Spanish version of the article isn't promising: the only somewhat detailed sources are a tour agency website and a blog post, neither of which counts as reliable . This topic could be mentioned in another overview article or a future article about the Centro district, but unlikely to be helpful and verifiable on its own. R Prazeres ( talk ) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Spain . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This surprises me, while the Spanish sources are mostly blogspots the book in the bibliography on the well-developed Spanish language page has six pages devoted to Puerta Real, and there are many possible Spanish language sources. [55] [56] [57] along with hits from academic sources [58] . SportingFlyer T · C 06:48, 18 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! 22:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 03:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - sourcing as indicated by SportingFlyer seems adequate. Ingratis ( talk ) 04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

James Barclay: Plenty of sites list him and his books like a bibliography and a few have a couple of sentences about the author but nothing coming close to "significant coverage." There are reviews of his stories/books but nothing that would qualify for any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR . Toddst1 ( talk ) 15:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article needs a ton of work but the citations already listed prove notability with multiple reviews of his works in Publishers Weekly and Library Journal and the listing in Gale's Contemporary Authors . However, the citations already in the article barely scratch the surface of what's out there. A quick search turned up a ton more reviews of this author's work in places like Booklist , The Bookseller , Midwest Book Review , and many other places. And one review I found in The Bookseller, which I've now added to the article, called Barclay "One of the UK's most popular genre fantasy authors." As it states at WP:AUTHOR , notability is proved is a person "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Barclay easily meets this standard with his collective body of work as proved by being the subject of multiple reviews. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agreed with SouthernNights - article needs improvement (and some advances have been made) but multiple reviews of Barclays works means article meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Resonant Dis tor tion 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep as totally meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Plenty of reviews there. I've yet to see a writer in Contemporary Authors who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Funny I wasn't pinged when I was heavily editing the article at the time of nomination to clean it up a bit. Shrug. Other articles related to the author are better candidates for nomination. DiamondRemley39 ( talk ) 10:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2026 South Australian state election: Remind when 2026 is? Isn't this just an example of someone wanting to be the creator of what will be an article eventually ? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's fairly standard and acceptable to have an article on the single next election, even a few years away. Template:Politics of Australia has the upcoming election for every state. In some cases if there's little to say a redirect to a main article can be better, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Reywas92 Talk 18:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Reywas92. We have articles titled 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election , 2024 Northern Territory general election , 2024 Queensland state election ! 2025 Western Australian state election , 2026 Victorian state election , 2027 New South Wales state election , next Australian federal election and next Tasmanian state election , so this article makes sense. In fact we have a whole category called Category:Future elections in Australia that has several subcategories. Thiscouldbeauser ( talk ) 03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm somewhat agnostic on this, but I think AfD precedent is against keeping this and there's a policy hole. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of upcoming elections in Germany was recently resolved to delete which was sourced and only contained elections up to 2026. In 2011, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014 was resolved to delete (incorporated 16 other state articles). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 elections in India , two years out from the election, with a great deal of sourcing, while producing a keep result, still showed a very drawn out discussion with strong arguments for delete. There's a lot of other examples, but the tendency, other than the US, appears to be around the two year mark as that is often the point at which sourcing begins to appear for many state and national elections. While one came overcome WP:CRYSTAL as this is a certain event, the problem is that there is no actual sourcing; it fails the GNG. As an AtD it could be moved to Next South Australian state election , athought we have precedent for deleting those types too when four years away (see for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Indian general election in West Bengal ). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , appears that once a previous election is completed, that it is normal to establish an article for the next one, e.g. 2024 United States presidential election was moved from draftspace in November 2020, after that year's election was over. While it is a bit light on at the moment, that will improve as events happen closer to the date. Yetdelph ( talk ) 06:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have similar concerns to Goldsztajn above, since this event is a few years away. The current sourcing doesn't seem to be sufficiently in-depth to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk ) 07:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Appropriate WP:AfC were not followed for Draft:2026 South Australian state election . Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption. In the meantime, we hope that you expand some of our already existing articles. -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk ) 00:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk ) 15:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, keep and speedy close because we have other articles about upcoming state/territory/federal elections, including some that are further away. Anyway, I've added an opinion polling section, so the election has had some coverage. Thiscouldbeauser ( talk ) 07:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding other upcoming elections, please see the discussion here . -- DilatoryRevolution ( talk ) 07:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Douglas Kim: His only fame is as poker player during the World Series of Poker in 2006. Does not have further poker career and the article only focuses mostly his involvement in the incel ideology within the Asian American community, with no references. Toadboy123 ( talk ) 13:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , New York , and North Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but of course delete the unsourced incel content, which especially doesn't belong in a BLP. I'm seeing further post-2006 coverage on his comedy plans, see e.g. here . — Moriwen ( talk ) 14:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on what I can find about his comedy career, it pretty much hasn't took off. As of present, he currently engages in tankie and incel subculture in social media which exactly does not make him notable per se. Toadboy123 ( talk ) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : he's covered quite extensively in Jay Caspian Kang 's book The Loneliest Americans and also found this Verge article about his show. S0091 ( talk ) 16:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:BIO DI V I N E 06:55, 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

Ulisses dos Santos: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Olympics , and Brazil . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment ; plenty of hits on Brazilian Digital Hemeroteca (newspaper archive), but I can't seem to access anything as it's just spewing server errors. Also, his death was widely reported, so may be reasonable to expect significant coverage to exist. wjemather please leave a message... 17:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the expansion and sources found by wjemather. The TV Globo article on his death is clearly significant coverage. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 00:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as per the above. wjemather please leave a message... 15:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2024 Guangzhou bridge collapse: LibStar ( talk ) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive ( reasoning ) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . An event being in the news does not make it notable. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect to List of bridge failures . The bridge itself does not appear to be notable. I think a redirect is fine as the article can always be recreated if more detail comes out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 05:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Knowledgekid87 : I actually think the bridge itself is notable. See also for instance the Chinese article including the history. So, I'm interested to know why you think the bridge itself is not notable? 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or otherwise rename into Lixinsha Bridge : I expanded the article and there is more information available in other sources. There is also more information about the history of the bridge (see also the Chinese article of the bridge and Chinese article of the 2024 accident ). 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Rename as and adjust to make article about Lixinsha Bridge - Bridge collapses are notable enough. there are much less serious incidents with articles at List of bridge failures Merge into List of bridge failures ; this event is serious enough to warrant inclusion (as that list includes a number of non-fatal collapses, plus several collapses with more fatalities than this one), but I question whether there is enough material for more than a stub article. -- Delta1989 ( talk ) ( contributions ) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now per WP:RAPID . It's literally just been 1 day after this event when the article is nominated. Managed to get to numerous international news outlets [32] [33] [34] [35] so there is enough coverage to pass the simple WP:GNG . I'd imagine that the last paragraph at WP:LASTING applies here too. I would not be opposed to a merger should notability be not there after a few months. S5A-0043 Talk 05:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now and rename Lixinsha Bridge . It notable per WP:EVENT and has WP:COVERAGE as it has international coverage with CNN and NYT, also it may meet WP:LASTING if the claim "Due to low safety standards and poor enforcement, building fires and similar deadly incidents are common in China” found in Yingcai Boarding School fire has a reliable source (the source [36] does verify this) and applies to this bridge too. Whether it’s WP:LASTING for a bridge, I’m unsure. But keeping the current encyclopedic summary of the bridge collapse in a Wiki article about the Lixinsha Bridge sounds good. waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Snowball Keep . Meets WP:GNG , who knows if it's going to meet WP:LASTING . Example of WP:RAPID . Acebulf ( talk | contribs ) 00:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

ANYbotics: Sources I could find are either trade publications or routine coverage of funding. Only RSes I could find are a couple of articles in CNBC. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Engineering , Technology , and Switzerland . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP . Kerberous ( talk ) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How? Did you do WP:BEFORE ? Later participants found a lot of coverage when searching in specialized databases. This comes under WP:JUSTAPOLICY . Geeraarts ( talk ) 11:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : sourcing on google news seems to be company having acquired _ crore dollars funding. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 18:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing. Geeraarts ( talk ) 11:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not so familiar with NCORP but I think it will pass WP:ORGCRITE . Videos from the national television [2] and [3] . Article from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung . Interview from Bilanz. Article from the Tagesanzeiger. These are reputable names in the Swiss media world. Also articles from Germany exists. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 15:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these sources that have been found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The mentioned references include reputable publications like CNN Brasil , an in-depth research by CNBC , and reputable organizations like the ETH Zurich , and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers . As the author of the recent edits on the article, I added the publication titles to the references to make them easier to read. Tilmaneee ( talk ) 19:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Malo95. It is Boston Dynamics -equivalent of Europe and there is a lot of coverage about them in German/French language newspapers: Die Welt : [4] , [5] ; Wirtschaftswoche : [6] ; Handelsblatt : [7] , [8] ; Le Temps : [9] , [10] ; L'Agefi : [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] ; Neue Zürcher Zeitung : [15] ; Handelszeitung : [16] , [17] ; Luzerner Zeitung : [18] ; Tages-Anzeiger : [19] ; 20 minutes (Switzerland) : [20] . Geeraarts ( talk ) 11:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, they have received IEEE Award which is prestigious to receive itself. There is a lot of academic work/research about them on Google Scholar and other databases. Geeraarts ( talk ) 11:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For those of us who don't speak German/French, would you mind giving a brief summary of each article? Thanks, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually I can get by on Google translate. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my ! vote to keep . Thanks to Geeraarts and Malo95 for finding sources. I would withdraw my nom as speedy keep, but there's one delete ! vote. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:20, 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

Sarah Harding (professor): Clearly and article that should be deleted. AriTheHorse 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . AriTheHorse 04:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The Weldon Professorship she currently holds qualifies as a "named chair appointment" under WP:Notability (academics) , which shows her notability under that Wikipedia policy. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 04:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree but the article still has several notability issues which I just don't see as possible to solve... I've edited my original statement to reflect that. AriTheHorse 04:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , England , Canada , Connecticut , and Illinois . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see that, though you've just agreed the article qualifies under WP:Notability (academics) , so I would argue that other policies don't need to apply. We'll see what other say. Cheers! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 04:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly Disagree : The "General" in "general notability guideline" indicates that it applies to every article. AriTheHorse 04:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are right that it can apply to any subject matter; but it doesn't say that it supersedes all other notability policies. Again, happy to hear what others have the say :) Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 04:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it doesn't. XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I was not able to verify the named professorship to my satisfaction: it is on the subject's linkedin, and on the Interlochen biography (likely provided by the subject with minimal oversight), but nowhere on Dalhousie's webpages. The citation record doesn't look like a slam dunk for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But if it doesnt meet any other notability criteria, such as that it cannot be independently verified that she actually meets WP:NACADEMIC , is she really notable? AriTheHorse 12:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to see it, is it still a tree? Yes. We do not require our topics to meet all other notability guidelines. We do not require articles on sportspeople to meet WP:NPOL . We do not require articles on musicians to meet WP:NATHLETE . And similarly, we do not require articles on professors to meet notability standards for other topics. WP:NPROF explicitly states that non-independent but reliable sources (such as official publications or web sites of the employer) may be used to verify that the person passes criterion #5. As someone who passes a Wikipedia notability criterion, they are automatically ipso facto notable. The fact that they do not pass a different criterion based on publicity rather than professional recognition is unimportant, just as the fact that most celebrities are not given named professorships is unimportant. Keep , bordering on WP:SK3 speedy keep, no valid nomination rationale given. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Eppstein I believe the point that @ AriTheHorse is making, or trying to make, is that there is no reliable source presented for the named professorship whether independent or primary. I.e. the only citation for the named professorship is not an "official publication or web site of the employer" but rather what looks like a user generated bio for Harding's role as a trustee for an unrelated charity [36] . I have tried the employer Dalhousies website under several searches - and same as Russ Woodroofe above I am unable to verify the named professorship. Also agreed - citation record does not look great from what I can find. Delete [though please ping me if a WP:RS is presented and happy to change] . Resonant Dis tor tion 19:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, exactly. Thank you. AriTheHorse 00:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Harding is the new dean of the law school at Dalhousie and their public relations department has yet to catch up and create press releases with her full title or a faculty web page. Refreshing that their PR group is not as agressive as those of US universities, but it will have a university link soon enough. The full appointment is both as Dean and Weldon Professor. See these items for the previous deans for evidence: Kim Brooks, Dean and Weldon Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie. - 2013 press release Camille Cameron, Dean, Weldon Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law - 2017 anouncement Phillip Saunders, Dean of Law and Weldon Professor of Law, 2005-2010 - in pdf here StarryGrandma ( talk ) 21:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] StarryGrandma , so the Weldon Professorship is tied to the Dean position? I don't think this is the kind of named professorship intended by WP:NPROF C5! Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 22:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It sounds like there is an absence of reliable sources establishing academic notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the named professorship is tied to the top leadership position, does not make it NOT a named professorship. I mean, you get hired as both, instead of hired as just a named professor, what is your point here? Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would assume, also, that when the named professorship is added to her university biography (by all the accounts above) she will suddenly become notable ... but isn't yet ... seems a bit intransigent as no one has said that a Weldon Professor is not notable except for one person who believes a Dean can't be a professor too for some reason. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! ( talk ) 08:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . WP:NPROF C5 is the subcriterion that requires the most attention, as named chairs have proliferated. I agree that the Weldon chair appears to be tied to the dean position, and I do not think that a chair granted for holding an administrative office is the kind of distinguished professorship discussed in the subcriterion, especially when the administrative office is not otherwise a pass of NPROF. However, when I looked more carefully at the citation record, I am seeing several highly cited papers, in what I understand to be a low to mid citation field: Justifying Repatriation of Native American Cultural Property , Value, Obligation and Cultural Heritage , and Comparative Reasoning and Judicial Review . The name is common enough that searching is a little difficult: "Sarah Harding chicago" was useful. I think it is enough for WP:NPROF C1, which is what WP:NPROF C5 is supposed to be a shortcut for anyway. "Weak" because the the citation rates drop off quickly after that. I agree that the nomination was ill-formed, not considering the most relevant notability standard. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. I agree that the professorship is probably tied to being dean, but agree that this is a named professorship nonetheless. While I don't think that all deans are necessarily notable, I do think being a dean is an indication of notability, and I think being dean of Schulich School of Law is a particularly good indication of notability. Josh Milburn ( talk ) 10:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify until a WP:RS does indeed confirm the named professorship (!vote changed from delete). Because: the evidence provided by StarryGrandma does indicate it is likely the Weldon professorship is linked to being Dean, but none of those references explicitly state the two posts are indeed linked. Consequently, as this is a new appointment, it should not be long until it is confirmed and the article may then leave draft. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:13, 28 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

Chaos Marauders: Fails WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I will work to see what else we can find, but for now I will note that it does have a review in Casus Belli #42 (Dec 1987): [62] BOZ ( talk ) 13:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Polish review [63] from pl:polter.pl . English review from Bell of Lost Souls [64] ( about ). Borderline but if we add this with BOZ's Casus Belli review, leaning towards week keep vote. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and United Kingdom . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have rewritten the article in a more arm's-length encyclopedic tone, and added new sources. Guinness323 ( talk ) 06:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly does not fail WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above comments, and I believe the rewrite addresses the concerns of the nomination. BOZ ( talk ) 11:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Steve Ellington: Jax 0677 ( talk ) 13:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This musician has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz , a major encyclopedia of music. Why would this encyclopedia not cover what other major encyclopedias cover? Chubbles ( talk ) 14:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly a notable jazz musician. Ghmyrtle ( talk ) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Helen Puffer Thwait ( talk ) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state) . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obituary in USA Today and entry in Grove -- clearly notable. Jfire ( talk ) 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject's broad career (from June Christy to Roland Kirk, Sam Rivers, Eddie Lockjaw Davis, Dave Holland) is summarised in Rick Mattingly's article in the New Grove and in the USA Today obituary. I would prefer to see more - which the references noted on the Talk page could begin to provide - but the existing encyclopaedic coverage in the New Grove is indicative of biographical notability. AllyD ( talk ) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for all of the reasons mentioned above, particularly The Grove entry. Jazz musicians don't get a lot of coverage, and drummers get even less. ("What do you call someone wo hangs out with musicians? A drummer.") JSFarman ( talk ) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article may need some work, but it passes WP:MUSICBIO Seawolf35 T -- C 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but draftify. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:02, 3 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

George Bogin Memorial Award: Fails WP:GNG . Merging to Poetry Society of America could be acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry , Awards , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 6 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! 23:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep' Seems to be named after George Bogin a notable poet and translator who was widely published in literary magazines across the world. I notice all the other awards of the society have articles but they are all badly sourced. There is some weight to it, and its considered quite prestiguous. scope_creep Talk 04:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per scope creep. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Policy-based input would be helpful Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 September 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! 02:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not particularly policy based but I'm not really seeing how deleting this list of winners benefits the encyclopedia? The granting body is clearly notable and the list can't reasonably be duplicated in Poetry Society of America . There's abundant name-checking of the award in poets' bios in reliable independent sources, so readers might be interested to find details. A lot of the recipients have articles, so it provides a useful resource to readers in threading our articles on poets together. Proquest finds a mention in “Connecting a Different Reading Public: Compiling 美国文学大辞典" Yu, Jianhua. The Journal of Transnational American Studies Vol. 10, Iss. 2, (2019) which is talking about the inclusions in an academic handbook covering foreign literature published in China in Chinese, implying it is a major literature award at an international level. But I guess simply coming down to the notion that our fundamental purpose is to be an encyclopedia, so strong arguments need to be raised to delete information where there is reliable-enough sourcing and no harm. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And for those desperate for coverage, further trawling through Proquest finds IN FOCUS BEST BETS FOR THINGS TO DO AROUND TAOS: Local poet wins national award. The Taos News ; 01 Apr 2010: TE.33 (several paras). Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JSTOR search shows winners (and sometimes judges) have historically been noted in the magazine Poetry eg News Notes. Poetry , Vol. 158, No. 5 (Aug., 1991), pp. 299-300 JSTOR 20602919 and many more from other years. There are also brief comments in 3rd-party reviews of poetry that mention the award eg "But one has to admire Cader for embarking on the project (which, after all, won the 1997 George Bogin Memorial Award). " Review: The Mind's Way of Hanging On. Reviewed Work: The Paper Wasp by Teresa Cader. Review by: LARISSA SZPORLUK. Agni, No. 51 (2000), pp. 273-279 JSTOR 3007867 suggesting that the award is of significance to the reception of the work. Also noted in JSTOR 0639652 . (Not sure why these weren't showing up in the Ebsco search?) Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My editor hat question/not a ! vote as it's also not policy based is would be what makes this an article. The award could be mentioned in the PSA article, and the winners in a category. To me, the souring depth isn't there and it could achieve your point of provides a useful resource to readers in threading our articles on poets together. Just my .02 Star Mississippi 01:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] These awards lists are something that GNG is rather ill-suited for, imo. In my experience only very prestigious awards get the kind of depth of coverage that GNG fans desire. The rest get this kind of level, ie inclusion in writers' bios all over the place (which is a major reason it's useful to readers), plus brief announcements that X won, plus occasional local coverage of the form 'local author won prestigious national prize, go us!'. In cases like this where no-one doubts the existence of the object, I tend to go back to necessity to delete, relating to harm from article, which isn't demonstrated here, in my opinion. But clearly other mileages may reasonably vary. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yep. I don't totally disagree with you, nor with @ Scope creep . I just don't fully agree either. I feel like (separately from however this closes) we do need an article on Bogin though, which I may start. Star Mississippi 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ETA: George Bogin . It needs more but it's enough to survive for now. Star Mississippi 12:18, 1 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

Chuu Sitt Han: Only a few roles in film, pageants she won are not notable themselves, has not charted as a musician nor did she win the Idol competition. Sources given are all Facebook which is not considered reliable nor significant coverage. ... disco spinster talk 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , and Myanmar . ... disco spinster talk 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support - I moved this article to the draftspace already for this exact reason; no clue why it's back as an article but it shouldn't be. B3251 ( talk ) 20:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Has released multiple singles, won awards at various pageants and seems to have done singles and albums , television and just appears to be a general celebrity in Myanmar . She also seemed to be arrested as part of some celebrity mass arrests in Myanmar, which is here , here and here which would no doubt further her case for notability. This article seems like it be tagged for improvement, not deletion. I do also think we have to be careful of WP:BIAS considering that this is a celeb from a rather unknown country around these parts with limited internet. And as always, if we are nominating people from countries with non-romantic languages, we should make sure to do research on the person their own language, otherwise we will get less results. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 17:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have revised the article by incorporating the sources provided by KatoKungLee. I have also made an effort to tone down any promotional and ensure that proper references are included. It is evident that she meets the notability guidelines outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC . Thanks 149.18.84.132 ( talk ) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to review changes to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on seeming to be a local celebrity in Myanmar with coverage from sources. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She has received sufficient coverage from the Burmese media to meet GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk ) 09:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is one of a typical Burmese popular artist in Myanmar with coverage from sources and she meets the notability guidelines outlines in WP:GNG , WP:BASIC . Aidanag Narak ( talk ) 11:21, 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

Lionel Vincent Mayell: Sourcing is in non-RS, nor can I find anything. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is an interesting case where one scholar has done extensive research and publishing on the subject. Different publishers, as well as peer review and reviews of books, and some passing or short mentions elsewhere, I'm inclined to say this level of depth meets WP:GNG Large amount of sigcov in Lasner, Matthew Gordon. "Own-Your-Owns, Co-Ops, Town Houses: Hybrid Housing Types and the New Urban Form in Postwar Southern California." Same author wrote a dissertation previously Lasner, Matthew Gordon. No Lawn to Mow: Co -Ops, Condominiums, and the Revolution in Collective Homeownership in Metropolitan America, 1881–1973. A book by the same author has sigcov High Life: Condo Living in the Suburban Century Another author's review of the book noting the subject by name Harris, Richard. "THE AMERICAN DREAM REBRANDED." Reviews in American History — siro χ o 04:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Appears to be enough here in terms of in-depth secondary sources needed to pass GNG, although there some work needed to improve it to encyclopedia-level standards. In addition to the significant coverage provided, I found a couple of partial sources which provide additional info about Mayell and his family [ [23] ][ [24] ] User:Let'srun 12:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bobby (Paper Mario): The claim that he is "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" also seems rather subjective? Definitely does not meet WP:GNG . TechnicalNewt ( talk ) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not making a vote in this discussion right now, and don't know if I ever will. But for an article like this that has proper sourcing and isn't a blatant clusterfuck with several tagged issues, there should be some sort of source analysis as to demonstrate how the subject isn't notable. I can agree with you on "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" being subjective, as it seems to be only verified by Game Rant (a claim like this is fine for the lead, though it would definitely need more than one source backing it up), but you should provide more in-depth explanation as to how the subject is not notable. λ Negative MP1 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As a correction, the claim is cited to GameSpot and Destructoid, not Game Rant. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I've removed the mention of "greatest Nintendo characters" from the WP:LEAD , which I agree, is a bit too strong of a claim to make with the reception sections' current status. But that aside, that's simply a "clean up issue", and AFD is not clean up". And other Mario characters having or not having an article isn't relevant to the discussion . The main things to determine are if it meets the WP:GNG , and if there's any valid merge reasons . Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are several articles in reliable sources about this specific character, so GNG is met. Your subjective opinion about the character's importance compared to other Nintendo characters is not relevant. Also, it is considered polite to notify the creator of the article, so I went ahead and did that. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . AfD rationale appears to not extend beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per others. Certainly not the strongest article, but the nominator's rationale is invalid and the Reception itself has enough sources to stand on its feet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Just because he a spin off character from the Mario franchise and far more notable characters in the series have their articles terminated or merged does not means the article also need to be deleted or merged and the article also have two or three sources mainly discuss about him so WP:NVGC . NatwonTSG2 ( talk ) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. This is obvious, in my view. There is significant coverage, and it is part of a very, very important game/character franchise. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I feel as others have stated this is a case of "I don't like it", and sour grapes over other articles the nominator likes that have been merged instead. That said Bobby I feel stands just enough on its own and has enough significant coverage spread over enough of a period of time to illustrate the character's weight. Disclosure, I became aware of this AfD due to a brief discussion mentioning it in the wikipedia discord by Panini who was asking another user for thoughts regarding a source cited here, and that did not affect my vote.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I do agree with the people above that the article sufficiently surpasses WP:GNG , specifically I would like to note that the Kotaku, CBR and GameStop articles more than meets the requirements. Comment : I will ask the question, does this article meet a B Class status? I personally see it fulfilling the C Class status but hey I am no expert on the class qualification so I'd rather have someone who is more familiar with it to judge that. Captain Galaxy 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not opposed to lowering it, but can you elaborate concerns? The plot summary is uncited, but the article is generally complete and, at least, competently written (not trying to gussy myself up). - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 14:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have done quite well with the article, so I don't think you are gushing it up at all. But in my opinion, I feel that the lead is too short and doesn't cover much in terms of the reception. There is also "citation needed" prompt in the appearances section. Adding on I feel that the concept section could be expanded upon but I can imagine that being a lack of sourcing issue which if that's the case doesn't need addressing as I haven't looked into Bobby sources myself. Like I said, I am no expert of the class rating system so if my objections are invalid feel free to ignore my comments. Hope you have a good day! Captain Galaxy 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article would not meet a B class status to me, personally. I'm not sure how useful it is to discuss at length in the deletion discussion but happy to talk elsewhere, such as on the talk page to identify what aspects could be improved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 07:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename/keep I recommend renaming this to Bob-omb , since both names appear in the coverage, and it would lead to natural disambiguation. But that doesn't need to be done in this AFD, and I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV is met. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Shooterwalker : Bob-omb is the species name, which appears in a variety of games and would arguably be the primary topic despite being a redirect. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I contest a rename, since Bob-omb is the species name, not the name of the character. Even if Bob-omb is assumed to be the proper name, Bobby is the more frequently used one, and per WP:COMMONNAME , it works far better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I brought it up because Bob-omb is also earning coverage alongside Bobby, and WP:NATDIS is sometimes more important than WP:COMMONNAME . But I support the keep either way. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue this is more related to Bobby than the Bob-omb species as a whole. Bob-omb would just cause an unnecessary disambiguation issue due to the species in question being already covered at the Mario character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm abstaining from the vote due to my unfamiliarity with how this process works, but I am extremely puzzled as to why the votes on this page are leaning towards keep, and yet Diddy Kong's article was recently removed. Could someone explain to me what makes Bobby notable enough for a Wikipedia page but not Diddy Kong? Thank you. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 06:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am also confused about the consensus here given that recently many far more well-sourced articles for characters have been subject to lengthy deletion discussions, did not have such a consensus, and ended in a deletion. Not questioning the wisdom of users here, but what changed? This isn't in support of one side or another so is not a WP:WHATABOUT argument. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 07:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably that Bobby have at least few discussion I think? unlike other popular characters like Diddy Kong. Also, listicles doesn't contribute WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 08:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But almost all of the references used in this article are listicles. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Almost all"? Can you elaborate which sources are listicles? By my estimation, there are four "listicles" out of the nine sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 08:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are four; I was exaggerating. But I would also say that the first source also isn't specifically about Bobby, meaning that only 4/9 of the articles used are specifically about him. Four articles that talk about a specific moment/character in a game is very few, so there's little reason not to just make this whole article a segment in the Paper Mario: The Origami King article. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's actually more than enough to write a character article if possible, and more than Diddy ever saw. The key thing is that there's tangible discussion that can be taken from these to illustrate why the character was important outside of its parent work, in this case as a fictional character and in some of these in the wider context of Nintendo games. "Listicles" is often a misunderstood term, as just because something is a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be used: the key is finding a list entry that discusses something in detail, or helps support another argument enough that you can work with it. Now to go further with your point above, the problem for many with Diddy and similar Smash Bros. characters was the reception discussed them solely as a video game character in that series, and they weren't discussed in importance outside of it. Trust me when I say even stuff like DeDeDe we actively tried to find sources discussing him as a fictional character , but it wasn't there in sources we can cite per wikipedia's standards. Now they may manifest later on of course, but for now...it's just not there for them, but it is for Bobby.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that actually reveals a bit of a problem with the way Wikipedia determines subject notability. The fact that a supporting character from a single relatively niche game in a much larger franchise can earn a Wikipedia article but fan favourite main characters in the same franchise don't just doesn't make sense. The former character is worth documenting in history, but not the latter? In my opinion this is the problem with taking written rules too literally and following them too closely. Notability should also be determined by overall popularity and public knowledge, and not just by whether or not some select sources talked about that subject. It's impossible to scientifically measure something like that, but some subjectivity may be necessary in certain circumstances. It's easy to ignore all of what I just said and just continue going by the book, but just think about it for a second: With the way the rules are currently written out, Bobby from Paper Mario: The Origami King and Rabbid Peach from Mario + Rabbids are deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article, while Diddy Kong and King Dedede are not. Does that not expose a problem? Jcharlesk ( talk ) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The thing is this: how do you determine popularity? It's impossible to do so without it being subjective. Some may find Diddy popular while others may not. It's physically impossible to gauge without sourcing from outside sources, and those sources don't really exist outside of acknowledgement of existence. (Which practically everyone has) That's why we have the system we do. It's flawed in places, unfortunately, but it works out in most cases. Nearly every iconic character from Mario has an article, ( Mario , Luigi , Bowser , Peach , etc) and it's really only a few exceptions who don't. If this was commonplace, it'd be more concerning, but characters like Diddy and Dedede are exceptions, not the norm. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Whilst I had to spoil myself on the game to check the sources (though I didn't really plan to play it in the near future), I was just so curious to see what made him notable. However, now I can see there's just enough to get the character past GNG for good reason. Ultimately it's not about the character's popularity but their critical discussion and he got a decent amount of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 15:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:SNOW . I don't have much else to add to what everyone else has said. But I do want to ask, what Mario characters without articles do you find "far more notable" than Bobby? Also, keep in mind just because certain characters have been redirected, doesn't mean they can't be brought back later on, should more significant coverage be found. MoonJet ( talk ) 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not the initiator but I'd say at the very least Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, and Boo. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nah, Diddy Kong and Boo are not. Bowser Jr. has a potential thou. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Diddy Kong: Main character in Donkey Kong franchise, recurring character in Mario franchise, two games named after him, playable in Smash Bros. Boo: Recurring and iconic species that appears in almost every game in Mario franchise Bobby: Supporting character in a single spin-off game in Mario franchise You really think Bobby is the most notable of these three? And Bowser Jr., the secondary antagonist of the franchise, only has 'potential' to be more notable? I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games if you still don't understand about notability or WP:GNG . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand it, I just think it has inherent flaws. As I said earlier, I think this shows the pitfalls with following written rules too closely. One thing may follow the rules while another thing does not, but that should not be the be all end all. There's more to notability than the strict guidelines that are laid out. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 03:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not just taking something open to interpretation here, there's literally nothing in reliable sources about the Boo species that's significant coverage. The Boo (character) article was solely minor mentions in listicles. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to say something is "obviously popular" when coverage is not there. If it was popular, people would have written more about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is exactly what I'm referring to when talking about the pitfalls of following written rules too closely. Like I said, there's way more to notability than whether a certain number of designated sources wrote about a subject or not. Just read my message above where I compare Bobby's role with that of several characters who don't have articles, and I think that puts things into perspective. But Diddy Kong and Bowser Jr's importance apparently doesn't exist simply because you all are following these (ultimately arbitrary) rules too closely and by the book. Some subjectivity is needed for this sort of thing. Notability is not a science. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do keep in mind, these characters have lengthy sections on their series' respective character list article, which not many other characters can say (Bowser Jr may not fit this example but perhaps it could be worked on). I don't even think it's in the sense that these characters aren't notable otherwise they wouldn't even have entries in character lists or even in game articles, it's more the fact that when it comes to the reception, which are the beating heart of a dedicated character article, they aren't many documented mentions about the impact these characters have on the people who play their game. Of course, there going to be plenty of sources that mention these characters and their appearances and creation, but they need that reception, which unfortunately characters such as Bowser Jr or Diddy Kong don't have much to show (at least not right now, perhaps in the future). Hope this helps; Captain Galaxy 13:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But that's the thing. Why does all of that have to be the beating heart of a dedicated character article? Why do they need that reception? Those rules are ultimately completely arbitrary, so why should that be the be all end all? There should be a wider variety of criteria. Jcharlesk ( talk ) 04:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A reception section outlines why a character is notable outside of the games the character is involved with, as well as what impact said character has had within gaming communities. We need these rules because otherwise we'd have a worse version of what you were initially debating on, character articles for obscure characters but unlike Bobby or Rabbid Peach, don't even have the sources that indicate impact and notability to back the character up. What you're asking for would not only not be worth it in the long run for both time and effort, but also would also likely do more harm than good. These rules are put in place for a reason. Captain Galaxy 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See, here's the thing - I'd argue that all Pokemon are notable, but they are not independently notable of the series. Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, K. Rool, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Boo, these are all notable characters - enough to be mentioned in their respective lists, but not enough to get individual articles. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Like I've already said, the requirement that individual articles must be written about a subject for it to get an article is a completely arbitrary rule; there should be a wider variety of criteria for a subject to be deemed notable enough for its own article. There is so much more to notability than just "how many articles from our designated sources have talked about this?" Jcharlesk ( talk ) 04:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What you don't seem to understand is it's not "how many", it's the degree of discussion that can originate for such characters, something to illustrate why they mattered. You look at it as "I'm not getting my favorite" when the problem is more "nobody in reliable sources is talking about my favorite as an actual character". -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you're just going to set yourself up for disappointment if your objection is that the general notability guideline should not work the way it does. There's nothing arbitrary about it, it's set up this way because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Thus, they needed to come up with a standard for what a subject must hit in order to be considered notable enough to have an article. When you gripe about it being arbitrary, what you're griping about is not that there is no reason for why it's this way, you're griping that it is this way. You can maybe propose that WP:GNG be changed, but that will be a lot of effort, with not much of a taste for the change to be made. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 06:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will also mention that sourcing is needed to verify notability in a lot of cases. These characters may or may not be notable, but if no sources exist discussing that fact, we can't verify that they are. Either way, I echo Cukie's statement above. The GNG exists for a reason, and any attempt to fundamentally change it is not AfD's job. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:26, 4 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

Hananya Naftali: so basically, failed Wikipedia general notablity guideline. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 18:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Internet . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Non notable social media influencer. Fails notability guideline for biographies. Marokwitz ( talk ) 13:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Famous Israeli right-wing YouTuber and media influencer. Notable under the WP:GNG . As I always explain when ! voting delete for social media folks: YouTubers can be notable. This is one of such exceptions. There are sources in the article, there is much more online. Just one example . gidonb ( talk ) 22:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . He is a young man so perhaps later on he might meet WP:NBLP, however currently no. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk ) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as below, meet WP:NBLP -- Mind-blowing blow ( talk ) 07:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per gidonb. Llajwa ( talk ) 21:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per gidonb. Magna Frisia ( talk ) 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please state the policy or guideline you are relying on for your view. This is not a ballot, and your opinion will likely be ignored by the closing admin if it is stated without any policy-based backing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] k 2001:569:733A:9700:48A3:A084:4365:DDF6 ( talk ) 01:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree 100% with Oleg Y MaskedSinger ( talk ) 12:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets GNG, [17] , [18] , [19] . WP:THREE is enough, I didn't look for more. Ref #1 opens calling the subject "prominent Israeli journalist Hananya Naftali" // Timothy :: talk 06:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have WP:NBASIC / WP:GNG -level coverage of this individual, as he has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. English-language sources include: JNS (an article about the subject) and Jewish Insider (another article about the subject), but sources that qualify towards GNG/NBASIC don't have to be in English. Some non-English coverage of Naftali can be found in Channel 7 News (about Naftali's wedding), bhol (an article about Naftali), and Kikar (a brief article about Naftali). He's also conducted an interview with YNet (though that doesn't contribute towards notability, as it's mostly just quoting him verbatim), and another with DFN. I think there's enough sourcing to write a brief but reasonably detailed encyclopedic entry about this person, and I think that this person is both fairly high-profile and notable, so I believe that keeping is the right course of action. ( edit conflict ) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG . Chekidalum ( talk ) 11:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Diane Meier: I have added a reference to a mention of one of her books, but cannot find other coverage to add and am not clear that she meets WP:NAUTHOR , WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO . There was a slightly better referenced version of the article until 2021, but none of the three references in that are reliable and independent. Tacyarg ( talk ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Businesspeople , Women , United States of America , and Connecticut . Tacyarg ( talk ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 5 February 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 ) 18:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : The usual Kirkus and Pub. Weekly reviews [1] , [2] . There's a palliative care doctor with the same name and decent reviews in medical journals, that is a different person; apparently already has an article [3] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR . She is an Macmillan author and found the book reviews described in the previous comment and several other second-tier (possibly) book review sites. More than borderline. scope_creep Talk 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Weak keep , see Beeccaynr's sources. I'm only seeing the reviews Oaktree found, which are both about the same book - this doesn't satisfy the typical WP:NAUTHOR rule of thumb of "multiple notable books". I'm just getting bookshop and database listings for The New American Wedding . nb that she published that as Diane Meier Delaney. If anyone finds more reviews, I'm happy to take a second look, ping me. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relisting Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - reviews and other sources can help develop the article and support WP:AUTHOR notability. There is 2010 interview-based coverage of her novel The Season of Second Chances in the Connecticut Post , the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews, as well as Hoover, Danise, The Booklist ; Vol. 106, Iss. 15, (Apr 1, 2010): 24. ProQuest 235598289 and "The Season of Second Chances", Kane, Julie, Library Journal , 03630277, 3/1/2010, Vol. 135, Issue 4 (via the Wikipedia Library Literary Reference Center Plus); there is also 2002 wedding coverage in The New York Times with some biographical information; for The New American Wedding book, there is a Publishers Weekly review (her author name is listed as Diane Meier Delaney), and a review from Ebster, Deborah M. Library Journal ; Vol. 130, Iss. 17, (Oct 15, 2005): 76. ProQuest 196841191 . Courtesy ping Asilvering . Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What the heck, I specifically checked PW?! Thanks. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So did I, but only managed to find it on the Wikipedia Library, then searched again online. Cheers, Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw (as nom). Thanks for finding those sources. If no one else adds them to the article, I'll get to it in a couple of days. Tacyarg ( talk ) 06:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tentative keep per WP:HEY IFF the sources that are promised to be added are actually added. Until then, I request the AfD be re-listed. Bearian ( talk ) 13:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Premiere Livre de Pièces de Clavecin: This was originally made live at Music of Versailles but in 2012 I moved it to the present title since it is nearly all about a particular set of suites by Bernard de Bury . However, that set is not the only "Premier livre de Pièces de Clavecin"; a Google search finds others than Bury's, by Jean-Philippe Rameau , François Couperin , Jean-François Dandrieu , Charles-Alexandre Jollage and Joseph-Nicholas-Pancrace Royer, so if this article is not deleted then it should be renamed with the suffix "(Bury)". This article states its source as the PhD thesis of Ruta Bloomfield (reviewed at doi : 10.1017/S1478570616000129 ). Bloomfield previously had a bio article in Wikipedia, which was created by the same editor, both in Feb 2009. The bio was deleted in 2019 as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruta Bloomfield . – Fayenatic L ondon 13:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It has 6 references, could perhaps use more inline citations? It's mentioned here [16] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and France . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added the IMSLP entry. Grove, and a review of a recording tell me enough about notability. One ref doesn't work for me, but I have no time to dig into it deeper. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 09:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and change title as suggested. Mccapra ( talk ) 16:16, 11 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

Herb Sutter: Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Author , and Software . 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I've made some significant changes to the article, pairing down parts of it and bringing back a previously excised section. I've found independent sources for most of the statements that remain in the article. The sourcing is still a little weak though - it's difficult to find sources that are truly about him rather than mentioning him in passing or simply quoting what he has to say about something else. I'm also a little hampered by my lack of the necessary background to understand and paraphrase what sources like this one is saying he has done. However, I would consider the last two sections of that article to be significant coverage. Ideally I'd like to see a bit more, but from the way he is discussed in the sources I've found, I do think he is notable. ~ ONUnicorn ( Talk | Contribs ) problem solving 21:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of what that source says shouldn't be in the article - cppfront is still a personal experiment , and probably doesn't even deserve its mention in Cfront . What Sutter's done that's most significant is chair the international C++ standard committee since 2002, except for a one year break ("over a decade" is, I suppose, technically correct), resulting in C++03 through C++20 . This and this are authoritative (though of course not independent); p70:20 of this is a bit better; and this article from The Register , though now very out of date, is at least less misleading than the Infoworld piece. — Cryptic 22:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wanted to quickly point out that at the current moment, almost all of the independent sources in the article mention Sutter solely in the context of his Free Lunch paper: InfoQ: "...despite the advances in CPUs and networks, 'The free lunch is over,' he said, referring to a March 2005 technical article by Herb Sutter, software architect at Microsoft and chair of the ISO C++ Standards Committee..." Verge: "Are you familiar with the highly influential piece for programmers by Herb Sutter called 'The Free Lunch Is Over'? He wrote it in 2004..." Semiconductor Engineering: "Almost 15 years back—in March 2005—Herb Sutter, who was at Microsoft at the time, published his now famous paper, “The Free Lunch Is Over,” predicting nothing less than..." That plus the paper's 1700+ citations (of which I would be shocked if we couldn't find at least two that discussed the paper and its findings in non-trivial detail) makes me think that the paper probably has enough significant coverage to be notable--but since all of those sources are discussing the paper more than the author, I'm not so sure that is significant enough coverage to justify the author's notability. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:E56D:1D24:B019:A2E ( talk ) 23:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Weak delete it seems that this is an instance of the work being notable, but not the author. It's not the most egregious article, but I still think it's lack of significant coverage, as well as little non-primary sources warrants it's deletion. Industrial Insect (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we heard when you when you nominated this. Repeating yourself with words-in-bold doesn't lend your position any additional weight, and gives the appearance of duplicity. — Cryptic 04:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is weak on biographical information, but the number of citations of his works is enough to give him notability as an author - and in particular someone who has made a fundamental contribution to his field. Lamona ( talk ) 04:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From what I could tell from Google Scholar, after his The Free Lunch is Over article, his next-most-cited work has less than half the number of citations that that article does. So if the primary indicator of notability here is the number of citations, I would argue that--plus the complete lack of independent sources discussing his life/history personally we've found (as you noted), and the fact that as I noted a good number of sources solely discuss him as "the author of The Free Lunch is Over " (including https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/10/9/developing-military-electronic-systems-calls-for-holistic-strategy if anyone wants to squeeze that into this article as well)--indicates the article he wrote is what is truly notable, not him. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:C917:2D30:4F00:28C9 ( talk ) 00:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The primary article has over 1700 cites, but the next one has over 700. It's true that 700 is less than half of 1700, but an article cited 700 times is significant on its own. Then there are 2 coding books, one cited 230 times and one 145 times. It's not unusual for a writer to have one wildly "best selling" text and that isn't an indication that other highly cited items are not important. If it is argued that the "free lunch" piece deserves its own article, then so be it. But if there is no article for Sutter then there is no place to record his work on C++ and on software concurrency. I do recognize that our policies for IT "inventors" are weak - these are folks who are rarely written about as "human beings". Yet some are the architects of exactly what we are doing right now - engaging in digital culture. Lamona ( talk ) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We aren't focusing on "recording Sutter's works", we are focusing on writing what reliable sources have to say about him. As it seems that almost all non-primary sources are about his book and not him, I believe that his work is notable and not him. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically, Wikipedia:Right wrongs . Industrial Insect (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yet we regularly include articles for academics about whom there are no secondary sources. I propose that we accept him under the same criteria. WP:NACADEMIC Lamona ( talk ) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" Yeah, independent reliable sources are still required for the only notable academic qualification he would, well, qualify for. Additionally, I don't know if he would even qualify as being an academic in the first place, however that is not something I am not fully sure of and am not knowledgeable in. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator does not make a case against WP:SCHOLAR#C1 , so this isn't going to be a particularly deep analysis from me. Citation counts are used for C1, so the subject seems to easily meet the criteria on the face of it. The CSB vs RGW merits of PROF itself are out of scope for any individual AfD, so this can be a keep . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the link to the specific criterion notes, it helped clarify things a little bit for me (I'm cringing reading my previous reply). Reading criteria 1, while I might be taking this too literally, It says that "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" From what's been previously said in this discussion, Sutter's most two most cited works are 1700+ citations and 700+ citations. While the first one is a large amount of citations, and the other one is still arguably so, I don't believe that 1 unarguably highly cited work would qualify for the first, and the high citations of his Free lunch work are unfortunately not consistent. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR as above and WP:ANYBIO #1 for his work on the C++ standards, Dr Dobb's column, books, and papers, all of which are pretty widely cited, both formally and informally. There's enough biographical details in fully independent reliable sources to make it so the article can have something to say and given the earlier is met, there's a number of computing-specific sources which I'd say are generally reliable to be able to get a decent article. (For example, right now [6] there's a citation needed for joining Microsoft in 2002. Given this is non-controversial, something like [7] plus [8] (for example) are more than sufficient for that biographical detail. Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Port Harcourt bus electrocution: Otherwise only passing mentions in summary in ProQuest results, never exceeding about 2 sentences, mostly in relation to similar events in Nigeria . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Transportation , and Nigeria . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In addition to the extensive international coverage the incident received at the time, it also resulted in long-term effects on electrical grid design. See for example this 2022 academic paper . Owen× ☎ 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the above. - SchroCat ( talk ) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no strong feelings about this particular article but I'd be surprised if an event in which 11 people died while using public transport as a result of an infrastructure failure had no lasting consequences whatsoever. Obviously Nigeria does not have the bureaucratic infrastructure we would expect in Europe or North America for example, but in those places there would be detailed investigations which would take months, produce lengthy reports, and likely recommend wide-ranging changes that might take years to fully implement. Nigeria may not have mature investigative apparatus like public inquiries or the NTSB, for example, but I find it hard to believe that an event like this would just be forgotten. Owen's link suggests that there is indeed more to the story. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This is indeed a disappointing AfD. The subject of this article is poised to become a topic of discussion across various platforms, spanning from academic circles to media outlets. As such, we can anticipate a wealth of developments as time progresses. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This event happened in 2010. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seawolf35 T -- C 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Owen and HJ Mitchell. S5A-0043 Talk 04:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

WCEE-LD: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hard to imagine any significant coverage for a not-that-old LPTV that seemingly has only carried national services. Maybe a redirect to List of Estrella TV affiliates could be a possible alternative (this did start out as a redirect to KTBN-TV , as it was formerly a TBN translator), but as this isn't an Estrella-owned station I can't exactly say that's ideal. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as sometimes happens, there turned out to be a bit more hiding out there than there was on the surface. Pivoting to a weak keep per Sammi Brie's improvements. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The station also carries a feed of a Mexican broadcast, XHQMGU-TDT , which is more than just a Estrella affiliate. They do provide their own news program for the Charlotte area, which is where the article can be expanded. It isn't that it is less important, it is just that low power stations are not seen by many wiki editors and thus are ignored, this one should not be. -- WashuOtaku ( talk ) 00:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep My research is turning up the SIGCOV. It's an older station than the article listed, and I have pegged it to a March 1, 1985, start date. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 01:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ravipalli: Multiple attempts at finding sources (other than a map) have failed. Avishai11 ( talk ) 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and India . Avishai11 ( talk ) 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] delete - no evidence of existence provided. - Altenmann >talk 21:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Avishai11 ( talk ) 12:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND , appears to be a populated place. Didn't quickly find much in English because it looks like it's also spelled Ravupalli, mentioned here [1] - a town of 5,000 should easily be notable so the census should be checked. SportingFlyer T · C 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not a town in the 2011 Census. And it didn't have 5,000 people. AP has been redistricted now, but

keep

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN: It's probably also a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists , and Philippines . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think anything has changed since the previous two nominations. Please read both those discussions to put the current nomination in context. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : I did read the last two nominations and still think this discussion should happen. Nomination 1 happened in 2008, and none of the editors involved provided a reason for keeping the list that was based on reliable sources. This list also does not inherit notability because the channel is notable. Nomination 2 was speedily closed at WP:AN without prejudice against renomination. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per WP:NOTDIR . LibStar ( talk ) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This is an useful page, there are a bunch of list of TV program articles here on Wikipedia. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 09:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar ( talk ) 10:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree this list is more of a directory •C y b erw o l f• 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I presume this is a delete ! vote? LibStar ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If it really violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY , then we need to nominate also the related articles (eg: List of programs broadcast by GMA Network , List of programs broadcast by TV5 (Philippine TV network) , etc. ) ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plus there are a bunch of them on Template:List of television programs by region . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ThisIsSeanJ : This is the reason the second nomination exists; someone decided to AfD a large number of these lists due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 02:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but add and find references on the list to keep its notability. Supercrumblesph ( talk ) 11:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Supercrumblesph : This seems like a WP:MUSTBESOURCES -type argument. Could you provide a reason for why the article should be kept? — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:33, 9 September 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 06:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and I invite all editors to review this paragraph of WP:CSC Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group . These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32 K ) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington . If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. Content guideline is pretty unambiguous here. This list is obviously notable because WP:NLIST , but per CSC guidelines, non-notable list entries should be removed. BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrigadierG : Thanks for your comment! I don't think WP:CSC is relevant here — this is not a short list by any means. The list is also not " obviously notable "; in fact, lack of apparent notability was my original nomination rationale. WP:NLIST states that " a list topic is considered notable [...] if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources " (emphasis original). This article is supported by only a handful of references, none of which specifically discuss the list topic. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe there are almost certainly more offline sources. I refuse to believe that the largest media broadcaster in the country with an original shows catalogue of independently notable programs that large has never been discussed as a set. WP:NPOSSIBLE . My mention of CSC was regarding calls for NOTDIR deletions - it's a NOTDIR violation only if it includes non-notable entries. Right now, this seems like a valid navigational list to me. WP:LISTPURP-NAV applies here. BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm certainly not denying WP:LISTPURP-NAV — it's one of the main ideas behind making lists in the first place. I've looked around for sources that discuss the topic, and wasn't able to find any. I can't comment on the existence of offline sources, but unless you can point to one of them, what you're saying is simply a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP! Archival purposes! Please note it referred to old program that had aired before. 2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 ( talk ) 13:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) — 2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Unfortunately, " archival purposes " is not a reason for a Wikipedia article to exist on the subject. Notability of the subject has to be shown; in particular, my concern is that this list fails the WP:NLIST guideline. Would you be able to state your argument in terms of the policies and guidelines I've mentioned? — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more discussion of whether this list meets the common selection criteria . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Six sources out of a network's 70-year history, and a long term WP:TV project pain point with heavy IP vandalism. This article needs to simply be blown up and started over again with much stricter criteria and editing standards. Nate • ( chatter ) 23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only six refrances and only four of them are independent. Half of them are about a closing and the other half are about a failed bid. It doenst seem to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, September 22, 2023 (UTC) Comment : Only now seeing Ritchie333 's relist message. I've struck a comment from my earlier reply as it seems I was mistaken — WP:CSC advises a limit of 32K, but this list is 20K. That means that this discussion is in fact relevant to the third point of CSC, as BrigadierG mentioned. However, it also requires that " every item... is verifiably a member of the group " (emphasis original), which is really not the case here. The vast majority of entries in this list are unsourced, and it will take a lot of work to fix that issue. My !vote as nominator remains to delete . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck every example without its own Wikipedia article from the list. Is verifiability the hill you want to die on? Feel free to remove any items you feel are not verifiably group members. BrigadierG ( talk ) 15:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " Is verifiability the hill you want to die on? " I sincerely hope that no one is taking this discussion so seriously as to be considering their death. However, verifiability is a core policy that has to be followed across the encyclopedia. Also, am I missing something? I still see only a handful of citations for the more than 200 list items, and none of those sources discuss anything outside the one show that they're focused on. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every entry in the list is its own Wikipedia article, each of which has its own citations identifying it as being an ABS-CBN production. Verifiability is an issue only if there are no citations that exist that verify a claim, not that they are necessarily present in the article. Pick any random example from the list, click into its article. Does it have citations verifying it is a ABS-CBN production? The reason I asked if it was the hill you wanted to die on is that literally every single entry in this list without fail has citations because it has its own Wikipedia article. To put it another way, if the citations in the articles were copied as inline references to each list item, would that satisfy you? Doing so isn't actually a requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY , but if the answer was yes, would that change your view about the nomination? It actually gets even better than that because quote... "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references." To put it yet another way, if verifiability is in fact the only reason to delete the article, do you believe the claims made in the article are unlikely to be sourceable? Do they contain any of the four types of content that require inline citations per WP:MINREF ? BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:CLN, AOAL for navigation list. A lot of the individual entries in this list lack notability and should be reviewed, but the list itself will meet CLN and an index list. // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : WP:AOAL is a subsection of WP:CLN . Could you clarify what you mean by the list "meeting" CLN? As far as I can see, AOAL is just a list of useful things that lists can do, similar to WP:LISTPURP-NAV cited above, and not a set of criteria for determining whether or not a specific list should exist. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CLN/AOAL describes ways navigation aid can be used to improve the encyclopedia by helping readers find information. I think this list does this. Navigation list articles such as outlines, indexes, timelines are common when large numbers of articles exist and readers may benefit from a index (alpha), timeline (chronological) or outline (topical) style listing. If there is a consensus that this serves a useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should remain. If there is a consensus that it serves no useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this but I'll be relisting this instead. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , standard /list of programs broadcast by – / page, detailed article to facilitate navigation. Sources exist. Fwiw, the page has received coverage . Smile.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Then please, add them . Six out of the eight sources in the article now detail the network's demise with 'best known shows' in summary form, leaving only two sources for the entire article. If sources exist, they should be added (and it should be damned standard with TV lists that a source must be included when adding a show). I'm dog-tired of articles being kept despite radical and lazy non-sourcing. Nate • ( chatter ) 00:27, 1 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

Mount Kilimanjaro climbing routes: The article only gives 1 of the climbing routes its own section. The majority of the attempted edits recently have been reverted due to copyright violations. Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions . Shadow311 ( talk ) 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep WP:CSK #1. Nominator has not given any policy-based reasons for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. Jfire ( talk ) 16:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep a look at the sources on Mount Kilimanjaro finds 2 on this exact topic in the first column [10] and [11] . Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:36, 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

Fan clutch: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 18:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Beyond being low-sourced do you have a true reason for deletion beyond a rubbish WP:IDLI reason? We haven't deleted the cathode ray tube article because "nobody cares ...nowadays". Nate • ( chatter ) 21:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cathode ray tubes were a far more important piece of 20th century technology than fan clutches Chidgk1 ( talk ) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Please state, in your own words, a policy-based reason for deletion, not that you personally dislike the existence of an engine part. Nate • ( chatter ) 18:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment re: "quite rightly nobody cares about all the parts of internal combustion vehicles nowadays" There are >1.4 billion vehicles on the road using internal combustion engines. [2] Fan clutches are not used on front-wheel drive vehicles, so perhaps only 400 million use fan clutches? 300 million? 700 million? Whatever the number is, globally, it's really, really big. Presumably the people that bought and own these vehicles care about internal engines, especially when they break down and someone says they need to buy a new "fan clutch". -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - lots of reliable sources, starting with the Wikipedia Library link in the "find sources" section of the AfD template above. I added 2 to the article as external links. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Added 3 more refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per references added by A. B. the subject passes the GNG. Rupples ( talk ) 02:42, 21 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

Bill Flowers: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 17:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Mr. Flowers does appear to have attracted dedicated coverage in independent, reliable sources on at least a few occasions ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ). Marginal, but I lean keep. — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 15:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep sources noted above by Ganesha811 are enough to pass WP:NBASIC / WP:GNG , as they all have significant coverage of the subject. ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾 , me !) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this local artist. Removed stale link farm of external links. ABC and the Advocate cover local kerfuffle. Fails WP:ARTIST -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 02:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep*- he seems notable with sources cited above Wasilatlovekesy ( talk ) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per notability. Mutual United Ltd ( talk ) 22:44, 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

Selfie Type: Never launched. See WP:CRYSTALBALL . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 11:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : coverage by BBC and others establishes notability. Whether it was launched or not is irrelevant. We have many articles for products and projects that never came to fruition, and there's no policy to remove such articles. WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply, as this isn't a prediction, it's a description of a past event or idea, which still exists as a notable idea. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Virtual keyboard - changed per discussion below with nom. More than enough sources to support this as a section in the merge target. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OwenX , I should have clarified Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL , I meant that it is very unlikely that there will be more info about this particular product from Samsung in the near future, I just mentioned crystal ball because it is a nice idea to have "an invisible keyboard", but since this particular product didn't launch, we can't predict that there will be another product implementing this idea, thus I think it shouldn't have a standalone article. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, coverage by BBC and others establishes notability . Since the only coverage is about announcement, I believe it is not enough for notability: a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your point, and agree that such a burst of coverage does not automatically establish notability, and you are correct that we are unlikely to get additional sources about this concept. My claim is that when you take BBC along with all the other sources, this concept of a product marginally passes our usual threshold of notability. That said, in an effort to drive to a consensus here, how would you feel about merging this article to Virtual keyboard ? We certainly have more than enough sources here for a section in the target page. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ OwenX , I think it's a good idea. I noticed that there is a section "Optical virtual keyboard" which is exactly what Selfie Type was about. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent. I changed my ! vote above. If you revise the nomination, we can speedy close this AfD as withdrawn and carry out the merge as agreed. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ronald Mathias: Deleting the article is a good option since I couldn't find any sources myself after extensive research. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not a living person so BLP doesn't apply but fails GNG. GoldRomean ( talk ) 16:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Entry in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient to determine the subject is notable. Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your link you sent here has no sources inside of it so it's difficult to establish whether it's a good source. Normanhunter2 ( talk ) 13:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A biographical dictionary entry written by a well-established academic and published by the National Library of Wales is obviously a reliable source. Additionally the entry literally lists the sources used by the author. Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Chairman of the Welsh Labour Party is obviously notable. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography , which is maintained by the National Library of Wales, is clearly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - bio in Dictionary of Welsh Biography establishes notability. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 16:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Hold on, deleting this article about the Welsh Labour Party Chair seems unnecessary. They're a prominent figure, and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, a well-respected source from the National Library of Wales, even includes them! Waqar 💬 17:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ambivalent . If someone is prepared to put in the time to add proper sourcing then I would vote for keep. However, if we just deleted everything that is unsourced then there is nothing left. If you voted keep, please improve it. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 22:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fixed, just needed footnotes. Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being picky, surely there must be more than one source. For certain the honors lists are published and citable. Also, the External links need fixing as currently they don't connect. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 06:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no External links section. There is a Further reading section, which lists hard copy sources. If an editor has access to those hard-copy sources, that could be the basis for additional in-line cites. The article meets the notability requirements. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk ) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , inclusion in Dictionary of Welsh Biography meets WP:NBIO under criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:37, 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

List of most-followed Twitch channels: There are only two sources in the article, and both are routine data collections. From looking at a Google search, there doesn't seem to be much non-routine coverage of the most followed Twitch channels from secondary sources. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked TikTok videos Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists 123957a ( talk ) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists . 123957a ( talk ) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unlike, say, a List of tallest mountains , this is likely to change every month if not every day and requires undue effort to keep updated. Wikipedia is not a news site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is likely to be in a constant state of flux, and is more suited for a news site or suchlike, not a Wikipedia article. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 10:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Some content can be mentioned on main article though. Azuredivay ( talk ) 13:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nigh impossible to maintain per above, and not even the only measure of a channel's popularity -- you might as well list most subscribers, etc. (Also, while this isn't a rationale for deletion exactly, it is probably a magnet for self-promotion.) Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep listing the most popular of anything and linking to their articles, is a valid navigational list. Every article for a movie, album, game, etc, list the sales figures, and this information is outdated weekly the first months after it comes out. The infoboxes for business list a company's revenue, that information outdated every month. Being outdated is not a valid reason to delete information, and certainly not an entire list. You list when the last time the information was updated at the top, and its fine. D r e a m Focus 21:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Not indiscriminate for Wikipedia to keep—it lists the top 50 (not say, 500), so has a focus and a purpose. "Requires undue effort to keep updated", "nigh impossible to maintain"—it's not hard to keep maintained at all. There are editors who will come along and do this, and per Dream Focus above, it has a date for when it was last updated anyway. The sourcing could be better, but I don't see that as a reason to delete here because what are the most-followed Twitch channels do get news coverage, so I believe the sources are out there. Ss 112 12:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Too hard to maintain, and "most-followed Twitch channels" is not a notable topic, so it also fails LISTN . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Could perhaps move to "notable Twitch channels", with proper sourcing. Otherwise, nothing we can use here. Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The problem is the subscriber numbers aren't audited, can be bought and can be boosted using bots. We keeps lists of popular songs, popular movies, most subscribed-to newspapers as we have results that are audited/certified using reliable methods. The fact that you can pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars and buy fake likes and follows means we can't use these numbers as proof of "popularity". Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is this not WP:JDLI ? That people shouldn't pay attention to them doesn't mean they don't. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do like them, I'm explaining why we don't count number of subs for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'll disagree that this is too hard to maintain (or that "it's too hard to maintain [a list of 50]") is a good reason to delete. Just create a standard for the page to, say, update it once a month or something. There are plenty of easy editorial decisions to manage it, and plenty of other similar lists . Meanwhile, it's a list of the most popular accounts on the most popular streaming platform in the world, so of course there are sources to meet NLIST (just on the first page of google results there's Sports Illustrated , USA Today , GameRant , Forbes India , Espots News , The Loadout , and Insider . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Unmaintainable, and of questionable notability as a concept. Stifle ( talk ) 09:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unmaintainable, and "most-followed Twitch channels" fails WP:LISTN . // Timothy :: talk 14:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The list being "unmaintainable" is not only surmountable per WP:OUTDATED but it also describes almost all Wikipedia articles, since most things, people, and places with Wikipedia articles and/or our knowledge of them are changing constantly; the whole point is that editors are expected to update them if they so choose, and, based on the consistent updates to lists of the same ilk, the fear of this being "unmaintainable" is baseless. Per Rhododendrites , it passes WP:LISTN . ben ǝʇᴉɯ 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not to support either side on this proposal, but if this list is on consideration for deletion due to maintaining difficulty, should these lists also not be considered as well? They're practically the same thing, just on other social media platforms. List of most-followed Instagram accounts List of most-followed TikTok accounts List of most-followed Facebook pages List of most-subscribed YouTube channels B3251 ( talk ) 02:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The lists mentioned above have no problem staying up to date, while would this article be any different? L iz Read! Talk! 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep WP:COMMONSENSE Useful list that receives over 30,000 monthly views. None of the arguments rely on policy and lists like this (most-followed Instagram accounts, most subscribed YouTube channels.. etc.) exist and should not be deleted because they are "hard to maintain". As for the notability question, here are a bunch of reliable sources showing interest in the most-followed Twitch channels: NME BBC , New Yorker . If anyone wanted to illustrate how out of touch Wikipedia editors are, this deletion discussion would be perfect. Cheers!  : Célestin Denis ( talk ) 18:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The "Lists like this" part of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , and I do not believe anyone wants to update this, leaving it practically useless. Pageviews are also not a valid argument for keeping an article. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ QuicoleJR : You don't "believe anyone wants to update this"? Then why have there been over 50 edits to the article since the start of this year, most of which are adjustments to the follower counts? Ss 112 12:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rhododendrites. It's not that hard to keep up to date, and more generally, it doesn't even need to be - we cover stuff like old census data or what critics thought the best movies of 1976 are. Think WP:10YEARTEST - would it be reasonable to cover the hottest social media trends of 2013? Absolutely, see stuff like Harlem Shake (meme) . So even if this list goes out of date, it may still be worthwhile. Twitch streamers & Twitch are certainly newsworthy & notable enough. SnowFire ( talk ) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that ITSUSEFUL , ILIKEIT , and OTHERSTUFF are all considered to be poor arguments. I would like to also see a source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two sources given, neither of which seem particularly notable. I can't find any additional sourcing in RS that discuss notable streamers for this platform. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b , I went and added some sources to the list that are more solid. It is challenging to find sources with some of the names but I gave it a shot. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This article is essentially the same as List of most-followed Instagram accounts & List of most-followed TikTok accounts so there is a precedent to allow these types of lists. Grahaml35 ( talk ) 05:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article is a useful jumping off point for readers who are interested in learning more about streamers on Twitch. I think this is unique in that Streaming can be a little complicated if you have no idea or frame of reference about it. There are numerous other lists which have shown to be at least somewhat useful and have not been removed, this list is also at least that useful. I've gone though and added sources to support the list. One problem I saw was streamers who are listed there but don't have an article about them here. For almost all of those cases I found sources to support who they were, their name, and that they steam on Twitch. I was able to find newspaper articles to support some of the streamers which I found valuable. To bring this list in line with the general style of other similar lists I added a column for county. In cases where the streamer moved/moves between two places I added a source to support that. This was a lot harder for the last few entries on the list and I wouldn't oppose cutting that number down a bit. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, I'll do a partial source analysis tomorrow if this is still up. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just wanted to give a short update. I've made more improvements to the article but didn't get around to do the analysis of the sources. That's on me, I just went down a rabbit hole and got tired so I took my partner out for lunch. If this is still open tomorrow I'll try my best to get that (abridged) analysis done. Normally this isn't that much work for me but in this case there are 50 people with sources in multiple language I have to go though. It's not an excuse just an explanation of the bumps in the road I've experienced. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial Analysis of Sources: List of most-followed Twitch channels by Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) At the start of this AfD this page had two sources, it now has eighty five. As a result I'm not going to go over every source but I'll go over the "best", the "worst", generally good sources, and some important articles. . I identified these sources using the CiteHighlighter script by Novem Linguae , WikiProject Video games , New page patrol source guide , Newspaper of record , and WP:RSP . Since this is a list the sources are almost all used to just verify a fact such as a streamers name, the game they play, and their location. A few explain what twitch is, and a couple explain why a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. This might not be complete, there might be mistakes, I did my best. Generally reliable Source for determining reliability WikiProject Video games Hobbyconsolas , Large Spanish video game magazine. Dot Esports. This is the most used source in the page Shacknews IGN The Verge Polygon Kotaku GamesRadar PC Gamer New page patrol source guide BBC News ESPN Sports Illustrated New Musical Express (NME) The Hollywood Reporter Variety Los Angeles Times Washington Post Associated Press Bloomberg Newspaper of record Los Angeles Times Washington Post Marginally reliable or no consensus New page patrol source guide CNBC WP:NEWSORG but concerns have been raised about their promotion of non-notable crypto. This source is used once to establish a streamers name. Daily Mirror (Tabloid) This source is used once to establish a streamers name and the game they best known for streaming. Generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted Twitter as per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:RSPTWITTER this source is generally unacceptable for use. This source is used once in a pair of references to note that a streamer is no longer streaming on Twitch. The streamer that this is used for is Harley Fresh (Fresh), he is low on the list ranked 45th most followed on Twitch. The combination of being low on the list and located in Australia result in him not having a lot of press coverage. If he were located in Europe or the Americas this would not have been a problem. Twitter should never be used for any claim of a third party person and this tweet came from Fresh and was about himself. WikiProject Video games and New page patrol source guide Dexerto has poor editorial control and is known to have errors in reporting. In a RfC on this source it was decided to not deprecast it . This source is used once to support the previous tweet by Fresh and is the best secondary source about that tweet. Sources that are generally fine Sources that are generally fine Books Fletcher, Gordon; Adolphus, Noel (2022). Creating a successful digital presence : objectives, strategies and tactics . Noel Adolphus. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Book published by an academic publisher that notes that Pokimane is the most popular female streamer. Furgang, Adam (2019). Saidian, Siyavush (ed.). Tyler Ninja Blevins : Twitch's Top Streamer with 11 Million+ Followers (1st ed.). New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-7253-4602-4 . Book published about Ninja and that he is the most followed streamer on Twitch. Checked the publisher and this is a real publishing house and not a self-publishing service. Peer Reviewed Articles Thorne, Sarah (January 29, 2023). Murray, Brittany (ed.). "#Emotional: Exploitation & Burnout in Creator Culture". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture . Purdue University Press . 24 (4). doi :10.7771/1481-4374.4088 Peer reviewed article that notes Ninja is the most popular male streamer. Sjöblom, Max; Törhönen, Maria; Hamari, Juho; Macey, Joseph (2019). "The ingredients of Twitch streaming: Affordances of game streams". Computers in Human Behavior . 92: 20–28. doi :10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.012 Peer reviewed article that notes Twitch is a live streaming platform and includes an analysis of the social functions of a group of streamers. Local and National Newspapers. Krishnan, Joe (January 25, 2019). "Gaming Twitch Stars are Gaming's A-List". Evening Standard . London, Greater London, England. pp. A54. Perugini, Nicholas (August 15, 2019). "Local Gamer Wins Big: Teen Plays in Fortnite World Cup". Town Times News . Southbury, Connecticut. Hegarty, Aaron (October 14, 2018). "Omaha gamer DrLupo plays 'Fornite', meets about 400 fans at Nebraska Furniture Mart". Omaha World-Herald . Omaha, Nebraska. p. 22 Cifuentes, Nora (October 10, 2020). "Cuando ser un impostor esta de moda". El Nuevo Herald . pp. A5 Saad, Nardine (October 3, 2022). "Popular YouTuber and 'Minecraft' gamer Dream reveals his face to followers". Los Angeles Times . Twitch star DrLupo signs exclusive YouTube deal, now 'secure for life'". Washington Post . Harwell, Drew (December 2, 2021). "Up all night with a Twitch millionaire: The loneliness and rage of the Internet's new rock stars". Washington Post . Stories in newspapers that are reprints from syndicated news services or another news paper. Drake, 'Ninja' play 'Fortnite' break a record". Fresno Bee . Associated Press. March 17, 2018. pp. B8 Kharif, Olga (May 13, 2021). "Female streamers are conquering Twitch". Valley News . West Lebanon, New Hampshire. Bloomberg. Browning, Kellen; Hill, Kashmir (July 31, 2022). "A hidden price of fame". Citizens' Voice . New York Times . pp. A14 Amenabar, Teddy; Lee, Jonathan (September 30, 2023). "'Fortnite' turns 5". The Santa Fe New Mexican . Santa Fe, New Mexico. Washington Post . Important Articles Three streamers move to Andorra for tax reasons. These articles were all in Spanish so I included a quote to support the claim and the translated quote in the reference "Auronplay, youtuber residente en Andorra: "El socialismo me come el escroto" " [Auronplay, YouTuber living in Andorra: "Socialism eats my scrotum"]. El Plural (in Spanish). 2021-03-20. Archived from the original on December 7, 2021 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . Además, hace tiempo decidió mudarse a Andorra para acogerse a una fiscalidad menos agresiva que en España y así pagar menos impuestos. [In addition, he decided a long time ago to move to Andorra to take advantage of less aggressive taxation than in Spain and thus pay less taxes.] This newspaper labels itself as a progressive daily newspaper and has had connections with the socialist party in Catalonia. The coverage is brief but the source is only used to establish that the streamer Auronplay had moved to Andorra. Muñoz, José David (2021-01-30). "El Rubius habla de las razones de su marcha a Andorra y responde al vicepresidente y a los que le han señalado" [Rubius talks about the reasons for his departure to Andorra and responds to the vice president and to those who have indicated him]. Hobbyconsolas (in Spanish). Archived from the original on May 21, 2022 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . Hace unos días os comunicábamos la decisión que había dictaminado como pública el famoso y conocido YouTuber El Rubius, la cosa era bien sencilla: El Rubius se muda a Andorra y se une a la larga lista de youtubers que instalan su residencia en el país. [A few days ago we informed you of the decision that the famous and well-known YouTuber El Rubius had ruled as public , the thing was very simple: El Rubius moves to Andorra and joins the long list of youtubers who take up residence in the country ] "De Olavarría a Andorra: Robleis, el youtuber y cantante que se convirtió en fenómeno" [From Olavarría to Andorra: Robleis, the YouTuber and singer who became a phenomenon]. Todo Noticias (in Spanish). 2022-12-10. Archived from the original on February 9, 2023 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . cosecha más de 17 millones de suscriptores y se fue a vivir, como buena parte de sus ídolos, a Andorra. [currently, he has more than 17 million subscribers and went to live, like many of his idols, in Andorra.] Argentinian news channel, source is only used to establish the streamers move to Andorra. Two streamers born in Mexico now stream in the United States. These two articles were only used to support the location of the streamer as they have streamed in both places. Martin, Anneth (January 2, 2023). "Quién es Quackity, el streamer nominado a Revelación del año en los premios ESLAND 2023" . Todo Digital (in European Spanish). Archived from the original on January 6, 2023 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . Quackity es un streamer nacido en México pero que actualmente radica en Los Angeles, California. [Quackity is a streamer born in Mexico but currently is based in Los Angeles, California.] Méndez, Dora (2022-07-14). "Así es ElDed: el streamer mexicano con más seguidores del mundo" . Diario AS (in Mexican Spanish). Archived from the original on October 5, 2022 . Retrieved 2023-04-23 . Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment what the above shows is that this list fails LISTN, and the idea of "most followed" is a highly fluctuating target. Wikipedia is not a Twitch leaderboard. // Timothy :: talk 21:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not following what you mean by the above list shows that this article fails WP:LISTN @ TimothyBlue , if you could lay it out a little more for me I would appreciate it. Here is how I'm seeing things and if I'm wrong or off base please let me know, I promise I'm not being a jerk or am being sarcastic. According to the sources in the article the list is notable based on multiple sources including newspaper articles, peer reviewed journal articles, and online news providers. Because the topic is notable everyone that is listed in the article does not have to be independently notable. At least that's what I think it says in WP:LISTN . I get that the topic of "lists of most XYZ" is a polarizing topic in AfD. It's one of the more interesting aspects of consensus in AfD, since we have to do these sort of articles on a case by case basis you get a patchwork of decisions. I've noticed some push back at AfD when articles are nominated here that cover streamers. It's a topic that is a little newer and harder to always establish notability for reliable sources, trust me I just hunted for sources for this article and it wasn't super easy. Lets just go over some of the "lists of most XYZ" that have been in AfD. List of most prolific porn stars N Delete Was deleted due to not really having a useable definition of "most prolific" List of most-played video games by player count N Delete Was deleted due to the list trying to make an apples to oranges comparison for different games List of most-streamed songs on Spotify Y Keep Noted that the list was useful and good content that people wanted to see ~169,000 views last 30 days List of most-subscribed YouTube channels Y Speedy Keep Widespread coverage of the topic ~278,000 views last 30 days List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (2nd nomination) Y Speedy Keep Nominator didn't WP:BEFORE List of most-viewed YouTube channels Y Keep Keep as topix was deemed notable ~33,000 views last 30 days List of most-viewed YouTube channels (2nd nomination) Y Keep Article deemed notable and to pass WP:LISTN List of most-followed Twitter accounts Yg No consensus Similar arguments for delete that we see here that the list will fluctuate and that Wikipedia isn't a list of statistics ~ 82,000 views per 30 days List of most-followed Twitter accounts (2nd nomination) Y Keep List deemed reliable and important as the topic of most followed people on twitter was notable, list passes WP:LISTN . List of most-retweeted tweets Yg No consensus Similar arguments that we have here, list isn't notable doesn't pass WP:LISTN . Other side saying that sources support the articles support it passing WP:LISTN ~ 9,000 views per 30 days List of most-retweeted tweets (2nd nomination) Y Keep Passes WP:LISTN article is not WP:NOTSTATS So lets ask some questions about this article Does List of most-followed Twitch channels pass WP:LISTN ? Yes, we have multiple sources which would pass WP:GNG that make note of the importance that this has in the general public. Multiple types of sources, in depth reporting over a long period of time, and across multiple languages and cultures all support this list as being notable. Does the fluctuating nature of the List of most-followed Twitch channels article raise a concern about it's maintenance or notability? No, lists of things change we have already established that both most-subscribed and most-viewed YouTube channels are notable even in the face of fluctuating numbers. WP:UPTODAT isn't a good argument here, this is Wikipedia if something is out of date just fix it. If this is a serious issue that the community is concerned with we can just ask for someone to write a bot to update it every now and then. Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article have a standard metric for establishing most-followed? Yes, unlike in the AfD for List of most prolific porn stars we have a metric which is quantifiable, stable, and verifiable. Just like YouTube. Does the List of most-followed Twitch channels article compare followers across different platforms or groupings? No, unlike in the AfD for List of most played video games by player count we see that the list is only listing followers from one platform where a follower is equal for all streamers on the platform. In practice this means that the value of one follower is always one follower, being a paying follower does not give that streamer ten followers etc. That's at least how I'm seeing this AfD and article. I see a lot of parallels with the AfDs for the YouTube and Twitter lists. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS don't work. Not every Twitch channel can pass the notability. CastJared ( talk ) 15:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In WP:LISTN it says lays it down fairly clearly that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." so just because some of the entries on the list would not have enough sources to be notable does not make the list not notable. Let's use a few examples to establish that this list is notable and lets not use the sources that are in the article. Here are two that I liked from Newspapers.com an article in the Ottawa Citizen talking about some of the top chess streamers on Twitch and a local paper talking about the top streamers in North Carolina. Both articles talk about followers and that in their niche (Chess, North Carolina) they are the top streamers. The topic of "List of most-followed Twitch channels" is notable and subdividing into smaller groups will most likely also be notable. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, in my previous post I was pointing out the evolution of lists like this where the first time similar lists are brought to AfD they don't hit consensus and then later at another AfD they are kept. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT are both irrelevant, based on the notability guidelines and sources provided the list holds up on it's own. Hum, Peter (February 13, 2021). MacAdam, Nicole (ed.). "Bringing Their A-Game: Young Canadian chess stars lead drive to popularize the royal game on Twitch" . Ottawa Citizen . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. pp.  CS7 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . Canada's top chess streamers are a two-sibling team...The sisters, who signed last December with e-sports giant Envy Gaming have more than 625,000 Twitch followers. Eanes, Zachery (January 12, 2022). Church, Bill (ed.). "North Carolina is home to some of Twitch's most influential streamers" . The News and Observer . Raleigh, North Carolina. pp.  A5 . Retrieved 2023-04-28 . Several popular Twitch streamers have ties to North Carolina, including some with millions of followers. Here are a few of them: < Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins ( talk ) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk ) 03:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - AfD is not a vote. Has anyone here actually evaluated the multiple sources provided which give significant coverage to the topic " as a group or set " before expressing this argument that it fails WP:NLIST ? Seems most of the people voting delete here have yet to do a thorough examination of the sources Dr. Vulpes cited, and are still claiming that the keep votes are merely voting so because "they like it" or "other stuff exists". So far I have yet to see anyone actually refute that the sources provided aren't reliable and/or significant enough to make this topic pass the guidelines. 2601:645:C57F:FD80:E825:8167:505A:397 ( talk ) 18:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Facepalm - WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work. Agreed. CastJared ( talk ) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . WP:NLIST is well satisfied here. The concept of Twitch streamers and their number of followers clearly generate coverage and the WP:LSC appears to currently be the top 50 streamers which is unambiguous and suggests to me we don't need to be concerned with the notability of each individual streamer in the list. I don't think Dr. vulpes's analysis of previous similar AfDs is OSE in this case, since it's specifically looking at past AfDs for conceptually similar pages to see if there's broad consensus to keep pages like this, which it seems like there is. I think there are some issues with the page itself (linking to Twitch instead of Wikipedia pages in the table's first column, including people who no longer have Twitch channels which would seem like a disqualifier, etc), but the article is worth having. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep and I'm not particularly thrilled to be here as this doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. But that's IDON'TLIKEIT; the sourcing is perfectly fine to support the relative rankings on the list members, and there are ample references to "one of the most popular channels on Twitch" as noted above, so I don't think NLIST is implicated. It legitimately can function as a navigational aid, so usefulness is a perfectly reasonable argument. Unless we uncover some good reason to believe Twitch is playing fast and loose with follower counts, and until we reach a sitewide consensus through an RfC on how to handle all of these types of lists, I think this one can stay. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Here are the first few results of a quick web search: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] . None are perfect, however it is enough to suggest to me that the topic has sufficient coverage. However, I am open to changing my ! vote (or finding more sources, since these were just the first few) if most of these are found to be unreliable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:21, 2 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 Caution Zone: There was a brief flurry of human-interest news stories when it was built, but nothing indicating actual lasting notability. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and California . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep the HuffPo article is fine, I found this [6] . Seems to be at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per article sources // Timothy :: talk 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Perplexity.ai: Draftified multiple times; declined multiple times at AfC; tags added and removed; the history of this article is somewhat complex. Stuartyeates ( talk ) 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . Stuartyeates ( talk ) 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I believe there are enough significant, independent, and reliable sources to claim WP:SIGCOV and pass WP:NCORP (e.g. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] ). It's not a great article, but it's not even bad enough for me to want to say that it can't be worked on in the main space (i.e. to draftify). Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: TechCrunch is not suitable for notability purposes, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_246#Is_TechCrunch_a_reliable_source? . theregister.com article doesn't actually have in-depth coverage of Perplexity.ai , it's all about it's more-notable relations. The Wall Street Journal podcast is so short it's not in-depth (at least according to the 'full transcript'). The Yahoo! Finance piece is a non-adversarial interview with the CEO. The www.businesstoday.in source appears to contain multiple unattributed quotes from other articles on the web. This is not a reliable source. In short, none of this is the reliable independent coverage that we're looking for. Stuartyeates ( talk ) 20:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a new article by the NYTimes [38] that I quite liked. Not currently used in the article, but even if you can't approve of any of the current sources, we should be good by WP:NEXIST . Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 21:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, this is paywalled for me. Stuartyeates ( talk ) 22:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the second and last sources cited by PopoDameron; the others look like churnalism to me, but those two should be enough for this to squeak through WP:NCORP . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, other than the TechCrunch one, which seemed rather thorough to me. Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree with PopoDameron; seems to meet WP:SIGCOV . Marokwitz ( talk ) 07:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously significant. Chris55 ( talk ) 21:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is enough coverage on this one. 00:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal88888 ( talk • contribs ) Keep - The subject of the article is a publicly available part of the current frontier technology developments of artificial intelligence, and as such is of interest to the public, and the article's information about this AI is relevant. I came to this article today (to be here to comment) because I saw something of interest about it 'out in the world' and was curious to learn more from a balanced source; the article did not disappoint. LaEremita ( talk ) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't love the sources identified above, but I do think that we have WP:SIRS through The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal (different story than WSJ piece given by PopoDameron), The Information , and The Register (PopoDameron's source #2). Article ought be improved, but deletion is not cleanup ; we should not delete articles like this when ordinary editing can address any extant content issues . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jayashree Patanekar: Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:MUSICBIO . UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , India , and Karnataka . UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I can't find any third party independent sources that cover her in detail, therefore she likely fails WP:MUSICBIO . Qcne (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this Hindu article is substantial coverage here and so is the Mumbai Mirror piece here . Also she received two government level awards which is a claim under WP:ANYBIO imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on arguments presented above by Atlantic306 . Hkkingg ( talk ) 08:40, 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

Miras International School Astana: LibStar ( talk ) 23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , Kazakhstan , and France . LibStar ( talk ) 23:50, 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! 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These sources 1 , 2 , 3 give a fair coverage to the subject for notability Atighot ( talk ) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Rotarun Ski Area: Unreferenced since 2011. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism , Sports , and Idaho . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and salt again for lack of notability, dearth of reliable sources. Kill this ad. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Based on the lack of recent editing and the fact that the article has been tagged for notability since 2011, I strongly oppose salting . There is little “threat” of recreation for the sake of recreation. Frank Anchor 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to keep per the sources added by Cunard which establish notability. I maintain my opposition to salting if there is consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Rotarun, which reliable sources have described as a "ski hill" and a "a little mountain", falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope , which says: For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth , whether natural or artificial. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Natural features , which says: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Sources Currie, Lori (2023-01-15). "History of Rotarun" . Sun Valley Magazine . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "With its eight named runs and a vertical drop of 441 feet, Rotarun has been responsible for nurturing young talents like Olympic champions Picabo Street and Cristin Cooper and Paralympic medalist Muffy Davis. This humble little mountain has been a testament to community involvement since it sprang into existence in the winter of 1940-41, when three locals—Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory—ventured out of Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would make a nice little ski hill." Bossick, Karen (2021-01-30). "A 'Magic' Hill Named Rotarun" . Eye on Sun Valley . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "Kathleen Eder knows every dip and rise in the treeless white hill that constitutes Rotarun Ski Area. She spent many hours here watching her daughter Lauren and son Jason take the first turns that launched their ski racing careers. ... Snowmaking, installed this year, has transformed the face of the mountain into a white expanse with none of the wheat-colored bunchgrasses that dot the slopes in lean snow years. Instead, the hill resembled a little factory with a steady stream of pint-sized skiers catching a ride on the Poma lift that ferried them 475 feet up the hill. ... Rotarun sprang into existence as an official ski hill when Bill Mallory, Bob Jackson and Jim Hurst arranged for a tractor-and-pulley rope tow to pull skiers up the 5,895-foot hill. And Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week." Bartley, Natalie (2011-02-07). "Bartley: Small ski hills are the roots of the sport - They're a reminder of when ski hills were run by clubs instead of corporations" . Idaho Statesman . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "This is another long-standing small ski hill, which got its name when the local Rotary Club opened the hill in 1947. ... For example, on a busy Friday night in January, 60 people were on the hill. Race days attract 150 racers. Annual winter events include the Snow Box Derby, where people decorate sleds made of paper, tape and cardboard then glide down a course on the sleds, and the ski and snowboard Arkoosh Cup Race. The old Sun Valley heli-ski building was donated and moved and will be remodeled for the Rotarun's ski lodge, snack bar and warming hut." Seder, Hayden (2020-02-12). "Night skiing in Sun Valley? You betcha!" . The Idaho Press . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "But a small mountain located south of Ketchum in Hailey provides something that Baldy doesn’t — night skiing. Located three miles east of downtown Hailey is Rotarun, known as “the little mountain with a big heart.” This fun little ski hill has been around for 60 years, serving the local community and providing a close-by, cheaper alternative to Sun Valley’s main ski hill. Rotarun has two lifts that run a little over 400 vertical feet to the top; one is a Poma lift and the other a handle tow lift." Russell, Betsy Z. (2024-03-30). "Snowmaking key to future of Idaho skiing" . The Idaho Press . ProQuest 3040311940 . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "Idaho's smallest ski resort - Rotarun in Hailey - more than tripled its annual skier visits from around 3,000 to nearly 12,000 after it installed snowmaking. ... Little Rotarun, which got its name after the local Rotary Club replaced an existing rope tow in 1957, has a platter lift that was installed in 2001 and 441 feet of vertical. It struggled to stay open over the years and serve its community until the Rotarun Ski Club asked the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation to step in and help operate the mountain starting in 2017. Limburg, a commercial real estate broker who's on the SVSEF board, became president, and the two nonprofits partnered, tapping into SVSEF's much bigger resources and donor base." Evans, Tony (2016-11-25). "The history and future of the people's ski hill: Rotarun community is devoted to south-valley winter recreation" . Idaho Mountain Express . Archived from the original on 2024-04-20 . Retrieved 2024-04-20 . The article notes: "During the winter of 1940-41, Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory decided that it was a nice day to go skiing, so they ventured out Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would be a nice little ski hill. Those ski pioneers used a donated tractor from Wayne Clark and a pulley system to operate a rope tow in the early days. Jay Deering and Charles and Pilar Harris helped with the rope tow and Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week. Ski racer Ann Janet Winn, who competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics, began teaching local children skiing on a small hill at the Hailey Elementary School and later took her students to Rotarun." There is extensive coverage of Rotarun in this Newspapers.com search. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rotarun to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , while I support keeping this article, the nomination wasn't concerned with notability as much as the article being previously created as Rotarun . Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not phrase it that way - the point of these AfDs (of which this is one of dozens, most of which have ended in deletions) is to make sure that recreations of salted articles don't fly under the radar. Once it's at AfD, especially for entries like this one where the previous title was only speedy deleted not subject to a deletion discussion, it should be evaluated by normal AfD standards, which do include concerns of notability. And I'm not withdrawing this because I feel like I'm only the messenger here, not the independent agent pushing for deletion, so it would be wrong for me to do so. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as per Cunard . Samoht27 ( talk ) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Westview Secondary School: — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term ( talk • contribs ) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] fixed malformed Queen of Hearts ( 🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈 ) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE . 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr ( talk ) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc ♫ talk 00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN , Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists , even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School . Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG , per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc ♫ talk 08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N , which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity . Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc ♫ talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc ♫ talk 11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc ♫ talk 11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still no significant coverage at ProQust. Perhaps the stabbing is notable though? Try the google search — Iadmc ♫ talk 14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is about all I can find [8] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks notability in its entirety. Maybe, because the article is Wikipedia:Too soon . I don't know but I wonder why it's not yet covered in reliable sources from 2006 till date. So, delete until it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wår ( talk ) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have added multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. For directions on accessing ProQuest sources via the Wikipedia Library see the top of the page at Talk:Westview Secondary School . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Malinaccier Please, do well to remove the Afd tag now. Issues resolved. Wår ( talk ) 19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] War Term , are you requesting your AfD nomination to be withdrawn? — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely. Wår ( talk ) 22:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are free to withdraw your nomination but this discussion can't be closed as there are several Delete arguments that have been made. L iz Read! Talk! 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Users Iadmc and Oaktree b , given the changes in this article since its AfD nomination, and War Term 's request to withdraw his nomination, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your ! vote? Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. It still is just about ordinary school things. Even the stabbing isn't mentioned — Iadmc ♫ talk 19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep They put in a flower garden and a totem pole, but I suppose these are enough for at least GNG... Still not super duper sources, but good enough. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations: Source eval: Comments Source Primary 1. "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Home". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Primary 2. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Home". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Ad 3. ^ "Advertising". Canberra Times. 1978-03-28. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS 4. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations Inc". www.tasfhs.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Promo for event 5. ^ "AU/NZ Family History Month - Home". familyhistorymonth.org.au. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Primary, travel information for event Norfolk Island Travel Centre". https://www.norfolkislandtravelcentre.com/ . 2020-10-09. Retrieved 2023-05-18. {{ cite web }} : Empty citation ( help ) : External link in |website= (help) Primary 7. ^ "Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations - Nick Vine-Hall". www.affho.org. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS Genealogical Society of Victoria". www.gsv.org.au. Retrieved 2023-05-18. Member org, not SIGCOV, not IS 9. ^ "Nick Vine Hall Award - Newcastle Family History Society". 2019-02-25. Retrieved 2023-05-18. BEFORE showed promo, mentions, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Earwig copyright report: [36] . // Timothy :: talk 07:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi TimothyBlue, I don't know where else to find information. AFFHO is an organisation that covers over 20,000 Australians and Kiwis but doesn't appear in the formats you require. The Canberra Times articles is NOT an ad, despite the title. Ngerbuns ( talk ) 07:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Organizations , Australia , and New Zealand . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 11:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I have removed most of the content for copyright reasons. — Diannaa ( talk ) 19:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : erroneous nomination, Canberra times article is not an ad Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's also not in the article any more, having apparently been removed as part of copyvio cleanup. XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There doesn't seem to be much we can say about this organization as an organization. Is there a plausible redirect target? XOR'easter ( talk ) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doesn't appear to be notable Very Average Editor ( talk ) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A pretty lazy delete - with just on some very cursory searching I have found that basically all significant genealogical groups in NZ and Aust belong to this organisation. Sure the article as it stands stood was lousy but with a bit of time and research i have improved it. Will meet the notability requirements. I suggest those who want to delete it reassess their positions. NealeWellington ( talk ) 08:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- As an umbrella body for local groups, this is likely to be notable. As with many such organisations, there is often difficulty in finding truly independent sources, but that is the nature of such societies. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Keep per WP:HEY thanks to NealeWellington, and per Peterkingiron. Deus et lex ( talk ) 20:37, 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

John Dunlop (chess player): Konstantina07 ( talk ) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions . Konstantina07 ( talk ) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It fails WP:GNG due to insufficient media coverage. Morekar ( talk ) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand . Shaws username . talk . 17:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon ( talk ) 01:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing found in books for this individual, Gnewspapers, even in Trove from the Library of Australia [1] . Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I closed this discussion as Delete but was asked to restore and relist this AFD discussion. Please allow more comments on this AFD before closing. L iz Read! Talk! 22:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following expansion. Extensive coverage in contemporary New Zealand newspapers; meets WP:GNG . Paora ( talk ) 08:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:HEY but with the caveat that contemporary newspaper accounts will be primary sources, not counting towards notability. However, they do verify that he won the national senior championships on multiple occasions and the guideline at WP:NCHESS would suggest this confers likely notability, and this is also in line with the different but not unrelated notability criteria at WP:NATHLETE . On that basis it is not unreasonable that secondary sources will exist. Some of the sources now in the article are secondary but may have other issues, but all in all I believe this crosses the line. With thanks to the efforts of Paora . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be great if some editors who commented earlier evaluated the expansion of the article since it was nominated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Oaktree b used a very limited search to conclude that there was nothing in Trove. I did an alternate search of Trove and got numerous hits for this person, which is significant, given that Trove is a repository of Australian newspapers and Dunlop was playing mostly in New Zealand. Paora ( talk ) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whilst reaffirming my keep ! vote, are there any sources other than newspaper accounts? Mentions in a book for instance? These should put the matter beyond doubt. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll look at your results. I only found out about Trove when helping with research for the National Library of Ireland on flickr of all places. Trove is quite the repository, covering items from every corner of the world it seems. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , a suggestion submitted without any trace of bias from this confessed chess aficionado, since truth be my most beloved friend . Dunlop clearly meets WP:NCHESS criterion #3 by having won a national chess championship, New Zealand's, and, moreover, not once but six times. All we need are sources testifying to that effect and we have one here at Chess Café, and another here at the National Library archive. He was never a grandmaster and Jeremy Gaige 's invaluable Chess Personalia only lists chess titles and not tournament wins or championships but the above brace of sources suffice. - The Gnome ( talk ) 20:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the wonderful rescue work performed by Paora. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Taipei Language Institute: Existing citations are primary sources, social media and simple listings. Northern Moonlight 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Education , Schools , and Taiwan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Jia, Yimin 贾益民, ed. (2016). 世界华文教育年鉴（2015） [ World Chinese Education Yearbook (2015) ] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press . p. 376. ISBN 978-7-509-78633-8 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books . The book notes: "中华语文研习所(Taipei Language Institute, TLI) 1956年成立于美国新泽西州, 原名“基督教语文学院”,同年9月于台北建校,教学对象以赴台传教士为主,希望 透过华语学习,使在台传教士能快速融入台湾地区生活。1958年更名为“台北语文 学院”,是世界上第一所华语教会学校。1959年,TLI与美国国务院签署了长达20年 的代训合约,负责培训美国在台外交官、美军顾问团的华语能力。1976年,该校改 名为“中华语文研习所”,保留TLI的英文名称。自1996年开始,TLI开始向外扩 展,相继在北京、上海、东京、多伦多、香港、纽约、旧金山、新德里等地成立分 校, ..." From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI) was founded in 1956 in New Jersey, USA, formerly known as "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taipei in September of the same year. Its teaching targets are mainly missionaries who went to Taiwan, hoping to learn through Chinese language. This enables missionaries in Taiwan to quickly integrate into life in Taiwan. In 1958, it was renamed "Taipei Chinese Language College" and was the first Chinese-speaking church school in the world. In 1959, TLI signed a 20-year training contract with the U.S. State Department, responsible for training the Chinese language skills of U.S. diplomats and U.S. military advisory groups in Taiwan. In 1976, the school was renamed "Chinese Language Institute", retaining the English name of TLI. Since 1996, TLI has begun to expand outward and has successively established branches in Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Toronto, Hong Kong, New York, San Francisco, New Delhi and other places ..." Lai, Mingde 賴明德 (2013). 臺灣華語文教育發展史 [ The Development History of Chinese Language Education in Taiwan ] (in Chinese). New Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books . The book notes on page 20: "臺北語文學院 TLI (Taipei Language Institute) 創立於 1956 年 6 月美國紐澤西州,原名「基 3 督教語文學院」, 9 月在臺灣建校。創辦人美籍安篤思牧師( Rev. Egbert W. Andrews )及中華民國籍何景賢先生。開辦之初,是為培訓在臺灣外籍傳教士研習中華語文,了解中華文化。由於教學績效顯著,深受外籍人士嚮往,遂於 1958 年更名為「臺北語文學院」- TLI ( Taipei Language Institute )。 1959 年 TLI 即與美國國務院簽訂合約,負責代訓美國在臺外交人員,包括美國駐華大使館、美軍顧問團及臺灣協防司令部官員和眷屬的華語文研習,長達二十年。" From Google Translate: "Taipei Language Institute TLI (Taipei Language Institute) was founded in June 1956 in New Jersey, USA. Its original name was "Christian Language Institute". It was established in Taiwan in September. The founders are Rev. Egbert W. Andrews, an American, and Mr. He Jingxian, a Chinese national. When it was first founded, it was to train foreign missionaries in Taiwan to learn Chinese language and understand Chinese culture. Due to its remarkable teaching performance, it was highly desired by foreigners, so in 1958 it was renamed "Taipei Language Institute" - TLI (Taipei Language Institute). In 1959, TLI signed a contract with the U.S. Department of State and was responsible for training U.S. diplomats in Taiwan, including Chinese language training for officials and their families of the U.S. Embassy in China, the U.S. Army Advisory Group, and the Taiwan Assistance Defense Command, for twenty years." Kubler, Cornelius C. (2002). "Learning Chinese in China: Programs for Developing Superior- to Distinguished-Level Chinese-Language Proficiency in China and Taiwan". In Leaver, Betty Lou; Shekhtman, Boris (eds.). Developing Professional-Level Language Proficiency . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . p. 107. ISBN 0-521-81657-2 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Taipei Language Institute (TLI). Founded in Taipei in 1955 to train American missionaries to the SD level in Mandarin and Taiwanese, TLI has since expanded to serve increasing numbers of non-missionary students from all over the world, in particular diplomatic and business personnel assigned to Taiwan, their family members, and foreign university students. There are currently over 1,000 students at TLI's five branch schools in Taiwan. Courses at TLI, which may be full-time or part-time, typically consist of a combination of small-group classes of 2-6 students and tutorials. A rather rigorous audiolingual method is employed, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. TLI has compiled many of its own materials but, beginning ..." Thompson, Richard J. (July 1991). "Chinese Language Study Abroad in the Summer, 1990. Final Report" (PDF) . Center for Applied Linguistics . pp. 13–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-24 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 . The article notes: "The Taipei Language Institute (TLI) (main site) is located in downtown Taipei at an easy to reach location. It has facilities in other parts of the island as well. It appears well organized and staffed with competent teachers. TLI is by far the largest of all of the Chinese language programs, with an estimated 400-450 American students at its four sites. It is also, by all accounts one of the most flexible programs of study. Private or group instruction can be arranged on short notice on an intensive or non-intensive basis. As a result, a fairly diversified student body can be found here. Although there is no student housing at the Institute's main site, ample housing is available at the YMCA, the International Student Youth Center, or through private home stays." Less significant coverage: Ling, Vivian (2018). "The Cornell Program of 1956–63 and the founding of IUP" . In Ling, Vivian (ed.). The Field of Chinese Language Education in the U.S.: A Retrospective of the 20th Century . New York: Routledge . ISBN 978-1-138-50201-7 . Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Google Books . The book notes in a footnote: "Formally the Missionary Language Institute, later it secularized and become the Taipei Language Institute." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taipei Language Institute ( traditional Chinese : 中華語文研習所 ; simplified Chinese : 中华语文研习所 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 11:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has significant coverage as demonstrated by Cunard . Bradelykooper ( talk ) 08:07, 25 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

Keith Garebian: This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but still isn't making a better case for notability. The attempted notability claim here is that he's been a winner of minor local or regional literary awards that are not prominent enough to constitute instant notability freebies in the absence of passing WP:GNG , but the sourcing still isn't adequate to get him over GNG: of the five footnotes here, one is a dead link, one is a directory entry, two are Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person, and the only one that represents third-party journalism comes from a weekly community hyperlocal in his own hometown. I've also already had to remove several primary sources from the article, namely his own self-published website about himself and two pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, which are not notability-builders either: you don't make a writer notable by citing his writing to itself as proof that it exists , you make a writer notable by citing his writing to third-party coverage and analysis about it as proof that it's been externally validated as significant by people other than himself. The interviews and the hyperlocal would be acceptable for use as supplementary sourcing if there were other, better sources being cited alongside them, but are not GNG makers in and of themselves if they're all he's got -- but none of the other sources that have been used here are notability-building ones at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat ( talk ) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Prolific author, has several reviews published in Canada [11] , [12] , [13] . This one as well [14] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : coverage in a newspaper [15] and much coverage from the Wikipedia Library using the link above. He was also a theater critic for Canadian journals back in the 1970s [16] , and was the author of a critical review of My Fair Lady [17] . I know Canada has a small population and we don't get much attention, but I'm amazed no one's ever heard of him! Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I wrote/updated this after attending a reading of his in Canada and taking a photo for Commons; he was well received by fellow authors at the multi-author reading and by attendees, and clearly well known in the literary community. He seems to have with a number of equally read long form critical reviews of major works over the years. has snag separate followings for his criticism and his poetry. Would definitely benefit from better sourcing, but deletion is not the answer. – SJ + 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Better sourcing has to be shown to exist, not merely presumed to maybe exist, before deletion ceases to be the answer. So if you're the one who wants to create the article, then you're the one who has to find the correct quality and depth and volume of sourcing off the top, and use it in the article you create right from the start. You can't just create an article with bad sources, and then say "well, find better sources for me then" if somebody challenges the bad sourcing — there's no guarantee that every person who exists necessarily always has any better sourcing at all , so it's on you to use better sourcing from the jump . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would say the existing sources and works/publisher list satisfy GNG. And AfD has always worked better as a third rather than first resort. You might try just asking for more sourcing. – SJ + 01:04, 20 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! 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:AUTHOR . Going by the sources in the article, Garebian's works have won sufficiently significant critical attention to pass the SNG threshold. There's clearly something of encyclopedic worth to be written on this subject. — Alalch E. 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject's achievement was recognized by the library system of his city (7th largest city in the country). It has met WP:AUTHOR . OhanaUnited Talk page 23:09, 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

Tata AIA Life: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion . I would suggest a Redirect to Tata Group which holds a majority stake in the company, as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. I did, however, found a lot of routine coverage: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Broc ( talk ) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India . Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tata_Group#Affiliated_companies . Page fails WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources and WP:NCORP . RangersRus ( talk ) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded. Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose. Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies. Indian English Literature ( talk ) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Indian English Literature we are discussing deletion of this page, whose notability should be evaluated on its own merits and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc ( talk ) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are enough in-depth news articles on a recent ad campaign to justify an article (though I suggest that it be merely a section, not a whole article), [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] , and that's before we get to the 400+ hits on the company's name in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library . Many of those include routine coverage, but not all of them are restricted to only routine coverage. I suggest Fortune , as it's a compare-and-contrast (classic secondary source), Economic Times (detailed evaluation of company's risks and opportunities), and maybe E4M (tying their political activity to their overall branding). WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 01:42, 10 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! 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WhatamIdoing. signed, Rosguill talk 13:23, 20 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

Sanjiao Road station: A redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) seems best. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations , Transportation , and China . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Line 5 (Wuhan Metro) (for now) Djflem ( talk ) 05:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added some sources which I think are enough to meet GNG. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 08:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , further information specific to this station, and sources have now been added. Garuda3 ( talk ) 09:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article is better now. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Birtara Union: Looking at the article, I can't say whether it's a place or something related to an organisation. Hence, doesn't meet WP:GNG , WP:NCORP , WP:NGEO . I have searched for sources but found none. The one source cited seems not strong to attain WP:GNG as it doesn't pose significant coverage or verifiable ones that say the topic exist and is notable. Aside from theses, facts needs to be verifiable. I will also need a ping when sources are found. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Keep This article is indeed notable. It is one of union councils of Bangladesh . And I believe there should be some good source for it. We can also see a source about its population in the article. But the thing is the article isn’t in good state. We should send it to draft. If the article creator can improve the article then it can be moved to mainspace. Mehedi Abedin 07:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I noticed that before nominating it for deletion discussion the article was vandalised by a ip. The nominator probably nominated it without realizing that. I restored the article's previous version. Mehedi Abedin 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep Unnecessarily brought to Afd. It is a union of Bangladesh and its name is found everywhere including search, map, government site and news. Ontor22 ( talk ) 07:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Just found out it was vandalized. My bad, will do another time! Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:40, 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

Chemins de fer de Paris à Orléans et du Midi: Sources in french may exist but I'm not seeing them so suggest that any content worth keeping should be merged elsewhere JMWt ( talk ) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France . JMWt ( talk ) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – It is an important milestone for its two predecessors on the path to nationalisation. I have added a reference, but I don't have any time at the moment to expand it from super-stub. Iain Bell ( talk ) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iain Bell. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references and other material from the corresponding article in French. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Bosc source recently added is published by Lulu so may not be reliable but I’m not really seeing a strong case for deletion. Mccapra ( talk ) 15:38, 15 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

Sister Pelagia: No Russian interwiki. The article is unreferenced (no footnotes). Maybe it could be rewritten into an article about a series ( Sister Pleagia series ) based on reviews or analysis of the series (this might be useful: [43] ); sources are more likely to exist in Russian than English. If the article is not improved, however, due to failures of WP:V , WP:GNG and possible WP:OR , per WP:ATD-R I suggest this is redirected to the article about the author. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Christianity , and Russia . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article already is about the series; all three books redirect to this page. I easily found reviews for all three books. " A nun with a nose for adventure " (Los Angeles Times, Jan 2007), " Nun has sleuth skills, feminist views " (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2008), " Eye-popping stuff " (The Independent, Nov 2009). Russian language skills are not necessary. Toughpigs ( talk ) 01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toughpigs If the books are notable, they merit stand-alone articles, sure, but here we discuss the fictional character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All of the books pages redirect to this page. This is the series page. It would be silly to delete the series page and then create stand-alone pages for each book. Toughpigs ( talk ) 03:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep These are really rather well-known books, translated into several languages, and doubtless with many reviews. I simply don't believe that a properly-done "BEFORE finds little of use" (did you make the same typo you do above?). If you think the article should be renamed Sister Pelagia series , do a RM. At the very least a merger to the author should be proposed. No valid deletion rationale given, just the usual chaff-storm of non-relevant policy shortcuts. Johnbod ( talk ) 03:47, 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

A Bride of the Plains: I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: I also could not find any RSes about this novel. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 03:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Articles on books are are formatted differently. I added a source for the first paragraph. No sources are required for the Plot section. I added an external link to the book on Project Gutenberg , which provides many online links to this book. — Maile ( talk ) 04:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but you need something that talks about the book, a review or a scholarly study. Simply existing isn't enough for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maile66 : Can you explain what you mean when you say, "Articles on books are are formatted differently"? I understand that the plot section does not require a source. However, books still need to meet certain notability requirements, as explained in WP:NBOOK . I do not see those requirements being met for A Bride of the Plains --at least not as the article is currently written. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : no critical notice of the book, no scholarly discussion of it; [50] briefly mentioned here. Nothing in Jstor, no sort of critical reviews found. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b ( talk ) 04:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Hungary , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV Cray04 ( talk ) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : An LOC newspaper search only brings up one ad in NY newspaper for the book when it was for sale [51] , trivial coverage Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBOOK , reviewed in NYTimes , Boston Evening Transcript , The Courier-Journal (All via TWL). ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 17:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to keep per ARandomName123 . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yutaka Sone: It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk ) 19:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - He meets WP:NARTIST criterion #4, in the permanent collections of several notable museums: the Tate Modern , [1] London, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York , [2] and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles , [3] I removed the unsourced section with the flowery unencylopedic tone, and added a section for the collections. The sourcing can continue to be improved moving forward, however, a BEFORE search revealed that he is indeed notable. References ^ "Yutaka Sone, Highway Junction 110-105, 2002" . Tate Modern . Retrieved 17 January 2024 . ^ "Yutaka Sone" . Museum of Modern Art . Retrieved 17 January 2024 . ^ "Yutaka Sone" . Museum of Contemporary Art . Retrieved 17 January 2024 . Netherzone ( talk ) 20:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums as noted by Netherzone and also a substantial part of a significant exhibition, the 2004 Whitney Biennial , which I've added a cite for in the article. Elspea756 ( talk ) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The subject's work is on display in galleries and museums and in permanent collections, as pointed out above as well, both of which clearly make the subject notable. Passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per WP:SNOW . Thanks for everyone's input, Boleyn ( talk ) 12:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Workers Party of Ukraine (Marxist–Leninist): Onel 5969 TT me 10:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , and Ukraine . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Search for the Ukrainian name, which is Робітнича партія України (марксистсько-ленінська) (

keep

The Amethyst Ring: I'm not seeing refs that could be considered for WP:NBOOK JMWt ( talk ) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . JMWt ( talk ) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Covered in The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1979-84 p.324, Kirkus and Rapid City Journal (not sure if this is an actual review though). Sufficient for WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mm. Well the section in the Chicago Guide is one paragraph, most of which is the plot. It's only a one sentence review. JMWt ( talk ) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NBOOK doesn't require in-depth reviews, just coverage. As long as the plot isn't just a copy-paste of the back flap or something, it's fine. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's also a review in The Reading Teacher , Vol 37 No 4 (Jan 1984), and some discussion in " A Master Storyteller and His Distortions of Pre-Columbian and Hispanic Cultures " (Journal of Reading, Vol 29 No 4, Jan 1986). Passes WP:NBOOK . Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Great, please go ahead and add these to the page. JMWt ( talk ) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yup, done. Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the reviews provided above show it meets notability standards. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 14:04, 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

Christina Cewe: See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Christian ). Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Music , Television , and New York . Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I figured I'd try since a) the 2006 article [39] missed a lot of information/sources, b) she was/is notable for her hospitalization for which she received dedicated mainstream coverage, c) I thought being a finalist in the first ever AI season could be intrinsically notable, I wasn't planning to do any other finalists. I might be wrong on whether these things matter, though, since you're right she hasn't really done anything major since 2006 except the book she wrote, which only received dedicated coverage in local/niche news. JSwift49 01:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for creating this excellent article, JSwift49 ( talk · contribs ). Christina Cewe meets Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time through coverage in Gehrke-White 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGehrke-White2005 ( help ) , Rushfield 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRushfield2011 ( help ) , and Smolowe et al. 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSmoloweLiptonHellingRizzo2005 ( help ) as the sources were published years after her 2002 appearance on Season 1 of American Idol . Since she has received sustained coverage, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary applies and she is notable even if she has not received significant coverage more recently. If you have the time and interest, I encourage you to continue creating articles like this for other American Idol contestants who have received sustained coverage. Cunard ( talk ) 10:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per lasting coverage in this book . I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the complaints about reality show fans that lead to the relatively stringent standards at WP:REALITYSINGER should be relaxed for someone who has special significance beyond mere participation (being a finalist in the first season, being the subject of one of the show's first conspiracies) Mach61 ( talk ) 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Doing a WP:BEFORE with a reliable source search, finds nothing apart from an interview: [40] . There is nothing of worth on social media, no coverage on any reality programmes. The book cited above is a journalist who directly assigned to work and follow the shows, so its not WP:SECONDARY coverage. Probably fails WP:BASIC , WP:SIGCOV . scope_creep Talk 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why does the journalist being assigned to cover 'Idol' make his book not WP:SECONDARY ? It's not someone who was involved with creating the show. JSwift49 21:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 27 January 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 Gehrke-White, Donna (2005-04-18). "After Idol" . Miami Herald . Archived from the original on 2024-02-03 . Retrieved 2024-02-03 . The article notes: "Before there was Nadia, there was Christina. In the first season of American Idol, Christina Christian captivated fans by belting out sultry tunes in her distinctive Sade-esque style. Three years later, she's still belting out tunes, but now she's writing them, too. She's done a little acting, appearing in a episode of her favorite TV show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. She has traveled to Africa and Europe as a result of her Idol fame. Today Christian, 23, is living in Pembroke Pines with her husband of just over a year, Nicholas Cewe. She is again working toward her bachelor's degree in sociology - the Idol show and subsequent traveling interrupted her college studies. This month, she finished a real estate course." Rushfield, Richard (2011). American Idol: The Untold Story . New York: Hachette Books . ISBN 978-1-4013-9652-7 . Retrieved 2024-02-03 – via Google Books . The book notes: "The following night, in what still stands as the most awkward results show in Idol history, Christina was eliminated in absentia. Seacrest and Dunkleman read the results and looked into the camera, informing the singer in her hospital bed that her journey had ended. Christian's elimination came to the audience as something of a surprise, as she had been an early favorite, and given that Cowell's punching bag, Nikki, remained, the decision sparked the show's very first flurry of conspiracy talk. ... The theories tied to Christian's ouster were hazy and unfocused, but many alleged that the combination of the hospitalization and the surprise verdict were somehow too much to be believed. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote, "Conspiracy theories abounded last week when judge fave Christina Christian was the latest contestant booted from American Idol. Add to the mystery that Christian wasn't even present to receive the news, cited as being ill and in the hospital" and Entertainment Weekly fumed, "Something is rotten in the state of Hollywood. How gullible do the producers of American Idol think we really are? Does anyone really believe the sultry Christina Christian got booted off? Yeah, right, like she got fewer votes than Nikki or RJ. I don't think so. Sorry. "" Gonzalez, Erika (2002-11-11). " 'Idol' Mindset - Promise-Premised Reality Hits Denver With Live Roadshow" . Rocky Mountain News . Archived from the original on 2024-02-03 . Retrieved 2024-02-03 . The article notes: "Six months ago Christina Christian was a University of Florida senior and part-time mortgage consultant, trying to get through school while planning her upcoming nuptials. Today, she's an up-and-coming pop star negotiating her first record contract while touring the country in fast-selling arena shows. " Tanasychuk, John (2002-08-10). "Not an Idol, but Pines Woman Maintains Winning Attitude" . Sun Sentinel . Archived from the original on 2024-02-03 . Retrieved 2024-02-03 . The article notes: "On Tuesday night, Christian performed Glory of Love as part of the show's Big Band theme. More than 10 million viewers voted by phone. Christian lost. ... Christian became an American Idol almost on a whim. Last May, she was a full-time student and a full-time mortgage officer at SunTrust Bank. She heard about the audition in Miami, drove down and the rest is history. ... Christian's parents divorced when she was 14, but rather than differentiate between members of her blended family, she says she has two brothers (Earnest and Eric) and two sisters (Ashley and Nyxie). " Cohen, Howard (2002-11-16). "South Florida's Hot Shots" . Billboard . p. 59 . Retrieved 2024-02-03 – via Google Books . The article notes: "In terms of exposure, you can't be more exposed these days than young Christina Christian, the supple-voiced singer who charmed audiences this summer on the explosively popular American TV series, American Idol . Christian, 21, grew up in North Miami Beach and currently lives in nearby Pembroke Pines. She's on the road these days with nine of her fellow American Idol finalists on a lavish tour. She's also one of the 10 vocalists to lend her pipes to the recent RCA album American Idol: Greatest Moments . That's Christian singing Bill Withers' '70s classic, “Ain't No Sunshine," arguably the best track on the disc." Smolowe, Jill; Lipton, Mike; Helling, Steve; Rizzo, Monica; Atlas, Darla (2005-01-17). "Life After Idol". People . Vol. 63, no. 2. EBSCO host 15587688 . The article notes: "Christina Christian. Age: 23. Hometown: Gainesville, Fla. After doing a post-Idol tour through Europe, Christian became the first in her class to get hitched when she wed Nicholas Cewe, 24, her boyfriend of six years, last January. Christian appeared on Idol twice last season and covered the prior season for the TV Guide Channel. These days, she's writing songs, working on an album and dodging recognition. "I'm not a big fan of fame," she says." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Christina Christian Cewe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tippett, Nevada: This really doesn't amount to significant coverage, they don't describe it as a community and there's no official recognition that would meet GEOLAND. – dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nevada . – dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Google Earth shows that today, this is just a spot on a rough dirt road. There's a farm nearby. Nobody else lives within several miles. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 12:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Demonstrably a populated place (one Lincoln Highway guidebook gives the population as 10 , which probably undercounts the effective population, as newspapers show quite a few folks who were "from" or "born in" Tippett; like many fourth-class post office communities, Tippett would likely have served as a locus of identity for the surrounding area). Has significant coverage with many encyclopedic details in Romancing Nevada's Past (Shawn Hall, Univ. Nevada Press, 2016) and probably also in The Lincoln Highway: Nevada (Gregory Franzwa, 1995, appears self-published but by an unquestioned SME in Lincoln Highway history). Widely covered in ghost-town blogs, although probably few of those are RSs. I think this meets the WP:GNG : there is ample material from which to build an article that provides encyclopedic value to the reader. But in any event, as a bona fide populated place with a significant form of government recognition, it passes WP:NGEO . -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While not IMO essential to the question, the following White Pine News clips might be useful in getting a sense of the community once here: (1) a front-page story on an obscure battle over control of voting and mining in the Tippett district, (2) a description of the star routes serving Tippett and neighboring communities shortly before the post office was snuffed out, (3) a report on mining prospects in the Tippett district, (4) a representative Tippett society column . There may be nothing let of Tippett now, but this was no mere mapmaker's fancy. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A more rigorous policy-based rationale for my ! vote follows: First, the rules : Under WP:NGEO , Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable , while Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Thus, even where a community has received no legal recognition at all, the GNG provides a path to presumed notability. And the GNG of course requires that the article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject , where "significant coverage" must be sufficiently on-topic and detailed that no original research is needed to extract the content . Therefore, regardless of legal recognition, a community is presumed notable (i.e. suitable for a stand-alone article) if it is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Next, the sources. We have an information-dense paragraph (looks like 50-60 words) with fairly dense information in this Lincoln Highway book from Stackpole Books , and a full two - page profile in this book published by the University of Nevada Press . Numerous more glancing but informative mentions can be found in other secondary sources, such as this 2013 Lincoln Highway article in Nevada Magazine , and this 1916 Lincoln Highway Association guidebook . An early cross-country travelogue devotes two (small) pages , about 100 words, to a description of the Tippett community and its "interesting lot of people". Conclusion: Even without considering the questions of legal recognition, self-published sources, or contemporary press coverage (all of which would weigh, if at all, further in the article's favor), Tippett merits an article under the GNG because it has been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources, and that coverage is sufficiently detailed and on-topic that no original research is required to extract the content . -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva above. We're just trying to meet WP:GEOLAND here, and notability still exists even if the settlement does not . Came across this report that mentions the post office as being a recordkeeping house. AviationFreak 💬 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - probably a section of the country, not a town. Nothing in the Online Nevada Encyclopedia. It does not have specific articles for towns but is mostly historical. The Las Vegas newspaper archives from 1909 to 1927 have nothing: [55] . (After 1927, I got 1800+ hits; I went through the first 100 and only found Tippett used as a last name.) Visviva's first article talks about Tippett as a "district" of White Pine County , not a town. It spells it two ways: "Tippitt" or "Tippett". It says that county officials voted to merge it into the Pleasant Valley district. Article 3 about mining once again uses the word "district". These hard rock metal ore mines take up a lot of space and aren't something normally found in a town (there are a few exceptions). Article 2 : old-time U.S. rural post offices are not proof a town once existed -- they could just be a low volume "distribution node" of sorts in someone's farmhouse or store. I think Tippett was a section of a very large county, not a town. Here's the Google Earth link for the USGS coordinates in the article. Please look at it. I'm really trying but coming up short. I still say delete. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I may not have been clear as to my intention in providing those links in my self-reply: I was trying to provide a taste of the various goings on at Tippett, not to use those particular clippings as a basis for notability. To my misfortune, I am prone to focusing on the arguments that I find most interesting, which are usually much more tendentious than the boring arguments that actually have a chance. In hopes of fixing my blunder, I have added a more formulaic policy-based rationale as a second self-reply above. In sum: my arguments about NGEO are beside the point because this (former) community passes the GNG -- and does so, ironically, thanks in part to the fact that nobody lives there anymore. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a ghost town! (But since I can't help myself, I'll add that I think it speaks volumes to a little-considered aspect of Wikipedia's systemic bias that we don't yet even have articles on open-country community or fourth-class post office , institutions without an understanding of which it is almost impossible to make sense of the lives of the majority of US residents in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Imagine a world in which any contact with the outside world (including newspapers) comes through the post office, which is also the only place you are likely to meet any neighbors who live beyond hollering distance. No surprise that these places became the locus of identity for the communities around them, the place people were "from", even when no commercial center developed. And no surprise that, as here, these places often became centers of political activity (as Tippett for example came to serve as a voting precinct, seat of a mining district, seat of a school funding district, and site of mass meetings). I might try to build a userspace essay on the subject since this sadly seems to come up with some frequency lately. To leave rural communities -- which are quite different from small towns -- out of our coverage would be to abandon a vast swath of documented human experience for no particular good reason, which to my mind is entirely contrary to our mission . But, again, no matter how much this argument interests me I don't think it really has any bearing on the outcome in this particular case. The GNG suffices. ) -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep mentioned in several books on the Lincoln Highway and in a book on ghost towns in Nevada: [56] SportingFlyer T · C 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva and his book refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva and others. Okoslavia ( talk ) 05:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2023 Bahrain Darts Masters: Tagged for months without improvement. Fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Sports , and Bahrain . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Numerous articles on the tournament 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 6 and others. Nominator clearly hasn't done a WP:BEFORE . Dougal18 ( talk ) 15:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Onel5969 I reckon those sources do warrant keeping the article. Happy for your thoughts on this one? MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 01:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to World Series of Darts , unneeded CFORK, fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources found in article, above, and BEFORE are routine sports reporting on event, promo, and stats, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the coverage found by Dougal18 is merely trivial, we would lose half the project. Sigcov means covering the event in-depth and not merely announcing dates/stats etc. Coverage looks good to me. MaxnaCarta ( talk ) 23:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources found. Kante4 ( talk ) 18:08, 1 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

Autant en emporte le vent: Unclear that the subject meets WP:GNG . 4meter4 ( talk ) 02:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] French Wiki has 19 citations . They look reliable enough, at a glance. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . References from the corresponding article from French demonstrate notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep - this article on using GWTW in the classroom says "A successful 2003 French musical spectacular by Gérard Presgurvic, Autant en Emporte le Vent, also gave the black characters greater voice, in song and dance, as they expressed their desire for freedom." jengod ( talk ) 04:56, 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

Anton Smit: That web site is a cinema database, which lists all of the films he has written, but does not provide any independent significant coverage . This article reads like a resume or filmography, and says nothing else about the subject. Unilaterally sending this article to draft space after six years would be disruptive. Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and Netherlands . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 04:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The corresponding article in the Dutch-language Wikipedia at nl:Anton Smit has some additional references that could be added to the English article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Anton Smit is an important screenwriter and producer with a long track record who contributed to some of the most well known contemporary Dutch movies and TV series. Additionally he was an Academy Award nominee for motion picture 'De Tweeling'. Mill 1 ( talk ) 05:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The citation links in the Dutch article are a bit difficult to navigate (as they don't directly lead to the sources), so I'll list an updated version of them here for the future editors to access: 1. List of recipients of the Golden Calf Award by Netherland Film Festival , in which the subject was shown to have won in 2003 in the Feature Film category along with Hanneke Niens; 2. Oscar Award for 2004 (switch to "Foreign Language Film" category). The subject was not named, but Twin Sisters , a film where he was one of the producers, got nominated; 3. Prix Europa 2006 Awards . The subject was not named. Instead, De Uitverkorene , a film for which he was one of the producers, was awarded Television Programme of the Year; 4. Eye Film Institute Netherland Awards . Again, the subject was not named. Bride Flight , a film where he was one of the producers, was given the 2009 Feature Film Award; 5. His profile in Vpro Cinema . Honestly I can't really decide on this one. On one hand, he does seem to meet the third criteria of WP:PRODUCER ; On the other hand, I did not manage to find any significant coverage that can be use to improve the current article (Unless he is also the sculptor that many news articles talked about). Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 03:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 02:08, 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

Karoline Mehalchick: prior to 6/28/23 there were already 22 district court nominees with existing pages. even if a nominee is not confirmed not confirmed, their failed nomination is still notable and these pages are maintained Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies FedCourts20 ( talk ) 13:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you make a very good point. This information can help historians as well in the future. I good example is with what you mentioned with Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies . Starlighsky ( talk ) 23:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with Nominator according to WP:NPOL if this individual doesn't meet the WP:GNG they shouldn't be included. I don't see how they meet General Notability. As for "Prior to 6/28/2023 there were already 22 district court nominees..." this is an example of other things exist which is not an argument for keeping the article. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 ( talk ) 14:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Law , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable. MIAJudges ( talk ) 20:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deleting Federal judicial nominees makes no sense. There is widespread interest in the Federal judiciary because it affects so many lives with its rulings. A large number of people are interested in this topic and removing this page and others like it needlessly alienate them and benefit no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:CC4:20F0:6475:DA5A:C113:E6F4 ( talk ) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Possible WP:ATD is draftification until she is officially confirmed, as usual. Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But the "as usual" thing to do is let the nominees page remain & not move it to draftification. President Biden has nominated 176 federal judicial nominees. Four of them have been withdrawn yet out of 176, only two had their pages taken down. One was Jorge Rodriguez who was no longer a nominee because the judge he was nominated to replace withdrew their senior status. The other was Tiffany Cartwright who I still to this day do not understand why her page was moved to Draft. But even in her case she has not been confirmed yet & her page has been reinstated. President Trump nominated more then 230 judges & all of them kept their page from the time of nomination. Moving or deleting a federal judicial nominee's page is literally the opposite of "as usual" respectively. MIAJudges ( talk ) 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk ) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges ( talk ) 20:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Coverage in independent sources over the years establishes notability.-- Ipigott ( talk ) 08:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It is a WP:BLP which needs real WP:SECONDARY coverage. The article on the first block of references anyway, are at best WP:PRIMARY . They are mostly profiles, self-written profiles that don't satisfy any kind of criteria to prove notability. The second block they're is nothing there to prove notability. From the WP:BLP policy it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources . They are completly missing from this article. The fact that they are missing is another indication that the subject has done nothing of note. scope_creep Talk 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per, earlier commenters, the significant news coverage of her legal career by independent, high-quality sources over the years clearly establishes her notability. (The Scranton newspapers cited are not only metropolitan newspapers that cover a major metropolitan area in Pennsylvania, they have a significant readership across the NEPA/northeastern Pennsylvania region, and produce stories that are frequently syndicated and/or used as source materials by major national news outlets. Mehalchick has been regularly reported on since at least 2006 when Pennsylvania's state bar association named her as its "best young lawyer" of the year. In addition, the position for which she has been nominated by the President of the United States will have the potential power to significantly impact a majority of Pennsylvania residents. According to Ballotpedia's profile of Mehalchick , "The geographic jurisdiction of the Middle District of Pennsylvania consists of approximately one-half of Pennsylvania," which is the fifth-largest state in the United States. - 47thPennVols ( talk ) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Assuming she will be confirmed though is WP:CRYSTAL . All coverage of her has been either local or puff pieces. Let'srun ( talk ) 02:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is a presidential nominee, with a professorship in her resume. Like the other 2023 presidential judicial nominees Hill and McMillion, she is a women with science background which may assist historians in their analysis President Biden. I want to add that in terms of her adjunct professorship, Wiikipedia: Notability for Academic Professionals should likely be a part of the notability: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Starlighsky ( talk ) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Starlighsky [ reply ] Keep ; currently satisfies GNG with the local news profile and other sources. I seult Δx parlez moi 14:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep quite obviously passes GNG. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - satisfies GNG. -- Rosiestep ( talk ) 06:32, 4 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

Israel Gay Youth: Boleyn ( talk ) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Sexuality and gender , and Israel . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Easy pass of the GNG and NORG per sources in the Hewiki article (only one click away) and NEXIST. Not sure why this was nominated. gidonb ( talk ) 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Gidonb , as far as I can tell, there are other sources that allow the article to meet GNG/ORG. Better sources are an ATD, but I do not speak Hebrew, so I may be wrong. FortunateSons ( talk ) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Gidonb Ayenaee ( talk ) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The search engine shows a lot of independent news coverage, including in English. Better Nuncio ( talk ) 09:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – While in the news there seems to be mere passing mentions (upfront), possibly not WP:SIGCOV , there is strong sourcing in books and other areas that I found. And per the above. TLA tlak 07:17, 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

Nemona: Full source analysis follows: 1) Inside Games - press release - primary source - does not count towards notability 2) Automaton Media - news release - not SIGCOV 3) ScreenRant - "marginally reliable source" - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV 4) TheGamer - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV 5) GamesRadar - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV 6) GameRant - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV 7) Inside Games - news release about a Twitter post - not SIGCOV 8) Dexerto - "rarely engages in serious journalism" - does not count towards notability per WP:VG/S 9) Engadget - Review of Scarlet/Violet - not SIGCOV 10) Inside Games - news release about Nemona - not SIGCOV 11) Inside Games - short impressions of several characters - not SIGCOV 12) Automaton Media - DLC plot summary - not SIGCOV Total SIGCOV: 2 - GNG typically requires several SIGCOV to be notable. Even with ScreenRant and TheGamer, it does not quite cross the threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As an addendum, as mentioned below, ScreenRant and GameRant are considered content farms I generally try to avoid, so I am giving it a lot of credit by citing it as proof towards notability. Whether they actually count towards notability is usually debatable even if they are usable for lore explanation purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , Video games , and Anime and manga . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet – I agree the notability of this subject is flimsy, though I would be willing to change to a keep if just a little bit more SIGCOV was found. I think flat out deletion is a bad idea here, and the page history should be preserved. A redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet seems fair. Per the comments and sources found from Kung Fu Man below, I think I can say weak keep . λ Negative MP1 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not adding my full vote here just yet but I would also suggest either List of Pokémon characters#Paldea or Rivals (Pokémon)#Nemona as alternative redirect targets as the subject of the article are more densely covered there than in the "Scarlet and Violet" article. Captain Galaxy 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect : It seems feasible to cover most information in above mentioned articles. IgelRM ( talk ) 01:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It is not the strongest of articles on Wikipedia, but the assertion that, say, #10 is not sigcov isn't supported by WP:GNG . GNG does not have this standard at all, and in fact emphasizes that an article can constitute a show of notability even if it's not the primary subject of the article. That the article is a news release about Nemona is completely immaterial to the fact that the article goes on to provide significant coverage of Nemona. The summary of #11 as short impressions is also incredibly misleading. Not only is the author's impression of Nemona the title of the article, not only is it the intro to the article, but of the approximately 27 paragraphs, the article spends 40 percent of those paragraphs talking about Nemona. It seems like your objection is not that it's short impressions, but that these impressions exist in an article that discusses other characters as well - a personal issue, and not an issue relevant to GNG. Furthermore, #12 has a DLC plot summary, but it is not strictly plot summary in any way. To my knowledge, the plot is not about Nemona becoming unusually strong unusually fast, this is discussion by the author of the article about her growth and how it relates to the persona she developed. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Cukie Gherkin ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD . [ reply ] Comment When it comes to Screen Rant , specifically, I will say that WP:RSP listing it as a "marginally reliable source" is not exactly the full story. It is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm ) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight . It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet , which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming . ( Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There is a bit of analysis in scholarly source here but it is just a bachelor thesis, so barely acceptable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do love sources like these, but yeah, if it's just a bachelor thesis, the only real angle I think can show it's worthwhile to use is if the author has a history of published material, a history of commonly cited material, and/or the thesis is frequently cited. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I do feel the source analysis of #11 is a bit unfair, as a good chunk of the article is just about her, and it does give both initial and post impressions regarding her character. #5 also offers some commentary, albeit light, about the character and I do think gives a decent commentary on fan reaction. There is this article from Comic Book Resources too, which while gameplay leaning does actually discuss her in the context of past rivals (and yes I know CBR blah blah Valnet but it's an editorial). Anime Corner also has a full article, and I've used the website source in a GAN. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 02:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm dubious about Anime Corner; the writers are entirely freelancers. It's about one step removed from a blog. If people really think it's a reliable source then I'll go along with it, though I still don't think it would remove all notability concerns. ScreenRant and CBR are both ValNet which means we'd be relying on at least one content farm piece to prove GNG is passed. As is widely known, content farms do not care whether something is "important", and will write an article on a single bean on the ground of a game if it will draw SEO traffic. I machine translated #11 and it is very, very shallow coverage. It essentially sums up to "Nemona was more crazy about Pokemon battles than I expected, but is otherwise what I expected". I simply do not believe it would qualify as SIGCOV in a million years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel like this is misstating what is said. The article says that she matched the certain expectations they had, but that they didn't expect this angle of her character. They also identified that her battle mania went above any other character prior. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 04:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally I feel editorials from Valnet are fine for notability usage, especially if they can augment existing sources (the CBR and Anime Corner sources work together), or we can illustrate the author has work in other publications. As for Anime Corner itself it's under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S . Regarding reference 11, while I'm not going to sit here and argue it's somehow massive, it is the primary focus of the article and received several paragraphs, so arguing that it's basically a "short impression" does feel inaccurate Zx. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am going to paste the (admittedly shoddy) machine translation here for reference: Extended content So, the first person is "Nemo". As I said at the beginning, my impression before its release was that it was a "reliable older sister trainer." A friend of the main character and a senior Pokémon trainer, he has a bright and energetic personality, and simply loves Pokémon battles. He's a classic character, just like the one pictured in the picture. Even during his first battle with the main character, he kindly advises, "This is my first Pokemon battle! I hope you enjoy it!" However, there was a somewhat fearless smile on his face as he challenged the battle, and I thought that as a senior trainer, he would not let you win easily, and that he must not let his guard down. Now, as for my impressions after interacting with Nemo after its release, well... it was mostly right, right? He's bright, energetic, and reliable. Yes, most of it was just as I had impressions. Except that the level of "I just love Pokemon battles!" was dozens of times more than I expected. He challenges every trainer he sees to a fight, says "Let's fight!" during battles, and is aware of his battle-crazy side, and the more he gets into battles, the more he gets involved in battles. The word "Nemo Victims' Association", which is made up of people who were killed in the attack, started popping up. Anyway, I love Pokemon battles too much! Nowadays, my impression of Nemo is that of a "battle junkie". It is also at a level unparalleled in any previous series. And the best part is the line "It will bear fruit" that he says every time he fights the main character. He senses talent in the main character and is trying to develop him into a trainer who can compete on an equal footing with him... Who could have predicted that people would say on the internet that Nemo "looks like Hisoka from HUNTER x HUNTER"? I will let people gauge for themselves if this is SIGCOV that can support an article, it's more of an explanation of her personality than analysis of the character. It's simply telling people how the character is like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But that's not the extent of the article's discussion of Nemona. The first paragraph of the article comments on their feelings about her being an older sister type. The next paragraph talks about how they appreciated that Nemona turned out to be more than that. They also frame the article about talking about the gap (gap being a term typically used in Japanese to refer to contradictory personality traits). Even in your quote, the author makes the point that her battle craziness is to an extent unprecedented in the series. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just realized that even adding a translation of a part of an article might be copyright infringing, so if it is, please feel free to remove it. It is only intended for reference purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Kung Fu Man's explanation. I think there is enough to justify an article for now, and personally I believe we are like to see more coverage in the future (though I'm not entirely using that as leverage). Captain Galaxy 13:12, 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

Vermillion Lies: FMSky ( talk ) 07:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did find a few sources,this one from a local newspaper called Monterey County Weekly [1] while it appears to be independent from the subject and there is some decent coverage, it is a local newspaper and the article has a pinch of "oh goodie! the local gals are back", this one is from 2007 published in the Register-Guard [2] has a small write up abouth the sisiters,their show and instruments. Arguably the best coverage of the article appears in this NPR piece from 2007 [3] . The sources which are already on the article are from Monterey County Weekly [4] which is not full accesible without paying and thus the exact quality of coverage can't be determined also, there are 2 more sources from Taos News at the bottom of that page which are no longer accesible and are not available on the Taos News website either. The one from Curve magazine does appear entirely promotional at first but it might have some coverage [5] but, once again its behind a paywall. If someone could confirm the quality of the Curve sourceor the Taos News sources, find other sources then I'd think about a "weak keep". Bingo bro (Chat) 09:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources provided by Visviva. Bingo bro (Chat) 08:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I don't think the sources above quite get us to WP:GNG especially considering the article is written fairly promotionally. SportingFlyer T · C 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given that additional sources exist if there is anyone who has the ability to evaluate whether or not they help to reach GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , I am not overwhelmed by the quality of the sources but the following clips from Newspapers.com seem like they could provide sufficient sourcing for an adequate article: Lies can be really fun (Michelle Theriault, Statesman Journal (Salem, OR), 2007-02-08) Madcap mayhem (Deonne Kahler, Taos News / Tempo Magazine, 2008-03-13) ( continued ) Gorey sister act (Christina Troup, San Francisco Examiner, 2008-01-24) Uniquely twisted folk ruckus (Deonne Kahler, Taos News / Tempo Magazine, 2007-04-04) There might be more in other databases, but I would expect that this is pretty representative of the coverage. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this AfD from newspapers and magazines that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Michael Xavier: Has been a nominee for awards, but there is no real conveyance of notability beyond any other actor on Broadway. Fails WP:GNG . — That Coptic Guy ping me! ( talk ) ( contribs ) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Theatre , Entertainment , and England . — That Coptic Guy ping me! ( talk ) ( contribs ) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Entirely self-promotional, but that in itself isn't a reason to delete — what matters is independent coverage in reliable sources. I found an article from the Evening Standard, which is pretty good — direct coverage of Xavier for six paragraphs in an independent source. It's not enough to convince me right now, but if there's more out there along those lines, then Xavier could be a notable subject. Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Canadian actor with the same name [8] , not the same person. I'll try to filter for a UK person. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete hits of notability, but this was the best I could find that wasn't simple PR [9] . I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 having been nominated twice for the very significant Laurence Olivier Award . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Necrothesp makes a good point; the Olivier award is a major award. Add that to the coverage I mentioned above, and I think it demonstrates notability. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as per @ Toughpigs Mr Vili talk 22:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : references ain't great but Laurence Olivier Award is good. She was a fairy 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This might be a trifling detail, but he did not win the award--only nominated for it. — That Coptic Guy ping me! ( talk ) ( contribs ) 03:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Alliance University: Ratnahastin ( talk ) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Ratnahastin ( talk ) 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to removal of references. Achmad Rachmani ( talk ) 13:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . University established under state legislation. We have usually kept these. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It appears to be a proper university, but it needs a serious cleanup to remove a load of puffery. -- Bduke ( talk ) 01:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have made a start on a cleanup, but it needs work from someone nearer to it who has access to sources. -- Bduke ( talk ) 02:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] significant copyvio , including from here so will need massive cleanup and probably rev del if kept. I don't want to gut it which would affect assessment while at AfD Star Mississippi 01:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for pointing this out, apparently most of the article's content is copied verbatim from their own websites. Ratnahastin ( talk ) 06:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be open source and suitably licenced for sharing. I know a lot of them do that but worth checking. scope_creep Talk 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see any language releasing the content on their pages. Since it appears likely to be kept and this won't impact assessment here, I'm going to stub it back on those grounds. Noting here for transparency. Star Mississippi 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note, the ancient rev dels were not me, those had been done. I just handled what had been added this month. There seems to be some feuding in the history that I can't make heads or tails of. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Its is a real university with real degrees awarded and real people studying there. Passses WP:GNG . The article needs work and copyedit but not Afd. scope_creep Talk 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a real university. I can't see why it wouldn't pass WP:GNG or WP:N . It's a very short article now that the copyvio is gone, but it's not a bad article. D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Giuseppe Zappella: Joeykai ( talk ) 13:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep he is literally the current head coach of Juventus FC (women) [5] , and a quick Google search returns plenty of articles about him. I recommend expanding and sourcing it instead, as the subject is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Angelo ( talk ) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Current manager of high profile team with ongoing career and had extensive pro career in pre internet era. I found [6] , [7] , and [8] among many more Italian sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Clearly notable as both player and coach. Lazy nomination where no BEFORE has been performed. My Google search has this as the 3rd hit, which would have shown the nominator (had they bothered) that the article was simply in need of an update and clean. Giant Snowman 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment 12 lines in the lasentinella is not SIGCOV, calciogiappone.altervista.org is a blog and "Museo Grigio is an independent, non-political and non-profit association and aims to support, disseminate and promote the image of Alessandria Unione Sportiva, its culture, its history and its fans." Hardly unbiased. juventus.com is his employer and therefore non independent. Dougal18 ( talk ) 10:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Anwegmann ( talk ) 21:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough WP:SIGCOV to establish subject's notability. - Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 22:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above. Pass smoothly in WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly should be notable, sources need to be hunted down and the article cleaned up. Seems like there is enough for WP:BASIC . Govvy ( talk ) 19:05, 16 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

2023 Bowdoin–Yarmouth shootings: This mass shooting has had little enduring impact. User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Maine . User:Namiba 16:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It has only been a few months. There is plenty of coverage of the initial event, and more is certain to come from the investigation and prosecution. - SimonP ( talk ) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Just a news story with no lasting WP:EFFECT . All sources are breaking news. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thebiguglyalien , I've updated the article. Notability determinations depend on sources that exist in the real world, not just the sources already cited in the article. There were multiple articles from the Associated Press (indicating that this was national news) and other publications that aren't breaking news. I wonder if you'd like to check again. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SimonP . JeffSpaceman ( talk ) 02:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SimonP . Calienteramen ( talk ) 03:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now per everyone else, though this article could use some more expansion. Corgi Stays ( talk ) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per SimonP . TH1980 ( talk ) 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Trial to come, so not dormant yet. WWGB ( talk ) 06:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per enough coverage of the event. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI, no one has explained how this article meets Wikipedia:Notability_(events) . There is no depth or duration of coverage, no lasting impact or widespread geographic impact. It is barely even discussed in local media at this point. -- User:Namiba 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Namiba , I was adding more sources while you were typing this. One of them is several thousand words long. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 21:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: many Wikipedia articles have not much impact, so does that mean we need to delete most Wikipedia articles? Thehistorianisaac ( talk ) 04:57, 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

Radiowv: All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clear friend a 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean , for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far: • CNN • American Songwriter • Variety • The Atlantic • The Tennessean • Billboard • Pulitzer-award winning SFGate • News Corp Australia Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm ( talk ) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG . The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV . Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article. Also, XavierItzm , if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI ). Clear friend a 💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have stated an absolute falsehood : «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article. Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm ( talk ) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG , it has to have significant coverage . Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL ). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions. You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute ). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants. Snarky remarks aren't helping. Clear friend a 💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Atlantic article [1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP ). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject» Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note. XavierItzm ( talk ) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it. Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion. Clear friend a 💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article now includes two WP:INDEPTH refs which are 100% exclusively only about Radiowv. [2] [3] XavierItzm ( talk ) 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These latter is a regional paper. See WP:AUD . Aaron Liu ( talk ) 23:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Friedersdorf, Conor . "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond" " . The Atlantic . Archived from the original on 18 August 2023 . Retrieved 20 August 2023 . Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption] ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters" . Wide Open Country . Retrieved 16 May 2024 . ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case" . West Virginia Record . Retrieved 16 May 2024 . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Internet , and West Virginia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony , but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 ( talk ) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The cited WOC above is only one source, but [5] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius ( talk ) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius ( talk ) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu ( talk ) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette , and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers. While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch . The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean , The Atlantic , CNN . While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius ( talk ) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure thing: Rolling Stone , in an article authored by blue-linked David Browne (journalist) sez: « RadioWV , a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia [...] Around five years ago, Riffe co-founded RadioWV , the YouTube channel devoted to the type of woodsy, unadorned country songs [...] When Riffe heard [...he...] wanted to film Anthony singing for RadioWV [...] 85 million views [on RadioWV], compared with the roughly 100,000 maximum of most RadioWV posts [...] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records». Now, the problem with this Rolling Stone article is that it only mentions RadioWV in passing 5 times, telling us what it is, what it does, its geographic area of sourcing, its date of founding, its founder, its musical style, how it came across its biggest star, how many people watch its average videos and some of its greatest hits, some of its "alumni", and which labels some of the RadioWV alumni have signed up with. [1] So definitively this article is not the best sourcing. For that you would have to look at the two articles cited above, which are both WP:INDEPTH articles written solely and exclusively about RadioWV: [2] [3] . Those would be your WP:THREE , leaving out, of course, CNN, American Songwriter, Billboard , SFGate, etc., which are among the 18 refs in the article. XavierItzm ( talk ) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know, I'm having a hard time formulating a keep stance here. The Wide Open Country source is significant coverage, but I'm not familiar with whether or not its a reliable source. I've never heard of it, and its not listed at WP:RSMUSIC (which isn't required, I just mean I don't have any reference point on it yet.) The Rolling Stones stuff, like much of what's used in the article, is just passing mentions in an article largely about Oliver Anthony . The West Virginia Record is really more about the legal issues some of its people are entangled in. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the WideOpenCountry article sways it for me, along with the passing coverage and the fact they have got some attention from previous artists publishing on there, just passes WP:GNG , but it's borderline. I can't really see anywhere else to merge/redirect this to, which would by my preference here, and for me it doesn't fall to the level to support deletion, so keep it is. Mdann52 ( talk ) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ DAVID BROWNE (17 November 2023). "Oliver Anthony Became a Symbol of Populist Rage. The Truth Is More Complex" . Rolling Stone . Retrieved 16 May 2024 . RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia […] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters" . Wide Open Country . Retrieved 16 May 2024 . ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case" . West Virginia Record . Retrieved 16 May 2024 . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

If I Could Tell You (poem): The fact that it is a poem by a notable author does not IMO merit a stand-alone article (see for instance WP:BOOKCRIT for comparison). MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 12:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarify: per WP:BKD (adapting for poetry), would suggest poem receive coverage as part of a parent article (like Collected Poems [1945] or the poet's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If WP:BOOKCRIT is used then the subject passes points 1, 4 and 5. If the WP:GNG is used then it passes with flying colours, as shown by the sources cited in the article and those found by searches such as this . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 12:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources cited in the article consist of a personal blog, a poetry archive, and a reference about villanelles. The study guide is obviously more substantial. Some of the sources indexed in the link are trivial treatment - others not (Ferry 1996 and Miller 1981). I think my issue, thinking about it, is probably per WP:BKD - this would be better treated as part of the collection it originally came from (or as part of Auden's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those were not all of the sources cited in the article when you nominated it for deletion. There were also two books, including the study guide mentioned below. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned the study guide, and the second of the two books was the 'reference about villanelles'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This should never have been brought up for an AfD. The poem is covered in such a large number of academic articles and other books that I'm not going to attempt listing them all. Instead, I'll point out that Gale and Cengage Learning released a study guide for students covering only this poem . Let me repeat that: two of the biggest names in educational publishing released a study guide on this poem because it is so important. This poem absolutely meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Amazon lists '3,000+' Gale/Cengage study guides, so I don't know that it's a particularly high bar for inclusion. There are other sources, for sure, but I'm not certain much of the coverage is not 'non-trivial' treatment (Ferry 1996 is an exception). MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you saying that 17 pages about the poem is trivial? If there are 3,000+ such study guides then that is 3,000+ instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have a lot of scepticism about the worth of the Gale/Cengage series (it seems in fact to excerpt from their reference work Poetry for Students ) (who are the authors?), but that said it probably does count as a 'non-trivial' work for WP:GNG purposes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 18:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to echo what Phil Bridger said and add that Gale and Cengage are gold standards as sources, especially with regards to literary topics. But since you want additional sources, here are a few: This New Yorker essay that references the poem , a Washington Post essay that does the same , a review in the Guardian where a poem by John Ashbery is compared to Auden's poem , a review of If I Could Tell You by Soumya Bhattacharya in Outlook India where it is explained Auden's poem inspired the novel's title -- these are merely what pops up in recent news searches for the poem. There are many, many more academic articles that reference or cover the poem. So again, this poem easily meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are so many, many books that cover this poem, some that cover Auden's works, and some that are specifically directed at this one (you can start with the GB link above provided by Phil Bridger ). The subject passes WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG . Jacona ( talk ) 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep very widely discussed in reliable independent sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on my own search, I found there is sufficient analysis to establish this poem as notable. [37] [38] [39] should be sufficient. And that's without considering the Gale/Cengage study guides. The number of such study guides that exist does not concern me-- I have no doubt there are 3,000 notable literary works... Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are vast numbers of individual poems or individual pieces of music that are included in Wikipedia and are rightly not proposed for deletion. What is the point of eliminating valuable knowledge? A good number of people have edited and added to this page. The poem itself is not run-of-the-mill and is noteworthy among Auden's considerable output, as shown by the evidence provided above by other reviewers. In particular, being one of the half-dozen most successful examples of the villanelle form in the English language qualifies this as sufficiently notable. That is also the reason why it would be unhelpful and inappropriate simply to roll it in with a collection of other poems which just happen to have been published in the same volume. Hyperman 42 ( talk ) 17:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Incidentally, thanks to those who have provided other useful references regarding this poem; if (as I hope), the article is retained, please feel free to add them to the article, which will hopefully avoid any future challenges that the references aren't sufficiently significant. Hyperman 42 ( talk ) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please be careful not to misconstrue nominations to AFD as destructive or other to the purpose of Wikipedia - I'd hardly give my free time to be anything other than helpful. The consensus is unanimous in favour of keeping and, even if I have concerns about some sources and would favour a different set-up (merging with the 1945 original collection, which itself doesn't have an article!), mine is very clearly not the majority opinion. I'd also like to thank those who've taken the time to contribute to the proposal. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk ) 12:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2023 Kerala bombing: Additionally, it violates WP:NOTNEWS as Wikipedia is not intended to function as a newspaper for breaking news. The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . The Doom Patrol ( talk ) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - has more than enough coverage and sources to establish WP:GNG , the claim of WP:NOTNEWS could be leveled against any article concerning a relatively recent event. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism , Religion , and Kerala . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the article has received WP:DIVERSE coverage. | Pirate of the High Seas ( talk ) 01:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly meets GNG. Would support a speedy keep here. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 03:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable event. Gianluigi02 ( talk ), 1 November 2023 Speedy Keep - Per Ester8806. This nomination seems to have acted mainly as a spoiler on the event's ITN nomination, so a speedy keep will allow that discussion to be resumed. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 12:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or draftify . It is inappropriate to claim GNG when only primary sources exist. Please do not create articles for events before sustained coverage is demonstrated through retrospective analysis. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reuters and The Independent are primary sources? News to me. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Estar8806 , per WP:RSBREAKING : All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution . This is in line with how historiography treats new information coming from news reports. Secondary sources are those that synthesise primary sources. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair. Then again, I haven't seen anyone raise that in regards to the January 6 United States Capitol attack or the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II , both articles created pretty immediately after the relevant event as well. estar8806 ( talk ) ★ 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The coverage of this is extensive across mainstream national and regional media outlets, as well as Reuters and AP. Clearly meets notability guidelines. We don't apply WP:LASTING or WP:NOTNEWS to articles that are immediately created after school shootings in the US - not sure why this would be any different. Schwinnspeed ( talk ) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I really don’t think the policies cited by the nom really apply here, there is plenty of sig cov microbiology Marcus ( petri dish • growths ) 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The news of this bombing flashed across the media whether mainstream or youtube based. Also had significant coverage in 6 P.M. to 10 P.M. what we say Prime Time. Passes WP:NOTABILITY . Shaan Sengupta Talk 03:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG . The Question whether it meets WP:LASTING cannot be ascertained as this point. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG . Notability is clear. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 13:21, 5 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

Egor Shuppe: LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Russia , and United Kingdom . Spideroe (Talk to Spider) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on good faith - This appears to be a literal translation from Wikipedia Russia and Wikipedia Egyptian Arabic. Not sure how the nominator knows if the references are reliable or not, since half of them are in one or both of those languages. — Maile ( talk ) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 16:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think that the references are adequate. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 16:58, 11 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

Libya–Mauritania relations: Star Mississippi 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Star Mississippi 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep WP:BEFORE should have been used here "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." A simple Google search reveals widespread discussion about this relationship: in this book . this article , this article , this article , this article and many more. -- User:Namiba 15:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One leader visiting/helping a country does not speak to broader relations, which are not addressed in any sourcing that I found. I could have made my nom more clear but no indication that sourcing exists came from my BEFORE. Star Mississippi 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are two quotes from a scholarly article in 2001: "For example, when oil revenues started to fall in 1985, Libya expelled or laid off more than 100,000 foreign workers from Mali, Mauritania, and Nigeria." "For example, in November 1995, in response to Mauritania's decision to recognize Israel, Libya recalled its ambassador and announced that it was severing all economic assistance to the country and 'dispensing' with Mauritanian workers in Libya." [1] The content here clearly demonstrates extensive economic and political ties. =Executive-level state visits, high-profile payoffs, extraditing and harbouring leaders: this is the stuff of international relations, all of which are demonstrated in the previous sources you dismissed. -- User:Namiba 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Any chance of this being added to the article? Geschichte ( talk ) 17:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Huliaras, Asteris. "Qadhafi's comeback: Libya and sub‐Saharan Africa in the 1990s." African Affairs 100, no. 398 (2001): 5-25. Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Libya . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on sources found by Namiba. LibStar ( talk ) 12:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sorry, but as the article currently stands, there's barely anything there and no assertion of notability. Little more than a dicdef. Thanks to Namiba for finding a few sources, but even if this info was incorporated into the article, all we would have is WP:SYN , in violation of WP:NOR . Until secondary sources have addressed this topic directly and in detail, we shouldn't have an article about it. Yilloslime ( talk ) 03:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What original research are you referring to? Incorporating information from sources is not original research. It is the basis of an encyclopedia. -- User:Namiba 04:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have semi'ed this to stop the socking. If this is seen as too involved as Nom, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article consists entirely of “these two countries have relations. There’s no there there. Llajwa ( talk ) 22:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand. The two are both founding members of the five-member Arab-Maghreb Union , so I was somewhat surprised to see this. There is significant scholarly coverage of Libyan-Mauritanian relations. Such coverage includes a whole section on the bilateral relations between the two in The changing interactions between Libya and the Maghreb: bilateral versus multilateral engagement , which covers the history of bilateral relations between the two in a fairly direct way. There is also coverage in a paragraph on page 37 of Libya and the West: Headlong into Confrontation? , in addition to the sources put forward by Namibia. There was also the whole affair when Libya recognized an ousted President as head-of-state of Mauritania ( Reuters ), when Libya attempted high-level diplomatic relations to resolve an internal Mauritanian crisis ( Reuters ), when Mauritania's President called for Qaddafi's ouster ( AFP via Modern Ghana ), and also the whole agreement to extradite a former Qaddafi spy chief ( Libya Herald , Reuters , The Guardian . Much of the scholarly coverage in English appears to be on multilateral relations involving the two, but the bilateral relations nonetheless are real and appear to have significant coverage from multiple independent RS. As always, WP:NEXIST notes that Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article (emphasis mine). And, such sources do exist, so the current state of sourcing of the article (as alluded to by Llajwa above) is irrelevant to the question of notability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Music in professional wrestling: The article has the tag OR since 2008. No in deep coverage of the subject by reliable sources. Few sources just talk about a musician created music, but not enough for the article. Survived a AfD in 2007, but it was just a list of theme musics HHH Pedrigree ( talk ) 09:14, 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 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Wrestling . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I simply do not know how to evaluate this as professional wrestling as a whole is something big. To say there's nothing in RS is obviously not true as there's this and that , and probably way more since professional wrestling is somewhat considered one of the top sports entertainment. dxneo ( talk ) 11:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] anyway leaning towards keep . dxneo ( talk ) 14:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Music in wrestling as a whole is notable, and this article serves as a good starting point. Potential original research aside, it is not enough to merit at WP:TNT . Here are some sources directly dealing with the more theatrical professional wrestling: Pruitt, Cenate (2019). "Get In The Ring: Professional Wrestling and Heavy Metal Music in Parallel." The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology Davis, L. R. (2012). "Cultivating Identity and the Music of Ultimate Fighting." Bowling Green State University. Wells, Christi Jay (2023). "'Gimme a Hell Yeah!’ Stone Cold Steve Austin and the WWF’s Soundscapes of Rage." Journal of Popular Music Studies . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jpms.2023.35.1.109 Bessman, J. (1999). "Wrestling Mania Grips Koch, Tommy Boy." Billboard However, I would also recommend moving the article to simply "Music in wrestling" to incorporate sources such as this: Brody, Bina N. (2023). "Competing Bodies and Subversive Songs: Negotiating a Changing Tradition in Senegal’s National Wrestling Music." University of Pennsylvania. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 11:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The move can be discussed after consensus has been reached, probably at WP:RM . dxneo ( talk ) 12:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep — Classic WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP violation. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:47, 26 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

Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons: Shellwood ( talk ) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of sources and passes WP:GNG , and the nomination rationale is to put it kindly, beyond p**s poor with WP:BEFORE clearly not done. Please start typing more than three words as a rationale. Nate • ( chatter ) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CU note Nominator blocked as a {[confirmed}} sock.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Matthew McKagan: The cited sources are WP:ROUTINE , and all the content covered in the news reports seems to be provided by McKagan or other involved parties, thus making it not intellectually independent. Churnalism does not make notability. ( t · c ) buidhe 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Music . ( t · c ) buidhe 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I evaluate these as the three best sources: [54] [55] [56] . I agree with the nominator that these sources fail WP:ROUTINE and are probably not intellectually independent. While being a middle school teacher is a noble profession, it is not very notable by Wikipedia standards. – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also add that McKagan could have taken his music education skills to any level he wanted: high school, college, or beyond. That is the opinion of many in the music education industry, which spans K-12 and college. The main reason he chose the middle school level is that what was open when he came onto the market scene, shortly after the Northridge quake (he was attending Northridge College at the time) - he could teach at any skill level. It can be an almost a greater skill to be able to form the concept of music in a young mind, than an older, more experienced mind. He also has led professional groups, which I did not include, due to lack of citations. Additionally, he had significant professional hornist performance experience that I did not detail for the same reason. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott McClelland Philo1208 ( talk ) 22:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep -- LA Times is a top-tier newspaper that covered the BRAVO award win with an article, so that's one significant coverage point. Each of the other two awards had more than ten winners/nominees, so they're not enough on their own though the KCLU coverage of the grammy is significant and with the LA Times the article may be. I disagree with @Novem Linguae about the articles probably not being "intellectually independent" -- the Bravo award was 1999 and the Grammy nomination in 2022; that doesn't seem like a single press release becoming multiple article type of material. I definitely don't want to set a precedent that every good middle school band director is notable, but if there are five in Wikipedia he should probably be one of them. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Secondary-school music teachers are far from automatically notable, but they can still be notable through WP:GNG . I think there's enough in-depth coverage, in enough different secondary sources, for enough different events, to qualify. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your interest in the Matt McKagan article. I am the person who wrote the article. I have known about McKagan since we attended school together, then diverging at college. I was personally impacted by McKagan's musical leadership, and realized he was special (I can supply my own pedigree if needed). His reputation in the industry quickly grew. I watched with great interest as McKagan turned a neglected music program into a national force to the point where boosters built a $5M performance/recording hall for him, while he created professional music performers and music educators by the dozen. He truly personifies the Mr. Holland Opus award he attained. This music educator is a rare talent. I may have mischaracterized the article with incorrect tags. Please correct me where needed. I am still learning about them. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Scott McClelland Philo1208 ( talk ) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I identified the same WP:THREE sources as Novem Linguae but come to a different conclusion. This subject passes WP:GNG . This is significant, not routine coverage and there is no basis for the claim that the sources are not intellectually independent. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what you mean by "no basis for the claim that the sources are not intellectually independent". Let's take a look at #2 for instance. [57] About half the article is quotes and the rest of it is basic information that likely came from a press release (eg "The ultimate recipient of the award will be recognized during GRAMMY Week 2023 and will receive a $10,000 honorarium and matching grant for their school's music program."). There's nothing in the article that wouldn't belong in PR material. ( t · c ) buidhe 14:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Buidhe Thank you for clarifying what you meant by and presenting evidence for intellectual independence . I would look at this more closely but I don't think I need to bother now that other sources have been found. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just want to confirm User:Philo1208 , do you have a conflict of interest regarding the subject? Please see WP:COI . - Indefensible ( talk ) 08:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi User:Indefensible, there may be some COI in that I knew McKagan from Jr high through high school. During college, we diverged and lost contact. McKagan went into music education in CA and I went into IT in Seattle. However, I followed McKagan's career path with interest from afar as his successes in the music education industry began to mount up. When I read McKagan was nominated for Music Educator of the Year Grammy award, I believed I knew enough about McKagan to document his music education career. Philo1208 ( talk ) 00:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, I removed the Personal section, leaving just facts pertaining to his music education awards. Philo1208 ( talk ) 00:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there seems to be enough to support inclusion, but I recommend Philo1208 abstain from substantial edits to Matthew McKagan 's article per the COI policy. You can discuss requested changes on the article's talk page. - Indefensible ( talk ) 03:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . LA times article is reliable/significant, and a single quote is not too much to maintain independence. Here's a Seattle Times source with some coverage [58] . We can also consider WP:BIO which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability , and combine the Seattle times coverage with [59] , [60] . — siro χ o 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dunneville, California: This is an interesting one: The site is actually a restaurant-bar: [37] ; it was once a rural saloon that became informally known as Dunneville because of a local rancher, James Dunne, who was a regular there ( [38] ). Later a Dunneville Estates housing development was built nearby (Ref. 2 in the article). So we have a stub article because GNIS somehow picked up an in-joke about an alcoholic farmer who spent his days at a local tavern. Neither restaurants nor housing developments are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND , and therefore WP:GNG applies. I would argue this article does not reach that bar, as the few references I can find are about the restaurant and not the "community". This is just a rural intersection with an old bar, a new housing development just to the north, and what looks like a wood chip yard (see satellite image of the coordinates). Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California . WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ironically, following up on that newspaper article tells us that the Dunne ranch is hugely notable. Amusingly, I might also have got there by following up on Viola Dunne via the usual Arcadia Publishing book route. Uncle G ( talk ) 10:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dunne ranch from Rancho Ausaymas y San Felipe Pierce, Marjorie (1981). "James Dunne ranch". East of the Gabilans: The Ranches, the Towns, the People—yesterday and Today . Great West Books. pp. 95–98. ISBN 9780934136112 . Brown, E. T. ; Overstreet, E. H., eds. (1890). "The Dunne Place". The San Jose Daily Herald Souvenir Publication: Horticulture, Viticulture, Agriculture : the Railroads, Manufacturing, Financial, Commercial, and Professional Representative Firms of Santa Clara County, California . Herald Publishing Company. pp. 86–87. David, Leslie (2023-02-22). "Historical novel brings old county names to life: Author Kevin Akers shares his experience researching and writing about James Dunne, a former landowner whose legacy remains throughout San Benito County" . BenitoLink . David, Leslie (2016-07-09). "LEGACY OF WOMEN: Viola Katherine Lowery Dunne" . BenitoLink . Shumate, Albert (1977). Francisco Pacheco of Pacheco Pass . University of the Pacific. p. 32. ISBN 9780931156076 . Pierce, Marjorie (1990). San Jose and Its Cathedral . Western Tanager Press. p. 31. ISBN 9780934136471 . McMahon, Joseph; Sonné, Peter (2012). Hollister . Images of America. Arcadia Publishing. p. 66. ISBN 9780738595795 . Keep - notable historic crossroads and stage station and meeting place in an otherwise rural area; indigenous village in vicinity etc. jengod ( talk ) 17:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move Delete - Dunneville, California clearly never existed, move article to Dunneville Ranch or similar, or merge if such article exists. The bar can become a section of the this newly titled article. The existing article is about a nonnotable, never existing place and WP:GNG is clear that these must be deleted or merged. James.folsom ( talk ) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well-sourced article about a former place on the map. Appears to pass GNG and I don't see any reason to delete this well-written article. SportingFlyer T · C 02:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete It's not clear where the name really comes from but it's reasonably clear that there was no settlement here by this or another name. If there is felt to be a need to have an article on the ranch, it can be created on its own. Mangoe ( talk ) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per article improvement. WP:PRIMARY may still be an issue. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It's hard to see any consensus right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There has been a great deal of improvements since this article was nominated. It's been turned into a fairly substantive sourced article now. Nothing like it was when this nomination started. Looks really good now. — Maile ( talk ) 03:36, 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

List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake: All earthquakes that are at least moderately large have aftershocks, so nothing unusual about that. The project has only two such lists, List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake , both much shorter than this one and their notability has been questioned. The notability of any such lists was considered in the RfC in 2018, Talk:Lists of earthquakes/Archive 2#Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable? , the result of which was summarised as "Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable" Mikenorton ( talk ) 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists , Syria , and Turkey . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake If we're gonna delete that, then lets delete these too and any other aftershock lists for any other articles. Lets just delete every list page too while we're at it. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Anyway, my stance is as follows: The aftershocks always got significant media attention. Significant information is being lost by removing this. WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be invoked to justify deleting Wikipedia or any other page. A person could read this and get a bigger picture or y'know, if you think it needs more info, then add it. The other articles are precedent and that they have not been deleted despite numerous "questionings" of their notability by minimalists is proof in and of itself of its notability. Information is being lost by removing this, or the others, and significant information at that. Strongly oppose. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 21:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but limits to 5.0. I think the 7.5 and the 6.3 aftershock are notable in its own right as the 6.3 aftershock in February 20 has some RSs covering it. However, most of the aftershocks (4.0->5.0) are not notable, and the 43 aftershocks which is 5.0+ is enough to be notable for the article. Thingofme ( talk ) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lets change it to 5.0+ then DarmaniLink ( talk ) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [1] meets NLIST by amount of coverage in the press. [2] Legitimate SPINOFF of 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake . [3] Do limit to magnitude 5.0 and greater, as Thingofme suggests. This way something good will roll out of the nomination. gidonb ( talk ) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NLIST is met, and splitting this content from the large article about the earthquake itself is worthwhile. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 7 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

Barbie in A Mermaid Tale 2: QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . QuietCicada - Talk 00:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale in a new section titled "Sequel" near the bottom. Left guide ( talk ) 01:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NFILM /GNG with a review in Common Sense Media [34] and a retrospective review in Polgyon [35] — siro χ o 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NFILM sources mentioned by Siroxo by way of the nomination. This is a full article about a film featuring the now iconic character (and mermaids). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Either Redirect as suggested by Left guide above, or Keep , as some sources have been presented by QuietCicada and Siroxo, to which one can add, in Fr. , a rapid assessment here . Opposed to deletion anyway. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC) (Edited 12/24 after checking the source presented by Atlantic306, below.) [ reply ] Keep: Subject meets WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG from the sources the nom and siroxo have found. User:Let'srun 15:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I can never understand noms for sequel movies when the first doesn't get nominated at all; here, its notability is self-evident as a sequel film for a notable property. Nate • ( chatter ) 02:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As mentioned above, meets notability guidelines. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion, also found this review in a Dutch film magazine here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, various reviews have it meet WP:NFILM Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Barbie in A Mermaid Tale . Only two sources have been found so far, plus two unreliable blogs. This does not pass WP:GNG . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don’t know what the above comment refers to as ’unreliable blogs’ but neither the French Quels films pour les Enfants nor the Dutch Cinemagazine are blogs, and I would consider them rather reliable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 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

Emergency Digital Information Service: UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it: [14] [15] [16] . Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in light of the sources posted by Barnards. jp × g 05:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Karen Archey: No significant coverage, so does not meet WP:GNG . The article is written like bio with no encyclopedic information or indication of notability. WP:NOTLINKEDIN . Sabih omar 07:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Visual arts , and United States of America . — Karnataka talk 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , New York , and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I didn't find enough to establish notability. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Karen Archey is a very well known and highly respected international curator who has organized many notable exhibitions at institutions such as the Stedelijk Museum; Amsterdam , the ICA, London ; the New Museum of Contemporary Art , NYC, among other venues. Many of her shows have been reviewed, and her role as a curator is discussed (not just the artists in the shows). She is also a well known writer (not just as an "art critic" but as an art historian.) Won a prestigious writer's award from the Andy Warhol Foundation . I'm really surprised that neither of you were able to find anything on her online (I've noticed that Google gives different results sometimes, not sure if that is due to geography or browsing habits.) Later today or tomorrow I will see what I can find in a BEFORE search to establish notability. She's notable, that's for sure! Netherzone ( talk ) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have added her recent book and two book reviews to the article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found and added a 2018 co-edited book, with a review, that Archey also contributed to [19] Beccaynr ( talk ) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I started updating the article, including with sources from the Wikipedia Library - WP:BASIC / WP:CREATIVE notability seems to have support from her collective body of work; she has written a notable book ( After Institutions ) and I added sustained secondary coverage of her 2014 co-curated Art Post-Internet exhibition and 2014 co-edited Art Post-internet: Information/Data publication; the exhibition and book are also noted when she was named a '40 under 40 Art & Tech Thinker' by Apollo Magazine in 2021. There appear to be more secondary sources available in the Wikpedia Library, and I think the article could be further developed with sources already added. Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There also appear to be about four pages of GBooks results to sort through, where she/her work is cited and/or discussed. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I saw that. Thank you for your excellent improvements, @ Beccaynr . I've added a few items also. I think the nom should be withdrawn. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO , and may also meet WP:AUTHOR based on reviews. I've just started adding more content and a few more citations. I'm surprised it was nominated, Sabih omar , I know you are a newer editor and may not know, but doing a WP:BEFORE search is considered best-practices before making a nomination. Also a quick question, how come you seem to like nominating articles about people named "Karen"? Not that you have done anything against policy, but you nominated six "Karen articles" in one day. Just curious. Netherzone ( talk ) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have also gone through other common first names like Chris, Smith, Michael, Jennifer and Pamella. I have also improved several pages (like Karen Beemon , Pamela Wallace , Smith Bagley etc.). And I am glad this article about Karen Archey is getting improved because of this AfD. So yes, I did categorically look up pages by first name, but tried to improve them (or remove) based on the merit of each page, without any prejudice. Sabih omar 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sabih omar , there's nothing wrong with nominating 6 Karens for deletion at once but it looks odd. I recommend you not do this just to spare yourself some sort of wild, bad faith accusation coming at you from out of nowhere ("this person is a misogynist!", "this person hates men!", "this person …") It certainly raised questions in my mind when I saw all those Karens but I kept quiet. I figured any malicious agenda would become apparent at the AfDs. Just to add another layer of complexity and suspicion, in North America, "Karen" has become a code word of sorts; see Karen (slang) . Again, this is not about you doing anything wrong -- you didn't. This is about other people jumping to conclusions. Eventually it all gets sorted out but you don't deserve the intervening dumpster fire . Or, perversely, you could just blame it on your "AI bot" ignoring your instructions. That would keep WP:ANI busy for several days. Anyway, thanks for caring about our articles. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi A. B. , just as a follow up - I do not think 'wild, bad faith accusations' are the only type of concern that could be raised about a series of AfD noms with the first name "Karen", which as Karen (slang) notes, could be recognized as a derogatory term. I raised this issue with Sabih omar on his talk page, with an underlying assumption that he may not have realized how others might view the pattern; from my view, he responded in an open and collaborative manner, and then another editor also offered their perspective and encouragement to Sabih omar. I further think it is commendable that during discussion here and at his talk page, Sabih omar avoided language that could be interpreted as dismissive or inflammatory, which I think has been helpful for developing a constructive resolution. Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sabih omar I'm the editor who asked, Also a quick question, how come you seem to like nominating articles about people named "Karen"? Not that you have done anything against policy, but you nominated six "Karen articles" in one day. Just curious. Perhaps I should have asked at your user talk page rather than in this AfD. The reason I asked was not because of the Karen (slang) implications that are mentioned above. The reason I asked is it seemed like you were making an arbitrary decision to nominate several articles superfically based on a name - it seemed too coincidental that so many Karen articles were nominated within minutes of one another. I was perplexed by that procedure in relation to something as serious the AfD process, especially since they were made within minutes of one another. I wondered how you could perform an in-depth WP:BEFORE into each of these Karen articles, and it seemed like you simply picked a name out of a hat to nominate for deletions. The AfD process, at least to my mind, is an aspect of the encyclopedia where one needs to take their time, be thoughtful, do research into sourcing on-and-off-wiki and not approach deletion randomly or lightly. The fact that, as others have pointed out, that "Karens" seem to be culturally dismissed in recent years further complicated matters, and after that was pointed out, I also agree with the issues those editors have described. Hope that helps to explain why I asked the question! Netherzone ( talk ) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I totally understand why it raised questions. But I can re-assert that there was no prejudice. Thank you all for being patient and civil about it. From these discussions, I learned a lot about AfD procedure as well, and won't use this as lightly going forward. Sabih omar 17:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries @ Sabih omar ! There is also great information here to learn more about how AfD works: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - it has all the guidelines. Happy editing, and see you around! Netherzone ( talk ) 17:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - switched to "keep" on everybody's good work. Another "Karen" saved! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks everyone! Sabih omar 03:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I thought that it must have been worked on while reading it. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is a notable art critic and there are over 3 articles where she is the primary subject. Hexatekin ( talk ) 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Taran Adarsh: First, because it does not site any Reliable, quality sources (only one cited in which there is no discussion on Subject Taran Adarsh , secondly I searched web also and do not found any Reliable or quality sources which talk about the Subject in depth , and for Wikipedia notability guidelines there should be multiple reliable sources talking about subject in Depth, which is absent in this case. This user have 4 Million followers on Twitter but having this will not pass Notability on its own without reliable secondary sources. WikiAnchor10 ( talk ) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and India . WikiAnchor10 ( talk ) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - one of the most notable trade analysts and reviewers in India, working for the popular web portal Bollywood Hungama . His reviews and critical commentary are cited on almost a thousand Wikipedia articles on Hindi films and actor biographies. Shahid • Talk 2 me 10:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment more sources added. Shahid • Talk 2 me 13:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : What would really help is a source that has extensive coverage of Adarsh, not just a passing mention, quote from one of his reviews or an interview with him. A couple of strong sources would go a long way to showing notability. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ravensfire : I think that a source like "Films: interview with Taran Adarsh" by Hindustan Times is exactly what we call extensive coverage. An article dedicated to his professional input is no mean thing. Neither are, in my opinion, a group of books which describe him as a well-known film critic (passing mention or not, the content does matter). Shahid • Talk 2 me 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if recent changes help establish notability. An individual can be all over TV and newspapers but if we don't have articles or books ABOUT them, then it doesn't matter. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This is a bit surprising given how many sources I found that mentioned his reviews, but all the sources in the article and that I could find are passing, hence failing GNG. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rhododendrites. C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can find lots of what they say and sources quoting them but I've failed to find anything much about them and nothing with any depth. They appear to have a career generating quotes for news-sources. They appear to fail WP:BIO / WP:NBASIC KylieTastic ( talk ) 17:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very prominent Indian film critic who is linked in a whopping 924 articles. I've lost count how many articles I've read or reviewed which cites his reviews. He is cited in books as a "well-known cinema industry critic". [30] I wouldn't expect him to have much bio information available on him like a lot of critics, the focus is on the films rather than them. He is also notable as a trade analyst, editor of a magazine, and is cited as such in numerous books, looking in google books. Makes no sense to delete this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A search of images shows that a great deal has been written about the subject. Taran Adarsh – The Indian film critic who has won everyone’s heart is an example. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 16:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A prominent trade analyst and reviewer of Bollywood films for many years. He has been cited in many articles and books. -- Dwaipayan ( talk ) 04:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Arguments which focus on the availability of reliable, in-depth source material (or the lack thereof) about this subject would be much more helpful than those which focus on how well-known he is or what he has done, as that is not a notability factor. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Above there's a delete ! vote that begins I can find lots of what they say and sources quoting them . That's WP:CREATIVE #1. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's a lack of good in-depth sources on this person, with an interview being the only one in the article. As noted, they are very widely cited in multiple high quality sources for their reviews and thoughts on the film industry. NCREATIVE#1 is very easily met for this person. This won't be the longest article, but absolutely merits staying on Wikipedia. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Greninja: Article's receotion were mostly filled with listicle-type articles. Unfortunately, valnet source like this [12] doesn't help its notability, an IGN source, which seemed to be looking good (title alone) of the impact, but turns out to only be a sentence in another listicle-type article, while this one [13] just talks about Greninja winning the poll, that's it (user-based fan polls doesn't add substance in establishing notability). Others were obvious trivia. Def having a hard time to find more usable coverage per BEFORE. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The current sourcing in the article is lackluster. However, there appear to be multiple SIGCOV available. First of all, the Game Informer article is entirely about Greninja. Second of all this Kotaku article has a section talking about Greninja's importance for the last 2 paragraphs. This Hardcore Gamer article has a decent analysis of the three final evolutions of X and Y starters, including Greninja. Because of Greninja's unusual prominence in the anime and Smash, I think it is probably squeaking past notability. I would argue this is a WP:NOTCLEANUP situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Honestly, Zxcvbnm’s source analysis actually supports my rationales for deletion. The Game Informer article, probably the best and most focused source on Greninja itself, is about him as a playable character in one specific fighting game, not as a whole. The other two mentions I don’t feel rise to the level of actually significant coverage because they don’t focus on Greninja, and per my essay , I feel the only reason an article exists of this now is because the text is fluffed and truly significant coverage isn’t there to support a well-written article. Red Phoenix talk 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually, there’s a better alternative to deletion here. Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon , for the same rationale. Red Phoenix talk 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Redirect Eh, I mean there are supported partials in the article. Most add up to trivia as the nom has pointed out. However, the List of generation VI Pokémon Greninja section provides a lot of details to it, so that's more appropriate than outright deletion. Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources from Zx. I agree that what's there is rather weak, but I think it's enough to justify a separate split, if barely. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources from User:Zxcvbnm above, etc. Seems to have enough notability and coverage in reliable secondary sources, just needs a little bit of improving. Paintspot Infez ( talk ) 00:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Greninja has been covered in some level of detail by reliable sources as demonstrated by Zxcvbnm. Also, I think the fact that the Pokémon has topped multiple fan polls and gotten media coverage for doing so (including from USA Today) is significant. At the very least, this is something that distinguishes Greninja from most other Pokemon. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 01:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject seems to currently have some decent sources that help the subject meet general notability, but compared to other well-established Pokémon monster articles the Greninja’s source variety is lacking. I’m mainly looking at the Reception section for general notability, and the content and flow there seems passable, yet deserving of further improvements. We can’t just ditch an entire article just because it barely meets general notability. Q wertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs ) 23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the sources demonstrate notability, especially in the reception section, which is the most important as it's the least in universe section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect I'm really confused that people are ! voting keep after reviewing the sources. This Game Informer article is almost devoid of usable coverage. It reads: "Earlier in the week, I played Super Smash Bros. with Little Mac, but he proved not to be my best character. But the Nintendo frantic character fighter is so entertaining that I just couldn't stay away, and I went back to the well to find another fighter that would fit more with my style. I landed on the character Greninja. I'm clearly really good with him; I'm currently undefeated with him." The article goes on giving a WP:GAMEGUIDE style description of all its abilities, and concludes with "Just don't try to play against me while I'm playing Greninja; I'm undefeated (so if you're good I'll probably pick a different character for fear of breaking my streak)." This isn't significant coverage. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe you're looking at the wrong part of the article. The article gives this bit towards its start, namely, "The final evolved form of Froakie fits right into the rest of the Super Smash Bros. cast, because he's a fun and fast character with a lot of great moves." which does describe the character's role in game, and sure, the author gets cocky, but the author clearly is enjoying the Greninja character and is giving him a positive review for his appearance in the game. I'd say it qualifies. I would also state that the other sources we have are pretty solid as well. Just going by Zx's sources, the Kotaku article gives some coverage discussing the author's thoughts on Greninja's appearance in the Pokemon anime. "Ash had one as part of his team, which had the bonkers ability to Battle Bond—which is to say, it could merge its consciousness with Ash to form the imaginatively named Ash-Greninja, a half-Ash, half-Pokémon monstrosity that should have been killed with fire." and "But will it appear during Ash’s final 11-episode run on the anime? I honestly couldn’t care less." The Hardcore Gamer article gives some analysis of the character in competitive (Which isn't too helpful for Wikipedia) but it does give some personal thoughts on the character. As Zx said, it's a bit brief, but it is decent coverage on the subject. As for other sources already in the article, some examples of decent sourcing include Greninja's popularity poll ranking being covered by several sources, which gives significant coverage of the subject. The Ibtimes article does give a good blurb on Greninja, "Picking from the latest collection of pocket monsters was tricky – proving that Game Freak really stuck gold here. No debate was required for Greninja however, who has proved an instant classic." I haven't performed a personal search for sources myself, but I definitely concur with editors that it's a bit weak compared to say, Snorlax . In any case though, I'd say it's just barely meeting the requirements for notability and significant coverage here, just from what's in the article alone. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’d like to add that Greninja’s appearance in the anime has gotten media coverage [14] . While we’ve been focusing on the games, there’s another part of the franchise that Greninja has racked up multiple sources in. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 03:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per sources found by Zxcvbnm. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

AmericaSpeaks: There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies ( talk ) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 ( talk ) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls ( talk ) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Politics , United States of America , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP 's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty ( talk ) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NCORP . Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sal2100 : Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done. See below, ! vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY . The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT , with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind , a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics , which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY . With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X ( talk ) 18:41, 23 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

Eternal leaders of North Korea: Most of this article is sourced from Wikisource, which is not a source . The only other mention was a very trivial mention of the subject in the middle of a sentence [12] : The new constitution was adopted by the first session of the tenth Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) on September 5, 1998. Unlike the 1972 socialist constitution, the newer version has a preamble that codifies the signature identity of the DPRK as a theocratic Kim II-sung state: Kim II-sung, "the founder of the DPRK and the socialist Korea:' is "the sun of the nation" and "the eternal President of the Republic:' The DPRK Socialist Constitution is the Kim Il-sung constitution. " Although nominally proposed by Kim Yong Nam (president of the Presidium of the SPA), the reelection of Kim Jong-il as chairman of the National Defense Commission (NDC) was legitimized by the father, as the son's "election" was "initiated and recommended by the great Kim II-sung, the eternal leader of the Korean people in his lifetime. " The first session of the tenth SPA was said to be "an epochal occasion in firmly defending and exalting the nature of our republic as the state of President Kim II-sung. "" WP:SIGCOV requires significant, secondary coverage, for which this topic has none. If I made a mistake, or I'm in error, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Please forgive the newbie. Thanks. Stix1776 ( talk ) 13:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Korea . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : If you have the patience to load .kp sources, you'll find boat loads of propaganda about this. Outside of that, [13] and [14] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I believe documents stored on WikiSource that are copies of sources published elsewhere are fine. Here its citing constitutions which are primary sources and has issues there, but I don't think being on WikiSource makes the constitutions unreliable sources. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Problem is with North Korea, there usually isn't anything outside of primary sourcing, it's all government controlled media in the country. Some historic documents or the rare time foreigners are allowed in to report on things, both being the exception (The Voice of America was allowed in to witness a rocket launch probably in the last decade if memory serves, but that's not the norm). I'll see what else I can find, but most North Korean articles are usually permastubs, just given how hard sourcing is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b Have you honesty read those sources you're citing? Both of them list the phrase "eternal leaders" exactly once, uncapitalized, as an object in a sentence. How is this not trivial? There's heaps of secondary sources about North Korea. Is there a Wikipolicy that North Korea is an exception for notability and doesn't require secondary coverage? Stix1776 ( talk ) 12:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the current sourcing could maybe be improved but I think it's still a noteworthy topic. I can try to dig up more sources that prove this upon request toobigtokale ( talk ) 04:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Toobigtokale Please do. I looked and I'm unable to find it. Thanks. Stix1776 ( talk ) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Various South Korean sources: [15] [16] [17] These articles from major SK news sources discuss the 2016 constitutional revision in the context of legitimizing the NK regime's succession Hankyung from 2004, about Kim Jong Il Tongil News from 2001 I think maybe one could argue that the topic could be merged to another page, but I'm fairly confident there's adequate sourcing on the topic to not have it be deleted. toobigtokale ( talk ) 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment while there's certainly reliable source coverage of the creation and use of the title, [1] [2] [3] which essentially boils down the adoption of hereditary power in DPRK, there doesn't appear to be anything that cannot be covered in Constitution of North Korea . References ^ Kristof, Nicholas D. (7 September 1998). "Death Doesn't End Rule of Kim Il Sung, 'Eternal President' " . New York Times . North Korea announced today that it had revised its Constitution to make its late Great Leader, Kim Il Sung, the country's eternal President. ^ "Leadership Transition in North Korea" . Council on Foreign Relations . 13 January 2012. ^ Goedde, Patricia (2020). "Beyond Sham: The North Korean Constitution". Asian Perspective . 44 (1): 1–29. doi : 10.1353/apr.2020.0002 . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 05:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first two articles don't even mention "eternal leader", and the last one just mentions it twice as predicate to a sentence, in different paragraphs. Not exactly notable. Stix1776 ( talk ) Stix1776 ( talk ) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : That's an article created long ago and it's not of an unimportant topic - the notorious, world-known and unique North Korean personality cult and the Juche secular religion . Not to mention that by constitution, as part of this cult, North Korea is currently the only necrocracy in the world, thus the "Eternal President", "Eternal Leaders" thing. Also, there are way more unimportant topics that have their articles, like Generalissimus of the Soviet Union , for example, a pseudo-military rank created specifically for Stalin in 1945. GreatLeader1945 ( talk ) 16:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yinka Sunmonu: I couldn't find anything to meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , and United Kingdom . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . (I created the page.) That she was given her own entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture suggests to me she has a place in recent Black British culture which makes her notable. Dsp13 ( talk ) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - My initial search for sources indicates she also developed a website, which was reported on in the Guardian in 2004: New chapter for black literature . Beccaynr ( talk ) 16:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture (2002) includes biographical information and indications of further coverage, such as "Her work on fostering and adoption was featured in the Channel 4 Adoption on Trial series and a paper on her adoption survey for the Voice newspaper (the first of its kind on black attitudes towards adoption) appeared on the Channel 4 website." Her paper " Why black carers are deterred from adoption " was first published in Adoption & Fostering in April 2000. In addition, there is the review in Wasafiri by Steffen Krueger of her novel (pp. 73-74) Cherish (2003) I reviewed at the Wikipedia Library, and I found a review at the Community Care website. She was interviewed by the The Guardian in a Q&A format in 2003 after her novel was published, and as noted above, in 2004, The Guardian reported on her website development, and also includes her statements. She also wrote for The Guardian in 2004, and there is a note appended about her upcoming participation in a debate and her association with the Thomas Coram Research Unit. I think with the available sources, there is support for WP:BASIC notability, and the article could be further developed. Beccaynr ( talk ) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Substantive entry in Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture and other sources found by Beccaynr enough for GNG. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Arthur Colborne Lankester: The only source I can find in relation to the existence of this individual is this journal article and a few forum and self published articles related to this individual published after 2022 (which I assume were taken from the journal article). Sohom ( talk ) 16:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CptViraj ( talk ) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion , Medicine , India , and England . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Google Books tells me more about Alice Grace Fox Lankester than about her husband from the history books ( ISBN 9780252098802 p. 314, UIP); and the other result is literally a professional directory (Churchill Medical Directory ) that gives me this person's telephone number in 1962 (Walton-on-Thames 24862), a bunch of post-nominals, two medical medals, a hospital superintendency, and "Director H.E.H. the Nizam's Med. & Sanit. Dept.". However "nothing in this article can be verified" is simply untrue. I followed up on the source for the tuberculosis programme, for one, and there it was in the source. It's also in the Medical Directory entry as "Special Deputation for Tuberc. Inquiry, Govt. India". The CMS sources cited are not findable by me, but I did find other CMS sources at least listing this person as a missionary, verifying at least that fact in the article too. There is a handful of little sources that do join up. A detailed obituary would definitely swing it, although I've only found a 1-sentence death listing so far. Uncle G ( talk ) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Uncle G I agree the "Nothing in this article can be verified." is hyperbole on my part. However, I would assume that there would be a non-zero number of sources on the "Serai System" being talked about here. I haven't been able to find any sources from that period talking about this system that this person invented/created (which makes up a large portion of the article as well as the claim to notability for this individual). Sohom ( talk ) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Ebrahimi reference goes to some length to describe the Serai system in historical context, the role Lankaster played in developing it and disseminating it, and its origins in the locally recognizable architectures being adapted for a different use and a medical social function. There is a non-zero number of sources. Please see section 4 of the Ebrahimi article. [15] https://brill.com/view/journals/ehmh/79/1/article-p67_003.xml? language=en Breamk ( talk ) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That source is fairly persuasive. Peer-reviewed on-topic journal; in-depth discussion; credentialed historian of architecture. I only looked for sources on the person rather than on that specific work. But there's a lot on the work from that source that complements the rather more sparse sources on the life that together give us enough about life and works to make an in-depth article, which I think can get us over the bar. You can expand upon the wife from the aforementioned UIP book, by the way. A quick look for the hospital shows several mid-20th-century sources mentioning the brother Cecil Lankester in association with it. So there are two things already that the article has scope for further expansion upon. Uncle G ( talk ) 08:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering ( talk ) 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : weak, but sources below meet GNG. (edited 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC), see comment below) Delete : see below. 09:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Source eval: Comments Source Meets SIGCOV 1. Ebrahimi, Sara Honarmand (2022). "Medical Missionaries and the Invention of the "Serai Hospital" in North-western British India". European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health. 79: 67–93. doi:10.1163/26667711-bja10013. Fails WP:IS 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Beginnings in India, by Eugene Stock (1917)". anglicanhistory.org. Retrieved 2023-12-09. Fails WP:IS 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Oxenham, John (1918). Vernon Harold Starr 1882-1918 and after. London: Church Missionary Society. p. Chpt 2. Retrieved 8 January 2024. Meets SIGCOV (See below) [16] 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Lankester, Arthur (1920). Tuberculosis in India its prevalence, causation and treatment (Accessed via googlebooks ed.). London: Butterworth and Co. p. 317. Retrieved 8 January 2024. Fails WP:IS 5. ^ Jump up to:a b Church Missionary Society (1894). "Register of Missionaries (1804-1894)". Church Missionary Society Periodicals. Fails WP:IS 6. ^ Lankester, Arthur Colborne (1895). "Annual Medical Mission Breakfast". British Medical Association: 77–81 – via Church Missionary Society Periodicals. Brief mention, (better link [17] ) 7. ^ "From Tomb to Hospital: Pakistan Army's Conservation of Peshawar's Heritage Monument". Pakistan Defence. 2023-05-20. Retrieved 2023-12-09. Fails WP:IS 8. ^ Lankester, Arthur (1912). "The Needs of the N. W. Frontier". Mercy and Truth 16. 16: 297. Fails WP:IS 9. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Annual Meeting". Preaching and Healing: The Report of the CMS Medical Mission Auxiliary for 1905-1906: 24. 1906. Fails WP:IS 10. ^ "Keswick Convention Medical Mission Meeting". Mercy and Truth. 106: 296. 1905. Fails SIGCOV 11. ^ "Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916". Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916. Retrieved 2023-12-09. // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue The 3rd source you mention is written by the subject of this article, "Arther Lankester". That (imo) should be in the "Fails WP:IS " category. Sohom ( talk ) 08:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How did I miss that... // Timothy :: talk 09:29, 16 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! 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A comment by a grandson At the age of 82, I am Arthur Lankester's eldest surviving grandchild. I remember him well. I have a type-written copy of his autobiography. I turned that into a paper back book, a copy of which which is now held in the Church Mission Society Crowther library in Oxford. I realise that I suffer from having a conflict of interest, as does the autobiography. However, it seems a pity if the best available source has to be largely ignored. My initial reaction on reading the article's text and the reasons for deletion was that it seemed a pity to throw away this information but that, unless the text of the article can be made more accurate, it would be best to delete the article. I need to learn much more about the Wikipedia editing process but it appears to me that the main reasons proposed for deletion are that he was not sufficiently notable, the lack of independent sources, and that the article is an orphan. Notability I am obviously biased here but he founded the Mission Hospital in Peshawar and was very much involved in the founding of the Osmania hospital in Hyderabad. He was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind medal (Second class in silver) in 1908. (See the Indian Medical Gazette, August 1908 Page 317.) In his position of Director of Medical and Sanitary Services for Hyderabad, he was effectively in charge of the health services of a small country. His book "Tuberculosis in India" is still an important text and the Wikipedia Article could (if corrected provide useful background material to this subject.) (By the way, his job in Hyderabad was not a Government of India post as is stated in the article; he was recruited by the Nizam and his staff.) (See the Englishman's Overland Mail for 5 February 1920, the Times Obituary of 21 November 1963.) Independent Sources Google provides plenty of sources about his work in Peshawar; there is even a picture of a memorial to him in the Burg Said Khan, which later became the hospital chapel. Of particular note are articles by Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar. I will produce a list. There is rather less written about his work in Hyderabad but the best article is in the Englishman's Overland Mail of 5 Feb 1920. I do not fully understand the problem of the article being "an orphan". Once a Wikipedia page had been produced there are many web pages that could be linked to it. I apologise for my poor understanding of how Wikipedia works and will return when I have more references. Jim462 ( talk ) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jim462 I think if you can find links/clippings/evidence to some of the articles by Dr Ali Jan and the obituary, we could put this over notability. Based on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183017/? page=1 the Indian Medical Gazette source counts as a mention. Searching Dr. A. C. Lankester shows us some sources, however, I'm unsure if they are related to your grandfather? For example, I found this article in the The Lancet on p191-121 is this about the subject or somebody else ? Sohom ( talk ) 18:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_East_and_the_West/ejEMAAAAIAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr. +A. +C. +Lankester&pg=PA222&printsec=frontcover is also another source I found which seems to be a mention of the subject. Sohom ( talk ) 08:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Church_Missionary_Soc/860_AQAAMAAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr. +%22A. +C. +Lankester%22&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover is another one as well. Sohom ( talk ) 08:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv27qzr8k provides some context about him and his work on Tuberculosis in India (I think). Sohom ( talk ) 08:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to see if additional sources are accessible. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Hi User:Jim462 , I'm writing as a history professor and I know something about the history of British India. I think your grandfather was a historically interesting, notable figure. The problem with this article is that it is essentially original research ( WP:OR ) combined with a single good secondary source (Ebrahimi 2022). (The Pakistan Defense article link is broken.) I suspect if you did some reading in the historical literature on medicine in British India you would find more references to him, which would support a Wikipedia page on him. Alternatively, you could write a brief paper about him for a historical journal based on your own research - he has other publications in his own lifetime besides those mentioned here - but that original research cannot be the basis for a Wikipedia page. Llajwa ( talk ) 18:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some more IS references to him by historians, on JSTOR: BRIMNES, NIELS. “Vikings against Tuberculosis: The International Tuberculosis Campaign in India, 1948-1951.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 81, no. 2, 2007, pp. 407–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44452113 . Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "The first extensive discussion of tuberculosis in India was written by Dr. Arthur Lankester in 1920, and he estimated that..." [Mentioned by User:Sohom above] VENKAT, BHARAT JAYRAM. “To Cure an Earthquake.” At the Limits of Cure, Duke University Press, 2021, pp. 23–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv27qzr8k.5 . Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Arthur Lankester , who appears later in this chapter, took a slightly diff er ent view, contending..." Bottomore, Stephen. “Early Missionary Filming and the Emergence of the Professional Cameraman.” Beyond the Screen: Institutions, Networks, and Publics of Early Cinema, edited by Marta Braun et al., Indiana University Press, 2016, pp. 19–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bmznbd.5 . Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Stock noted of Cash’s film of Dr. Lankester of Peshawar that “... the sudden sight of Dr. Arthur Lankester walking down the Khyber Pass among the camels will not soon be forgotten by those who were present that night”. Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society ... vol. 4 (London: CMS, 1916), 503." Also see: Rao, B. Eswara. “From Rajayak s(h)Ma (‘Disease of Kings’) to ‘Blackman’s Plague’: Perceptions on Prevalence and Aetiology of Tuberculosis in the Madras Presidency, 1882–1947.” The Indian economic and social history review 43, no. 4 (2006): 457–485. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/001946460604300403 . "In 1915, the Government of India circulated to all the Presidencies a compre- hensive report submitted by Arthur Lankester on the prevalence of the disease along with certain suggestions..." Venkat, Bharat Jayram. “A Vital Mediation: The Sanatorium, before and after Antibiotics.” Technology and culture 60, no. 4 (2019): 979–1003. https://muse-jhu-edu.revproxy.brown.edu/article/741380 . "As a result of the Lucknow resolution, an ex-medical missionary and Director of the Medical and Sanitation Department for the Nizam of Hy- derabad named Arthur Lankester traveled across Burma and India for eleven months collecting evidence concerning the prevalence of tuberculo- sis on the subcontinent. In particular, Lankester drew on the accounts of women medical missionaries and physicians, whose work in the zenanas made them among the vanguard in detecting tuberculosis among Indians. His informants assured him that there was “scarcely a zenana . . . which has not some case of tuberculosis!”20 Reinforcing the importance of missionary intervention, he noted that women confined to zenanas were usually un- able or unwilling to leave their home in order to seek medical treatment." Llajwa ( talk ) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The world expert on tubercolosis under the British Raj seems to be this UCLA historian: [ [18] ], who discusses Arthur Lankester in two of his publications I cited above - if you email him at the address given, he might be interested in corresponding with you. Llajwa ( talk ) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I should get back yo my own work but I've been reading Venkat's prizewinning book on tuberculosis, At the Limits of Cure , which discusses Lankester's work in chapter one - it's quite fascinating. It's free on JSTOR. I hope you will make your grandfather's autobiography available online. Llajwa ( talk ) 19:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I admit I want to keep this article. Strike my delete above based on: Meets SIGCOV: [19] Meets SIGCOV: [20] Meets SIGCOV: [21] . The article alone doesn't meet SIGCOV, but the film it mentions would meet probably meet SIGCOV so together I think this passes. I didn't look at others because this was enough for me to think it meets WP:N. I rarely use the sources must exist claim, but in this case there probably is more out there. The above discussion I think shows persons interested in the subject and willing to discuss sources and improve the article. If we applied the standards we use for athletes and entertainers to academics this would be a speedy keep. @ Jim462 : , I hope your family is happy and blessed. Greetings from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for this Timothy. I will continue to follow this up. I have had copies printed of his 220 page autobiography so with that I have not, until now, needed to research him on other sources. The conflict of interest rules of Wikipedia make it difficult for me to correct the page. (As just one little example, my grandparents had 4 children, not one child as stated in Wikipedia. - my father Stephen born in Hyderabad, my uncles Christopher and Arthur Hugh, and my aunt Dorothea all 3 of whom were born in Peshawar.) Sources about his time in Hyderabad are more difficult to find than those about Peshawar. For example, when ACL left Hyderabad Mr R I R Glancy the Minister of Finance wrote on 23 March 2020 commenting that ". . . the regard of the people which was strikingly exhibited in your election to the Chair of the Hyderabad Municipality, an honour, so far as I am aware, never before awarded to a European. yours sincerely, R I R Glancy". I am sure that this is true but I am equally sure that it will never appear in Wikipedia. It should only take me a few days to obtain external evidence to prove that ACL was a sufficiently significant figure. The simple facts that he was awarded the Kaiser J Hind Medal (silver) (for his work in Peshawar) and that he was essentially the minister of health for a small country should be enough. However, achieving a full and accurate article will be more dificult. Regards, John Lankester Jim462 ( talk ) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I personally would also support draftification/userification (to Jim462 if they are fine with it, else I'm willing to take a stab at it as well). I think I see enough sources to not support outright deletion. The current article, however, needs to be completely rewritten , based on my understanding, the subject is not that well known for his missionary pursuits, but rather for his medical pursuits with his most notable contribution being not the serai system (as the article current claims), but rather the fact that he conducted the first study on the prevalence of tuberculosis in India and was amongst the first to experiment and develop various methods of treating and preventing the spread of the disease in India. Sohom ( talk ) 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have some sympathy with the implication that the Wikipedia page over-emphasises the aspect of the serai hospital. ACL's own words on this subject were a comment on the founding of his first hospital in Peshawar (the predecessor of the current Mission Hospital). I was taken by Yahyah Khan to one of these serais which had become vacant and could be rented at a cheap rate. It consisted of a central office room and one large and one smaller courtyard, both surrounded by rooms, connected together by a broad passage in winch was the tomb of a former Moslem Saint. There was a wide opening to a main road of the City. This seemed to me quite ideal for my immediate purpose, and I lost no time m acquiring it. It had been long used as a halting-place by the very people whom I hoped to reach, so was familiar ground to them. Dirty and untidy as were all the rooms they were soon transformed by free use of whitewash: mud floors replaced by cement, and worn woodwork repaired and painted. There was one large room which was transformed into a quite serviceable operating theatre. The smaller serai was a quadrangle surrounded by about 25 rooms; these needed only cleansing and re-flooring, without structural alteration, as it was my intention to let diem be used by whole families with their sick relatives, from which they would not wish to be separated. This was a most successful plan, though not ideal from the strictly “hospital” point of view, and I reproduced it in the new hospital, erected later on. There was a convenient covered space in one corner of the mam serai where patients could gather; and upper storey rooms for use by the resident house-surgeon. Other amenities included a square tank at one corner of the enclosure, with water laid on for washing. I agree that ACL's most important work was on Tuberculosis in India. However his missionary work was also important as it founded the existing Mission Hospital. Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar, has commented to me that ACL was a "legendary figure" in Peshawar. ACL also made an important contribution in Hyderabad in combating the 1919 influenza epidemic and in some of the planning for the current Osmania Hospital. Jim462 ( talk ) 15:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your comments. I need to study Wikipedia processes in more detail, and how draftification/userification works especially in an area where one has a conflict of interests. John Lankester Jim462 ( talk ) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment i’m open to correction on this, but my understanding is that you have the right to edit this article freely, according to the rules and norms of Wikipedia, like any other editor, as long as your relationship to the subject is disclosed, as it is. You are free to correct errors of fact, if you have documentation to support it, and also to remove incorrect or uncertain information which lacks adequate sourcing. Llajwa ( talk ) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - many people are notable not for one thing, but for a body of work(s). Easily passes SIGCOV of people who lived pre-Internet. I would not oppose userfication . Bearian ( talk ) 15:11, 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

Indian Railways: which can be added as section in Rail Transport of India page seperately. Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 17:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 17:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Transportation , and Delhi . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Well-sourced; one article as mentioned by the nom is about the company, the other is about the history of rail in India. Two different things. Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The two articles cover different material. As Rail transport in India points out, "Majority of the metro urban rail networks are operated by independent bodies constituted for the purpose of the respective operations. Private owned rails exist in few places, mostly used to connect freight to the integrated rail network. Inter-city rail services are operated primarily by Indian Railways though efforts have been made to introduce privately operated trains as recently as 2022." Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While much of Indian Railways forms a subset of Rail transport in India, the first article is about the company with a few sections pertaining exclusively to it in detail. The rail transport is a generic article and as IR was and is not the only railway operator, it needs to exist as a standalone article detailing the history and other rail transport in India. Magentic Manifestations ( talk ) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article stats and history — Total edits: 6,711; editors: 2,803; 30-day pageviews: 66,844; article created: 2004-05-15 (19+ years ago). Do we really want to get rid of this one? Maybe check with some of those 2,800+ editors? -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 04:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] then I think it should be merged and kept as seperate section that's the conclusion if u all agree Bhagwan22 ( talk ) 04:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The articles don't cover the same things as others have mentioned, and needs to be separate. S5A-0043 Talk 14:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Obviously, different scope which justifies the existence of both articles. Rail transport in India also covers the history before Indian Railways, and the Indian Railways article doesn't include metro/commuter services run by cities or the existence of several private railways in the country. Trainsandotherthings ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the articles are different as noted with several editors above. Royal88888 ( talk ) 06:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

NLIN: I can describe this as no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG but in a search I found zero, so not even enought to confirm that this exists. It's not even mentioned at the Computational complexity theory article. If it exists, the coverage here (a one sentence definition) could go in that article. North8000 ( talk ) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Google Scholar gives some results related to computational complexity. Also, it's not even mentioned at the Computational complexity theory article - as if that article is necessarily complete. See WP:WIP Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 19:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article starts with "in Computational complexity theory ". Pointing out that this is contemplating a separate article dedicated to something that is not even mentioned there is a useful point and is not equivalent to me claiming that all articles are to be complete as you imply or me not knowing the obvious reality that Wikipedia articles are a work in progress as your writing "See WP:WIP " implies. North8000 ( talk ) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, sorry, I didn't know you thought that the creator meant the actual Wikipedia page when writing "in Computational complexity theory ". But I think the creator just meant the theory and then wikilinked it because why not. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My main concerns were that it is a real topic suitable for future building (and that the term is not just a neologism invented/promoted by one author). Were you able to see if this is the case? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 20:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This (and DLIN) may warrant inclusion on the list of complexity classes . I don't have the expertise to know if any of the entries there already encompass this topic. Recon rabbit ( talk | edits ) 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now included it in that page, as well as in the page P versus NP problem . Its relation to that problem is the main argument for the interest in NLIN AmirOnWiki ( talk ) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Searching for both the keywords DLIN and NLIN on Google Scholar finds some 170 hits, with the combination of keywords seeminingly eliminating many of the false positives that you would get from only one: most of the results are highly relevant. These are a niche topic in structural complexity (because not robust classes) but notable enough. Leaving the same comment on both AfDs. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Based on what folks have found that I didn't find. North8000 ( talk ) 17:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Company man: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – I was going to suggest draftify as it has zero citations, but it's had a no citations hatnote since 2008. Delete per WP:NOCITE ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 23:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A quick Google Books search suggests that the oil industry definition here is accurate, and that sources exist that could support it. Will Pettijohn's Oil & Gas Handbook (2012) defines the role as the top supervisor [...] responsible for the operator's interest in the well . Rappini and Neto's Company Man: The Well Constructor in the Offshore World (2022) says the Company Man is [...] the onsite professional directly responsible for coordinating and managing well construction and maintenance in a safe and efficient way . Ron Baker's A Primer of Oil-well Drilling (1979) says the company man is in direct charge of all the company activities on the drilling location . Adam Sampson ( talk ) 19:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment in response to Chidgk1 : this absolutely "true". I even suspect that "company man" appears on some business cards. On an offshore oil rig , all the work is done for the big oil company under contract by other " oilfield service companies ": the drilling company /rig owner plus specialists such as wireline testing companies and mud companies . There's normally just one employee of the actual oil company that's paying for all this and will own the well -- that's the "company man" who's there to supervise these contractors. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - notable per Adam Sampson 's refs. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:15, 11 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

Our Country Cousin: Newspapers.com only turned up advertisements or theater schedules with no significant coverage and I could not find mentions elsewhere. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Happy to withdraw my nomination with the sources that have been found - Thank y'all so much! I always learn new research tricks from these nominations. ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Fatty Arbuckle's films have been covered in a variety of books over the years including Rediscovering Roscoe: The Films of 'Fatty' Arbuckle . [11] Donald D23 talk to me 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unless the GBooks search is broken, this book does not seem to mention the film at question. Any chance you have a direct quote or a page number? ThadeusOfNazereth (he/him) Talk to Me! 21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Some mention of a play from the 1890s by the same name, nothing found for this film Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At the very least redirect to Roscoe_Arbuckle_filmography#1914 (with that source , indicating its survival status is unknown). But not opposed to keep, especially if other sources can be checked. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Changed to full Keep , after checking sources provided by Cunard here and on page. Thanks!) Keep For a film that was released in 1914, I think there is enough coverage and independent analysis to support a standalone article. Walker, Brent E. (2010). Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies, with Biographies of Players and Personnel . Vol.  2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company . p. 295. ISBN 978-0-7864-7711-1 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: " Our Country Cousins [KC-240] (June 6, 1914) Ir (943/1000 ft.). D: Mack Sennett. C: Unknown. WT: Rube Elopement . A country boy elopes with a farmer's niece pursued by cops, who must rescue the girl when she falls down a cliff. Keystone releases list, NYMPC negative and release records and Motion Picture News all give title as above. Contrary to previous secondary source speculation, Dell Henderson did not direct this film. Previous speculation on the presence of Rube Miller and Charley Chase in the cast is unverified but unlikely, and comes from a secondary source that has proven inaccurate with regard to verifiable Keystone credits. [Filmed 5/8/14-5/18/14; Finished/ Shipped 5/24/14; Rec'd in NY 6/1/14.]" "Mutual Program: Our Country Cousins" . Motion Picture News . Vol.  9, no. 25. 1914-06-27. p. 68 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins." (Keystone. Sat., June C.) — The arrival of the cousin at the farm causes a lot of trouble between two of the farm hands. She decides to elope with one and the two go over a precipice. The remainder of the reel is employed in their efforts to get up again. The comedy is sure to produce a laugh, but is not equal to the usual Keystone. " "Comments on the Films" . The Moving Picture World . 21 (1): 65. 1914-07-04 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 . The article notes: " Our Country Cousins (Keystone), June 6.— Farm characters and an elopement that has the Keystone flavor and is sure to make laughter. It has unexpected and very funny incidents and will surely make an excellent offering," "The Story of the Films". Kinematograph and Lantern Weekly . Vol. 16, no. 393. 1914-11-05. p. xxv. ProQuest 2594735242 . The article notes: " Our Country Cousins (C). The farmer's niece arrives on a visit and everyone falls in love with her, more so the farmer's two sons. One of the sons decides to kidnap the maiden. He does so, but the priest refuses to marry them, and the Keystone police are forced to give assistance. This they succeed in doing only too well, and the whole thing ends in a glorious scrimmage. Released Dec. 14th, length 1000 ft. " "Our Country Cousins" . The Bioscope . 1914-11-05. p. xli . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Google Books . The article notes: " Our Country Cousins . —The farmer's niece is carried off by one of his sons and the Keystone police are called in to the pursuit. The niece falls down a cliff, and most of the rest fall down a great number of times in the attempt to rescue her, their antics being certain to cause tumultuous laughter. (December 14th. 1,000 ft.)" "Pictoria" . Maitland Mercury . 1914-11-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "The big Keystone comedy "Our Country Cousins" was clever and amusing, the audience being impelled to laughter by the extraordinary antics of "Fatty and Mabel." The comics were good, and the orchestral music with special effects proved an enjoyable feature of the evening. " "The Lyceum Picture Co" . The Riverine Grazier . 1914-10-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: ""Our country cousins," a Keystone comedy, was like many comic films, somewhat overdone, but it was most successful as a mirth producer. " "Features At Bijou Tonight" . Lewistown Daily News . 1914-07-04. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" is another of those screaming Keystone comedies only this is said to be even better than a good many of them. " "Central Picture Theatre" . Folkestone Herald . 1914-12-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19 . Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com . The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" was a very funny Keystone release featuring the famous Keystone Police. " Cunard ( talk ) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard ( talk ) 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per recent expansion, which together with sources above demonstrates the topic is notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has enough reviews per WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - indeed reviews are sufficient per WP:NFILM . BabbaQ ( talk ) 16:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved and expanded using multiple reliable sources also identified in this discussion that show significant coverage such as reviews so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per expanded sourcing and move to Our Country Cousins which all the sources agree is the actual title. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of years in South African sport: The content it does serve hinders navigation. Take for example the unsourced 1962 in South African sport which is a Content fork of 1962_in_South_Africa#Sports , except the latter section has no content. Rather than work bottom up and further degrade the usefulness of this list by proposing mergers of the subarticles, I wanted to see if there was consensus for deleting or merging the main article. My policy argument for deleting or reworking this article is that per WP:NOPAGE we are not serving readers best by organizing content this way. If a particular year of sport in South Africa can get enough significant coverage, it can then be built out and perhaps expanded into a true content fork. But by spreading ourselves out across these pages that aren't yet ready to be separate, we're making things more clunky. ForksForks ( talk ) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions . ForksForks ( talk ) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Afd is not for cleanup. After doing a random sampling, I can say that there are legitimate year lists, so it does serve a navigational purpose. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 03:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as Clarityfiend says AfD is not from cleanup. That the nominator doesn't find is useful is poor evidence that it actually hinders navigation as they claim. Talk page discussion on the proper format for this content ("Timeline of South African sport" perhaps) is the way forward, not deletion. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 23:53, 15 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! 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I really hate to say this but given how much I've seeing too much fuss with stuff in favor of deleting articles in AfD discussions, especially where there's a lack of evidence that an article should be deleted. I have to agree with Eluchil and Clarityfiend on this. Given that it does have a purpose to help users navigate to a year in a specific history in sporting event, it does have a purpose. 20chances ( talk ) 17:58, 23 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

Man-Ching Donald Yu: 日期20220626 ( talk ) 01:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's unclear whether Authority control can demonstrate his notability, but it seems that there are fewer links within Authority control. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 01:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article includes several references. As well, the references in the corresponding Chinese article at zh:余文正 may be helpful. See also the previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Ching Donald Yu Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 5th and 8th sources at zh:余文正 provide information about him, but they are actually from personal websites. When I searched for his name on Google, I couldn't find any satisfactory results. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 03:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hong Kong . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment , there are some pointers, but hard to tell right now. Contemporary composer, very niche. Here's an album of compositions [24] Ralph P Locke, in Music and Letters , Volume 102, Issue 3, August 2021, Pages 641–643, describes him as "a noted composer as well as scholar". Via TWL [25] — siro χ o 03:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Music and Letters only mentioned his name briefly. 日期20220626 ( talk ) 03:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Canfield, David DeBoor; Nockin, Maria (March–April 2013). "Yu Symphony No. 1. From the Depth. Octet for Strings. Sunset in my Homeland. The Maximum Speed of Raphael's Madonna. Explosion for Piano. Disintegration for Piano and Electronics. Two Poems by Ya Hsien. Breeze". Fanfare . Vol.  36, no. 4. pp. 172–174. ProQuest 1287039828 . David DeBoor Canfield wrote: "The present CD contains a generous sampling of music by Hong Kong composer and pianist, Dr. Man-Ching Donald Yu, who was born in 1980. As a pianist, Yu made his debut at the age of 16 with the Pan Asia Symphony Orchestra, and eventually earned a B.A. degree from Baylor University. Further musical studies took him to the Internationale Sommerakademie Universität Mozarteum in Salzburg, and he completed his education, being awarded a Ph.D. in composition and music theory at Hong Kong Baptist University. He is currently on the faculty of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. The more than 150 compositions in Yu’s portfolio range from instrumental, vocal, and chamber pieces to large-scale operatic, choral, and symphonic works. The music on this, the second CD devoted to the composer’s music, has been selected to give an overview of the breadth of the genres in which this composer writes." Maria Nockin wrote: "Man-Ching Donald Yu is an intriguing composer who writes in several different styles. The first work on this disc is his First Symphony which has three movements that are grouped together on one 20-minute track. The first movement is something of a prelude to the stronger and darker music to come. There is a great deal of melodic material, especially for the Lugansk orchestra’s brass section. It is buoyed up by the strings and punctuated by gestures from the percussionists." Hinterbichler, Karl (July 2010). "Man-Ching (Donald) Yu. Solemn Elegy for four trombones. Orlando, FL: Wehr's Music House, 2007. Playing time 2:00. Score and parts". ITA Journal . 38 (3). International Trombone Association : 46. ProQuest 748815971 . The article notes: "Donald Yu was born in 1980 in Hong Kong. He earned a Bachelor of Music degree from Baylor University, where he studied piano, composition and conducting and pursued further studies in Austria, Italy, and Germany. He has composed over 100 works in a variety of media. A number of these have been published and recorded. In addition to Solemn Elegy he has composed two other works for trombone, Reflections for Trombone Choir (2006) The Refraction of Shadow for trombone and piano (2007). He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Composition at Hong Kong Baptist University. Solemn Elegy is traditional harmonically and melodically. It contains no musical or technical difficulties that could not be surmounted by an average college quartet. The title describes its musical qualities quite well. If you need a slow, short, somber work to fill out a program, this fits the bill." Rees, Carla (Fall 2014). "New Music Without Borders, Volume 2". The Flutist Quarterly . Vol.  40, no. 1. National Flute Association . p. 71. ProQuest 1619361371 . The review notes: "Man-Ching Donald Yu's contribution, "Breeze," is intended for "young performers and children who have studied the instrument for a short time and have not been exposed to contemporary music. " Based on five chromatic pitches, this three-minute piece uses key clicks, flutter-tonguing, pizzicato, whistle tones, jet whistles, and glissandi to create an evocative sound. Another short piece, Fernando Maglia's "Tropos II," uses similar techniques in a slightly more complex rhythmic and harmonic language, providing a useful progression for students. Attention to detail can be developed with this piece, given its frequent dynamic changes and contrasting moods between short phrases." Camilleri, Silvio John (2013-04-14). "An ambitious effort that delighted" . Times of Malta . Archived from the original on 2023-09-10 . Retrieved 2023-09-10 . The article notes: "The second item was the world premiere for Sign of Spring composed in 2012 by Man-Ching Yu. Born in Hong Kong, this composer is frequently inspired by paintings. The work is tinged with an Oriental touch, which intermingles with impressionistic, Western elements; a bit like a Toru Takemitsu composition." Walker, Brian (October 2013). "Music Review: "Fishing in Snow," by Man-Ching (Donald) Yu". International Trumpet Guild Journal . Vol.  38, no. 1. International Trumpet Guild . p. 98. ProQuest 1487696682 . The abstract notes: "Walker reviews a composition by Yu for trumpet and piano (MusicaNeo)." https://www.manchingdonaldyu.com/reviews Internet Archive has additional reviews. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Man-Ching Donald Yu ( Chinese : 余文正 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source analysis of new sources would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC , met per sources found by Cunard. — siro χ o 02:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:06, 16 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

Lew Morton (baseball): Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Baseball , and Kansas . Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG, such as [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] . And given the vintage there is probably a lot that is not available on the internet. Rlendog ( talk ) 13:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG . Thanks to User:Rlendog for digging up these sources. JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:48, 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

2023 IIHF World U18 Championship Division I: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , and so should be draftified, but that is no longer an option. Onel 5969 TT me 10:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan , South Korea , Kazakhstan , Austria , Denmark , Estonia , France , Hungary , Italy , Poland , Slovenia , and Ukraine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This article is part of a big series of articles. See Category:IIHF World U18 Championship Division I . Maiō T. ( talk ) 18:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Let's see if I understand this; this is a significant international championship due to be played in two weeks, and the nom couldn't find a single reliable source discussing it? AfD is not cleanup, and I have trouble believing that the nom was unable to find a single source prior to filing this . Ravenswing 18:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I added [41] , [42] to the article which both give some significant coverage. For what it is worth, once the 'A' tournament is played passionhockey.com will have a detailed article (in French) on that tournament because they do every year. It may seem like a challenge to find sources because there are not english speaking countries involved and there is some variety in what writers may call the championship; search engines will generally fail unless you are creative. I hope this helps. 18abruce ( talk ) 21:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per 18abcruce. Kante4 ( talk ) 20:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another disruptive and short sighted nomination for deletion from the nominator. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 16:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Marlese Durr: Limited coverage in reliable sources, other than the college's own publications. Creator has self-moved from Draft space, so would support draftifying (if that is a word), to allow creator to continue work. Mdann52 ( talk ) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Mdann52 ( talk ) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Social science , Michigan , New York , and Ohio . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails wP:Prof . Small cites in GS in a high cited field. WP:Too soon . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . Citation counts are low but that may be because of the field, and she still does have two triple-digit counts, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1 . Two edited volumes with three published reviews each make a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because edited rather than authored). President of two bluelinked academic societies could be a double pass of PROF#C6. A bluelinked national-level award (and another major award from another society but not bluelinked) could be a pass of PROF#C2. And if the SWS award is not counted towards notability directly, the SWS web page congratulating her and containing in-depth coverage of her career is therefore secondary (because it is only primary and non-independent if it is about the award) and counts towards GNG, as does the JBHE story, giving her a case for WP:GNG . Each individual claim to notability here is arguable, but there are enough varied ones that I think they add up to a keep. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per David Eppstein above, plus, this subject passes WP:NPROF#5 . Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think being awarded the Jessie Bernard Award is enough for this article to stay. Wolverine XI ( talk to me ) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

John Kingsmill (actor): Boleyn ( talk ) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You have this in The Sydney Morning Herald . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Austlit has 13 works about his works including in the Weekend Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 23:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Yes, there are book reviews and more on WP:LIBRARY and the link above from

keep

Counterparts (novel): The only reason the page was created was due to the recent death of the author and the political fuss connected to it (Lira died while he was detained by the Ukrainian authorities due to his pro-Russian activities) Karma1998 ( talk ) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The book was good enough to get "a million dollar advance", and has gotten ample coverage in reliable sources. D r e a m Focus 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting an advance is fine, but doesn't get you a wikipedia article. The "ample coverage" used now in the article is rather thin to be honest. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct. Being the subject of two non-trivial published works is what gets a book its own article. Your opinion of the author or of Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews is irrelevant, and further beset by the multiple reviews already sourced in the article and alluded to below. Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The LA Times article is the best source, with only trivial coverage of the book. The usual Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews are fine, but every book out there has them, so I'd prefer more than these in order to keep this article. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NBOOK #1 with reviews in Kirkus , Publishers Weekly , Newsday , Orlando Sentinel , and San Francisco Examiner . The news of the million dollar advance was covered in the LA Times and also in Chilean press , with articles like "El escritor chileno del millón de dólares" and "El hombre del millón de dólares" . The Spanish language translation of the book, Contrapartes , received reviews as well: [16] , [17] , [18] . Jfire ( talk ) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NBOOK , plus above. Honestly I'm surprised the standards for book notability are as seemingly low as they are. Some are shorter "capsule" ones which don't really count but there seem to be several that are longer, decently in depth ones. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "low" standards are well established and the result of a multitude of discussion spanning well over a decade, and not the oversight you may perceive it to be. You are free to express your surprise at the relevant talk page, because it is frankly irrelevant to the discussion here. Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, but I'm not complaining about it. Just surprised. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure thing. Apologies if my tone was at all uncharitable, I just wanted to hit on that point given the weak rationale belying this entire nomination and the already imposing distraction of the author on this article's merit and existence. I always appreciate to hear other perspectives! Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NBOOK , which depends on "two or more non-trivial published works" about the book, including reviews. The Orlando Sentinel review is 7 paragraphs long, the Newsday review is 4 paragraphs, and the San Francisco Examiner is 3 paragraphs, in addition to the Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Above, Oaktree b says that "every book out there" has Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews — there are a lot of aspiring authors who wish that were true. Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jfire. The article not only passes WP:NBOOK but exceeds it, as Toughpigs outlined above. This nomination is patently in bad faith because the author was a controversial figure. I strongly suggest that users like Karma1998 and Oaktree b familiarise themselves with the clear and longstanding notability guidelines for books before making a nomination like this or rationalising it. I didn't know of this figure until recently but one quick glance at his wiki page and its extensive deletion nomination history can tell you why this sort of AfD was engendered. Please do not try to weasel out of basic guidelines because you have feelings about the author (aka not the subject of the article being nominated for deletion) or about why and when this article was created. Οἶδα ( talk ) 23:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasons above, Lira's coverage in Chile because of the book was significant, he was referred to as "the highest paid Chilean writer in the world" (Que Pasa magazine) [19] and "the million dollar man" (El Mercurio, Chile's newspaper of record ) [20] JSwift49 13:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I can see this being merged to author Gonzalo Lira eventually. Newsday is a group review and there is a single paragraph on the book—it is a capsule review. The Orlando Sentinel has a brief review similar in length to The San Francisco Examiner . (Saying Orlando is "seven paragraphs" when the paragraphs are in column format, i.e., they're two- or three-sentence paragraphs.) Both cover only some basic detail and cannot be used as a basis for an article. I would be advocating for merger and summary style coverage if it weren't for the Spanish-language blurbs, which are also short. PW and Kirkus are librarian trade publications that review widely and inclusion there does not confer notability. Once all of this material is summarized, I would be surprised it amounts to more than two succinct paragraphs, which can be amply covered in the context of the author's biography. czar 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets the general requirements for notability on Wikipedia. (NB- I moved the page to Main when it was draftified some time ago). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:25, 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

Karthik Raj: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . Tirishan ( talk ) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Television , India , and Tamil Nadu . Tirishan ( talk ) 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep satisfied WP:GNG , Led actor in many movies and received awards. PARVAGE talk! 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , found sources: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . DareshMohan ( talk ) 17:41, 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

Lucier (restaurant): Fails GNG, coverage is only local as per WP:AUD . LibStar ( talk ) 03:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Oregon . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable, based on the extensive coverage it received. WP:AUD is wrong. Notability can be established through coverage in local media, particularly when the local media have an excellent reputation for reliability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why is WP:AUD wrong, it is part of an official guideline. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary ." LibStar ( talk ) 05:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You do realize The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, yes? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : LibStar , You may be interpreting "local" for the location of the publication, but for newspapers and magazines, WP:AUD clearly implies the area of circulation , hence the terms regional and statewide . This article clearly meets WP:NORG . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 00:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). I agree with Eastmain, the topic is clearly notable based on in-depth reporting in multiple independent and reputable major publications. Based on their nominations (and even some withdrawals), I think nominator is pursuing AfD before completing thorough assessments of available coverage. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing but local coverage. No evidence that it meets NCORP. And the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil. Valereee ( talk ) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course "the likelihood a restaurant that was open for 7 months is actually notable is pretty much nil", but this venture received significant coverage. I strongly disagree with your assessment of secondary coverage in major publications. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Did it get any coverage outside of Oregon? LibStar ( talk ) 16:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We've already been over this. I am not going to keep repeating myself across the many (30?) articles by me you've tagged for deletion recently. You keep throwing around "AUD" and dismissing The Oregonian as a "local" paper when the publication has statewide circulation. It is also the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. If you want to have a wider discussion about whether or not The Oregonian counts as a regional/state source, fine, but in the meantime please stop targeting me and tagging entries, some of which are (IMO) very clearly about notable subjects. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And we've already been over the fact that many editors don't agree with you that coverage only in even TO of a Portland restaurant rises to the level of NCORP. I've said the same for NYC restaurants covered only in the NYT. If a restaurant is notable, it will get coverage outside its home publication, no matter how important that publication is to that local area. Valereee ( talk ) 20:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we've been circling the WP:GNG vs. WP:AUD vs. WP:NCORP drain for months now. I've asked for a wider discussion about this because I'm tired of restaurant articles I've started getting nominated for deletion, yet most often kept. ( I've probably been through 50 or so in the past year. Didn't help a now-blocked sock puppet was contacting editors to falsely accuse me of being paid to edit the entries, but let's set that aside for now. ) You can keep saying "many editors don't agree with" me, but most of the articles involved in these discussions have been kept. I've even promoted a handful to Good article status after they were nominated for deletion. So, perhaps many editors don't agree with you. Doesn't matter, my point is we're all exhausted by having this same discussion over and over and over. I wish we could address this in a way which doesn't have me defending multiple entries at a time, all the time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment We need a more general decision on how to handle restaurants. They're sort-of the opposite of academic professors: Restaurants always generate a lot of stuff in newspapers because people like to go out to eat, so a major role of a newspaper or magazine is to review places where you can do it, review the new restaurants, regret the closures, announce the changes. Celebrities eat too, so wherever they go, they leave a trail of restaurants basking in the reflected publicity. We need some general guidance on what makes a restaurant stand out from the crowd as a really notable institution. Elemimele ( talk ) 18:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The sheer number of references are irrelevant and misleading. Most are trivial: a single sentence in articles about other subjects only tangentially related to this restaurant. Those that are substantive are all in the categories of (1) it's opening and (2) it's closing 7 MOS later. Under WP:NORG none of this amounts to substantive coverage that would establish notability. This is comparable to a one-day news story that got purely local coverage, and was picked up by one statewide newspaper. A restaurant that went out of business in seven months is simply not notable for an encyclopedia, molecular gastronomy ,$25 martinis and Dale Chihuly glass sculptures notwithstanding. Banks Irk ( talk ) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Banks Irk : Yes, there are sources which discuss Lucier for just a few sentences, but you've disregarded multiple , in-depth pieces and reviews by Oregonian journalists and food critics (several of which are paywalled, to my frustration). A search for "Lucier" in the Oregonian archives yields over 100 returns; I am currently sifting through those to try to expand the article further. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, I haven't overlooked or ignored the non-trivial articles, nor the dozens of new refbombs added today (the vast majority of which are indeed trivial and probably should be stricken as excessive coatracking) Whether X used to work there, or Y bought the building or Z is the new restaurant the owners opened lateris not notable. Such trivia is representative of how the restaurant could get over 100 Google hits in The Oregonian for a 7 months run. ) None of these references establish notability for a purely local defunct eatery that cratered almost immediately after it opened. So, there are some longer restaurant reviews by local critics that the setting was spectacular, but the pricy food sucked. Again, that just doesn't establish notability. Banks Irk ( talk ) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Banks Irk I would like to know, how were you able to review all of the paywalled Oregonian sources? I'm asking because I'm accessing them through the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, which makes verification difficult for other users. There are quite a few in-depth profiles specifically about Lucier, which I'd like others to be able to access, too. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. Lexis-Nexis. You're wasting your time. 99 44/100% are completely trivial. The others are, as I wrote earlier, "it's being built... opening soon...finally opened", "pretty building, pricy food sucks", and "it closed (we're not surprised because the pricy food sucked)". A newspaper does not generate 100+ substantive articles on a restaurant that was only open 7 months. Banks Irk ( talk ) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for confirming. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I find the amount of thorough coverage by multiple reporters quite impressive for a short-lived restaurant. We clearly see things differently, but I happen to think most editors who have access to these in-depth profiles would be inclined to vote keep. Seems I won't be able to sway your vote, so I'll move on to other things. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Business was open for a whopping seven months, and yes, sources are all local with no outside third-party coverage, while not proving why the subject is actually notable for Wikipedia article despite the borderline refbombing. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Beemer69 Again, The Oregonian is not just a "local" paper. It offers statewide reporting and regional circulation, and has the second largest distribution in the Pacific Northwest. Can you clarify what you mean by "not proving why the subject is actually notable" -- how is the subject not notable when it has received so much in-depth coverage, both in the form of reviews and pieces focused on the restaurant's operational history? Since your vote, I've worked to expand the article further, using some very in-depth articles which are (unfortunately paywalled), if you're able to take another look. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes both GNG and NCORP notability guidelines per multiple, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable publications, here [38] , here [39] and here [40] . All three count towards notability as set out in WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS . The Oregonian covers the regional requirement in WP:AUD . Rupples ( talk ) 21:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will assume good faith, but I find it hard to take these refs as much more than a joke. One is not an RS, and the others are trivial. Banks Irk ( talk ) 00:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Generous of you to assume good faith. Your opinion is welcome and valid. Each of us interpret the sources presented in our own way and all that can really be said is that my interpretation differs from yours. I see the very fact that this business folded in such a short time as significant. The take I'm getting from this article is that the owners introduced what seems to be the most expensive, high end, glitzy, upmarket restaurant that Portland had ever experienced, but the concept failed. That to me is notable. You are free to disagree. Which one of the sources do you deem not reliable? Rupples ( talk ) 01:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first 2 seem very local as per WP:AUD . LibStar ( talk ) 08:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't answer the question I asked, unless you are presupposing "very local" sources as inherently unreliable. Rupples ( talk ) 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rupples, don't worry, even if you supply a dozen in-depth profiles published by major publications like The Oregonian and other glossy magazines, you'll still be told those don't count... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : WP:AUD states at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary . I haven't seen anyone holding the position that Oregonian is anything other than a statewide paper, at least, or contradictory information. Since this was the sole reason given in the nomination, and it has apparently been mooted, could the nominator then concisely state their policy based reason for deletion, if it exists? In other words: WP:AUD was mooted, what reason for deletion remains? ☆ Bri ( talk ) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe the rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Contrary to the claim in the intro, this restaurant meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUD , as has been indicated also above. gidonb ( talk ) 10:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's been more than two days since my comment above asking what policy reason should govern deletion here, with no response. ☆ Bri ( talk ) 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, sorry, @ Bri , didn't see that you'd asked for clarification. Just because a newspaper covers an entire state doesn't mean NOTHING it covers is "local". The Oregonian, published in Portland, is for Portland a local source. Just like for NYC, the NYT is. Literally nothing outside of Portland seems to be in the now-81 local sources. This restaurant was open for 7 months and had no coverage other than local. It was open for 7 months . Valereee ( talk ) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's quite an expansion of the literal words at WP:AUD . I don't even know how you would formulate that. How does one tell the difference between "local coverage" and "non-local coverage" from an indisputably regional or national source? ☆ Bri ( talk ) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree, I don't understand Valereee's interpretation of AUD. The Oregonian is most definitely a regional publication and not "of limited interest and circulation". I'll reiterate my request to have a wider discussion about this (AUD vs GNG vs NCORP) instead of having this same debate over and over across dozens of AfDs. Also, Valereee, how long the business operated is irrelevant. What matters is sufficient secondary coverage, which Lucier has very clearly received. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I as well disagree strongly with this interpretation of WP:AUD. In addition, this guideline is about organizations and companies. A restaurant is a cultural institution beyond simply one company. ɱ (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So if a restaurant opens in NYC with reviews published in The New York Times , The Villager , and AM New York Metro , none of those would meet WP:AUD , because they are published in the same location as the restaurant's locale, but if a review were published in New York Daily News it could count toward AUD because it's published in New Jersey?? — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : closure has absolutely nothing to do with notability, ever. This article passes all relevant notability criteria. If anything, the surprising story of closure has led to more press, and thus more notability. To say that something is short-lived is not a valid excuse, and not part of any policy or guideline. Do you want to delete the New York Crystal Palace article? That only lasted five years. I dare you to try. ɱ (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep SIGCOV Lightburst ( talk ) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Red Sneakers: Two sources, one of which is IMDB. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Received 4 notable awards. (see this ); and this ) And review in the NYT (Also this , fwiw) Film internationally distributed (in French, for example as La Légende de Reggie Reynolds ) I am willing to add those sources to the page when/if it is kept. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those are significant coverage. The first is a photo caption, the second is a list of films, I can't open the NYT and the fourth is from a non-reliable-source website. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] .... you can’t open the NYT... well, that’s too bad, really.... it’s significant enough. And so are the awards, for which the first sources are presented. Just look them up. As for the last source, I don’t know the site but insisted l mentioned it for what it was worth (Please try and read my comment more carefully when you reply, thanks.) This film is clearly notable. Maybe this , this , this brief mention based on a interview, in the Chicago Tribune and this review in The Christian Science Monitor and this one in the Sun Sentinel will help. No further comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, I'll give you the NYT, I'm able to sort of see the headline in the NYT link above. With the other (Christian Science and the Florida paper), should be ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find coverage about red shoes in general, nothing about this television item. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with the sources given, reviews help for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the New York Times, Sun Sentinel, Dove Foundation and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NFILM due to the awards and also multiple reliable sources. Hkkingg ( talk ) 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Much better than it was, but I question a couple of the sources, particularly in the Awards section. One award is sourced from a photo caption in Jet magazine and another from a book published by Lulu.com, which is a vanity press. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 18:20, 1 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