Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wiki_deletion_discussion

like 0

Beast poetry: No indication of importance. Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Poetry , and Europe . Drowssap SMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ( [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] ). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic , so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire ( talk ) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify , convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra ( talk ) 18:29, 22 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 ) 02:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The topic is fo-shizzle notable. It's a matter of reframing the article and creating possible alternate titles. I don't think draftify is warranted here. It can be fixed being on the main space. X ( talk ) 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Silvaco: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [29] ~ A412 talk! 01:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk ) 06:28, 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

Silver Cup (band): The most noteworthy coverage the group has received is the interview in V Magazine . The rest of the sources are student and community newspapers that probably do not meet the reliable sources bar. Iago Qnsi ( talk ) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the creator, I'd personally disagree. The coverage in V Magazine , their entry in the SLC public library , and coverage in local papers meets WP:SIGCOV in my eyes (criteria 1 of WP:BAND ). I get that the bar must be high, but I caution from putting it too high. WP:RS doesn't exclude local sources (or even university articles, with the caveat of WP:BAND criteria 1), just says that you must verify a level of editorial standards. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom. A relatively obscure band that doesn't meet notability standards; though the amount of coverage included in the article does seem decent, and therefore the reason for my "weak" ! vote. CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 8 April 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! 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is filled with promo spam, including: 7. ^ ""Aquafeed.com | Silver Cup becomes Skretting US"". www.aquafeed.com. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-24." "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow" Spam ref >> 9. ^ Klaper, Rebecca; Rees, Christopher B. ; Drevnick, Paul; Weber, Daniel; Sandheinrich, Mark; Carvan, Michael J. (2006).  "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) after Dietary Methylmercury Exposure".  Environmental Health Perspectives.  114 (9): 1337–1343.  doi:10.1289/ehp.8786.  ISSN 0091-6765.  PMC 1570078.  PMID 16966085. but these three sources: 13. ^ "LDS singer David Archuleta tells LGBTQ youths at LoveLoud Festival: 'It's a beautiful thing to be queer'".  The Salt Lake Tribune.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 10. ^ Jump up to:a b Fuller, Whit.  "Silver Cup's Debut EP is a Dreamy Reflection".  The Daily Utah Chronicle.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Family Band Silver Cup Talks Musical Inspirations and Growing Up in Utah".  V Magazine.  Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. Show some level of notability. #4 is partly interview, but there is some independent content. Article needs cleanup, but I suspect there are more sources to go with the three above. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 20 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

Yamini Aiyar: May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Organizations , Delhi , and United Kingdom . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research ; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF . — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No longer the head . Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [13] . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 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 ) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun ( talk ) 15:43, 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

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: The person is not elected representative, representing government at any level and sources are also scarce. Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Allahabad High Court is an WP:NPOL qualifying position: specifically, judges who have held... state/province–wide office. They're a judge on the highest court of a state with 241 million inhabitants, this is an easy keep. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan.Judge of the Allahabad High Court is a WP:NPOL qualifying position. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NJUDGE. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 12:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per others above, a clear-cut WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:51, 28 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

Elsa Mars: WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show , sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Glamour , ScreenRant , Bustle , The Atlantic , EW . There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP , which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN , so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios ( talk ) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show : Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens ( talk ) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 talk to me 20:45, 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

Trap (carriage): This page only defines the term Trap (as a carriage). The only reference is to a phrase finder. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Horse racing . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Blatant WP:NOTDICT violation. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 08:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Keep I think there may be the content and sourcing available to expand the article to more than just a dictionary definition. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 23:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references that are way more than a dictionary definition. They cover a range of designs for traps. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you added six sources to verify the dictionary definition in the article, but the deletion proposal is not based on any doubt that a pony-trap is a type of carriage. The problem with this article is it is very clearly just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is the wrong wikiproject for that. I also note that your sources include two glossaries of terms (just reinforcing WP:NOTDICT arguments), a for-sale listing of a trap, and a stock photo of a trap. I suppose these were all added to reinforce the fact that such carriages are called traps, but they are not WP:RS (clearly) and they are reinforcing something over which there is no doubt. The article still fails per WP:NOTDICT . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. It is more than just a dictionary definition. Consider Coupe or Pickup truck . Both are types of motor vehicle, but there are many variations of both. The same is true of Trap (carriage) . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a nomination based purely on a current thin state of a stub article and that is not the point of DICDEF. The word is widely used, at least in "pony and trap" as both vehicle and propulsion. Yet what is a "trap"? Does it have 2 wheels or 4? How does it differ from other types of cart? What was it used for? We may not be there as yet, but there is certainly scope here for an encyclopedic article more than a DICDEF, just as we've done for other cart and carriage types. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:HEY . The article now passes WP:GNG per the included sources. There is probably scope for a general reorganisation of all of the articles on similar types of carriages, but there is no particular reason to delete this page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Fantasy Amateur Press Association: Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Ktkvtsh ( talk ) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom , published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: " Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy ". Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss ( talk ) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This is an institution of many decades' duration. AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations. (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.). -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

McKinsey Quarterly: Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you please explain how this is self-promotion, an advert, and out-of-date? Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself. It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK ( talk ) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world. To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD . RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK. Passes WP:BKCRIT . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hey Everybody: This a procedural nomination and I am neutral. 2 different IPs have also attempted to PROD this article, so let's just get this discussion out of the way. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Perfectly reasonable dab with seven entries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per WP:CSK #3. WP:ONEOTHER refers to one other topic , not one other article . This is a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️ ) 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already made additions to fix the WP:ONEOTHER problem yesterday, so there's no need for this article to be deleted or have PROD templates placed on it anymore. B3251 ( talk ) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Wizardzz: While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for WP:BAND . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and United States of America . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As is almost always the case with bands reviewed by Pitchfork, there are multiple published works covering the band; for instance, Tiny Mix Tapes reviewed the album, and there is a short bio and a substantial review at Allmusic . Meets WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:31, 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

Death of Anatoly Klyan: WP:BIO1E says: When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Russia , and Ukraine . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep But this article, Death of Anatoly Klyan , is about the event, as recommended by WP:BIO1E . The event is clearly notable as evidenced in the article. Thincat ( talk ) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You are saying 'Journalist Dying' is a major role in the event 'Death of Journalist', which is obvious an can be said about pretty much any WP:NOTNEWS topic. Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT : Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths , celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena ) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. All the sources in the article are from exactly June 30, 2014, so it has no lasting coverage. And like written above, deaths/crimes/political news are not notable "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:BIO1E is already refuted above. And this article clearly passes WP:GNG . And his death isn't just one of those "most deaths" mentioned; it provoked a global response - from the Russian government and UNESCO. That, plus the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [...] the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article The reporting was exactly during one day , June 30, 2014. No more articles after that. Saying "it helps the case" words things in a way as to not consider the other majority of WP:EVENTCRIT which it clearly fails. Namely: 1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). 3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. 4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Looking at things, not much "helps the case for an article", per WP:EVENTCRIT . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you're accusing ME of wikilawyering... In any case, 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources is satisfied by the multitude of different RS cited for this article - from The Guardian to Al Jazeera. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not a biographical article, It is completely fine to keep the article under the present title and scope. Segaton ( talk ) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's not a biographical article Then why is there a subheading called Personal life ? बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with EVENTCRIT. MLee1957 ( talk ) 00:49, 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

Shubham Sharma: -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : No reason to delete valid dab page just because there is a dab page for the given name. Pam D 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, are you saying that it's exceedingly unlikely for an average English reader to ever search for "Shubham Sharma"? Because otherwise this is useful. Also, you can use {{ transclude list }} to reduce duplication between those two lists. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's more than one article about a person called Shubham Sharma. If there's no primary topic for "Shubham Sharma" then there needs to be a way to disambiguate, and a given name list article isn't good enough (note Shubham is a given name WP:Set index article as opposed to a disambiguation page). See, for example, Kevin Newman doesn't redirect to Kevin ; John Quested doesn't redirect to John . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:49, 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

Kermet Apio: Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Hawaii , and Washington . Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only website with more than a passing mention is My Edmonds News [1] ; has several articles about this person. I'm not sure that's enough Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:02, 17 December 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! 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I see consistent coverage in several local outlets ( Kitsap Sun , Salt Lake Tribute , Tri-City Herald , Hawaii Public Radio ) that suggest he meets GNG, if narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per user WhinyTheYounger. Subject was more of a regional comedian but has performed in 47 states and Canada, as well as Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, and Pakistan , and on Sirius/XM satellite radio. Subject is considered a headlining comedian and has been on Comedy Showcase with Louie Anderson . -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per user WhinyTheYounger. His Comedy special on Youtube has 900K views, suggesting notability. BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:13, 30 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

Skinny Food Co: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks notable to me. Reliable sources 1 , 2 , already listed in the article. Don't delete: fix. — S Marshall T / C 23:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ S Marshall neither is significant coverage and whether independent or not, they both read as promo pieces to me. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk ) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I collegially join issue with you.  :) The Sunday Times is a British Newspaper of Record and Wikipedians evaluate it as reliable. The relevant discussions and consensuses are linked from WP:THETIMES . If you can read that link and say it's not SIGCOV then I don't really know how to react to that. — S Marshall T / C 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Both would be considered reliable I believe, but The Times reference would not be considered WP:CORPDEPTH . The Lancashire Telegraph is borderline WP:CORPDEPTH as it does go beyond a routine announcement by providing background on the company. Are there any others as even if these both were found sufficient, not sure they would be enough for notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Daily Mirror is also a British national newspaper, much less reliable than The Times (cf WP:DAILYMIRROR ) and I would be suspicious of anything controversial that it said, but I would think it's reliable for the uncontroversial claims in this article , which is again already listed as a source. The article seems to be about the founders, but it's got quite a bit of depth about the business. — S Marshall T / C 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also. Westenders ( talk ) 12:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – top sources are used. I concur with S Marshall. Also, the article isn’t very WP:PROMO imo. TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sourcing is adequate for a corporate article and promotionalism is not so thorough as to necessitate a complete rewrite. It just needs some minor editing. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:36, 15 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! 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . No valid reason given for deletion. Windolson ( talk ) 23:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Polly Namaye: Sources 2-4 are dead. Fails WP:BIO . No notability from the roles she has had. LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uganda . LibStar ( talk ) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject not notable, just known as a police woman. From searches on google she still doesn't meet WP:GNG . -- Meligirl5 ( talk ) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please review improvements made to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There is coverage of Namaye in the news, with the three best sources as follows [26] , [27] , [28] . These articles discuss her career path, her role in the police department, and cases she has been involved with. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean enable subject to pass WP:GNG . - The Gnome ( talk ) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:24, 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

Catherine Willows: Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable. A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability. I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today , Deadline , CBS , ET , CBR (also here ), Screenrant , The Wrap , Collider , and Slate . And that is a preliminary search. I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters. However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources. Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search. On whether the article reaches WP:GNG , well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . The reception section in the article is bad. Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews. This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report. USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence. deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show. So-so. CBS reads like a press release. Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse. It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here. This is bad AFD practice. The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad. For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters. Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote. But right now the sources found seem weak. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I will. Okay, I did. That was neat. I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. Good to stay sharp! Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you. I will improve it! Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it. To address what @ Spinixster : says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said. Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia. See WP:FICTION . Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own. Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own. I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom . Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful. "A lot of people would like this" is not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage. Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list. The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent. But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own. The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character. As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it. Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article. The article just needs some fixing. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself. USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability. CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show. First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character. Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character. While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable. (also MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article. Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series. Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability. I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are. Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself. I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent summary. I found a few hits on Google Scholar. I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage. However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way. It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender . Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach. I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION . In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT . The article also lacks references. If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content . Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION. Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted? Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred. I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable. I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct. Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

VFL Development League: The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex ( talk ) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T · C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Tera tix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports . Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian ( talk ) 07:31, 1 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

Rising Shore Roanoke: Skyerise ( talk ) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This novel did not get wide distribution, but it is a book that was discussed on radio shows and had some circulation. I would think this meets the guidelines for an article. I updated the article to include interviews with the author and reviews of the book. Klok000 ( talk ) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That review you added, "Bookpleasures" is not the kind of source that we should cite. Interviews with the author don't help either. The novel is self-published, though the article doesn't say that, and I don't think the author can make a claim for notability. Delete . Drmies ( talk ) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Bird-Guilliams, Mary Kay (August 2007). "Homsher, Deborah. The Rising Shore--Roanoke" . Library Journal . Vol.  132, no. 13. p. 68. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Gale . The review notes: "The invented portions are believable, including the ending--you can debate the details, but it seems quite logical. ... Lots of violence and tragedy in this version of early American history; most public libraries will want to purchase for readers who enjoyed Jane Smiley's The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton." Riddle, Mary Ellen (2007-08-24). "Author's Lost Colony solution is intriguing" . The Virginian-Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "What truly sings in Homsher's work is her amazing ability to understand life. On every page, she analyzes it with a powerful voice. One is astounded to find that the words are unique and apt. ... Homsher writes about women like Elenor who have been involved in American adventure and faced violence. In the end, she crafts a solution to The Lost Colony. It flowered in the mind of a gifted writer." Jacobs, Meredith (2008-03-09). "Tangled love, a Christian trilogy" . The Fayetteville Observer . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "Deborah Homsher, a journalist and author, has written “The Rising Shore — Roanoke.” The novel tells what two women might have experienced as members of the Lost Colony. The story is told from the viewpoint of Elenor Dare, the mother of the first English child born in North America, and her servant, Margaret Lawrence." "The Fiction Shelf: The Rising Shore Roanoke" . Small Press Bookwatch . Vol.  6, no. 4. Midwest Book Review . April 2007. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "The Rising Shore Roanoke is a novel of the famous lost American colony, from the perspectives of two women who sailed from London to the shore of Virginia's wilderness in 1587. The adventurous daughter of the expedition's leader chafes at the societal restraints placed upon her gender, while her female servant dares to walk an independent path among the struggling colony. Their journey will take them through the Caribbean and climax in the Outer Banks region of North America. An enthralling saga of a colony presumed doomed, due to historical record of its founder's return from a three-year supply trip to find nothing left of the settlement except the word "Croatoan" carved on a post." Newman, Janis Cooke (2008-01-20). "Faye Dasen: Novel About Mary Lincoln Is a Keeper" . The Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "Homsher's historical fiction tells the story of the voyage and settlement via the points of view of Elenor White Dare and Margaret Lawrence, her servant. Elenor, who is an intelligent woman, marries Ananias Dare simply so she can make the journey with her father, John White. She and Margaret both have dreams of bettering themselves in some way. ... Homsher has a way with words." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Rising Shore – Roanoke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 05:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources provided by @ Cunard are sufficient for WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources located. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 10 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! 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I don't do book deletion discussions as a rule, but I note that the article ought to be at The Rising Shore — Roanoke , which is the actual title of the book. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in line with the references so wonderfully found and added, and support renaming per Mangoe. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd probably avoid using the Midwest Book Review source given the criticisms in the Wikipedia article, notably that they were basically accused of being a positive review mill. Other than that, I think that there are enough reviews to establish notability. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 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

Abideen Olasupo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Deeper search revealed nothing. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 15:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and recent changes to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I'm gonna go keep on this one. Appears to meet WP:NBASIC . Policy-based rationale follows. The rules: Per NBASIC 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. WP:SIGCOV clarifies that "significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As we are ultimately here to decide collectively whether an administrator should use the extraordinary power of deletion to remove this article from the wiki, we must as always be mindful to resolve all doubts against deletion , and to apply the rules flexibly in support of our encyclopedic purpose . The sources: It should be noted at the outset that search results may have been skewed by West African naming practices -- as in the article itself, the subject's name is written "Abideen Olasupo" about as often as "Olasupo Abideen". I'm seeing three categories of potentially relevant sources: (1) actual profiles, one unusable and one possibly usable; (2) interviews and mentions that are largely irrelevant to NBASIC but tend to show the subject's encyclopedic significance and likely relevance to readers, which may be relevant at the margins; (3) coverage of various political and journalistic initiatives in which Olasupo has played significant roles, containing coverage of the subject that is significant although perhaps not substantial and can be combined under NBASIC. 1. Profiles: the first source is the worst. The "Foundation for Investigative Journalism", which might easily be confused with other orgs with similar names, appears to be a project of Fisayo Soyombo with, at best, no clear track record of reliability. That delightfully thorough profile must therefore be cast aside. However, Olasupo has also been the subject of another profile, this one in the The Nation Online . Weighing in at 366 words, it contains substantial biographical information. However, as the "hook" for the profile is Olasupo's past work as a reporter for that newspaper, some might prefer to disregard this source as insufficiently independent. (I do not believe that is warranted, but let's move on.) 2. Neither substantial nor significant, but still illuminating: cited by CNN as a public policy analyst , interviewed by the (UK) Guardian on world youth poll , profiled by Tony Elumelu Foundation for COVID19 fact-checking initiative in 2020 , interviewed on his election fact-checking work in 2023 . 3. Significant though not substantial: Numerous independent reliable sources discuss Olasupo in the context of his FactCheck Elections initiative: [1] , [2] , [3] . Earlier, he received frequent attention as a leader of the Not Too Young To Run initiative in Kwara state: [4] , [5] (contains but is not limited to quotes), [6] . There was also some coverage of his attendance at COP26 : [7] , [8] . Various outlets have covered his appearance at the UN ECOSOC Youth Forum in 2023: [9] , [10] . (I have not attempted to compile a complete list.) None of these require OR to extract the content, and all can therefore properly be combined under NBASIC. Conclusion: Olasupo has been the recipient of sufficiently widespread coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, that it is appropriate and consistent with our encyclopedic purpose to combine the available sources under NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Visviva . I am also agreeing to Keep this per basic . Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Emily Piriz: Fails WP:NSINGER . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Florida . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If she only placed 12th on American Idol , then I could understand redirecting this. But she also placed on La Voz . I don't believe that redirecting is the right course for subjects that have gained notability for participating in multiple series. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't access the Telemundo article but reading the headline I think it may amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and Jpace's decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per norm Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shaun Collier: I do not believe that Ajax's mayoralty is significant enough to automatically award its holder sufficient notability, nor that Collier has otherwise garnered sufficient notability. SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He has a lot of articles covering his work as mayor including sustained controversies and actions taken during COVID. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Ajax is a large enough city (over 100K) to qualify its mayor as notable. Lots of independent reliable sources referenced in the article. And even if that's not enough to deem notability, his controversies have made national news; the sources in this article are not just local. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Earl Andrew Population alone does not make a city of that size politically notable enough to afford their mayor instant notability by virtue of their office. SecretName101 ( talk ) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, judge the article by its sources, of which there are plenty, are reliable sources, significant, and many in national scope. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliability of sources does not transfer notability. reliable sources publish stories every day that cover subjects that don’t meet notability standards. You have to parse the substance of WHAT the stories/coverage assert about the subject and whether that distinguishes them as having notability. I am pretty unconvinced that the stories cited in this article do that. SecretName101 ( talk ) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think such mayor's are automatically notable - but he was getting national mentions two decades ago when he was elected to council. More significantly is the recent national coverage related to his opposition to Doug Ford 's misuse of Minister's Zoning Orders . I'm surprised this was nominated given the nationally-covered controversy over the Duffins Creek wetland. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Breakthrough Collaborative: Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Education , Hong Kong , and United States of America . UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Oldman, Mark; Hamadeh, Samer (2003). "Breakthrough Collaborative (formerly Summerbridge National)" . The Best 109 Internships (9 ed.). New York: The Princeton Review . pp. 54 – 57 . ISBN 0-375-76319-8 . ISSN 1073-5801 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "The Breakthrough Collaborative is a two- to three-year "Workshop in Education" for "talented students with limited educational opportunities" in the fourth through eighth grades. Nationwide, approximately 2,000 students participate in the Breakthrough Collaborative's two- to three-year program of six-week summer sessions, school-year tutorials, and year-round counseling. Having older students teach courses that prepare middle-school students for high school is not the Breakthrough Collaborative's only innovation—the school is also tuition-free. From 1978 to 1990, the Breakthrough Collaborative program was run in conjunction with San Francisco University High School only. Its success in preparing often economically and academically disadvantaged middle school students for the rigors of college-prep high school programs was so widely acclaimed that thirty new programs were established in the early 1990s, at schools in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose, CA; Denver, CO; New Haven, CT; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA; Louisville, KY; New Orleans, LA; Cambridge and Concord, MA; Raleigh, NC; Manchester, NH; the Bronx and Locust Valley, NY; Cincinnati, OH; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA; Providence, RI; Fort Worth, Austin, and Houston, TX; Norfolk, VA; and Hong Kong. The thirty-six schools hire nearly 850 teachers every summer, employing an equal number of high school and college students." Delgado Gaitan, Concha (2013). Creating a College Culture for Latino Students: Successful Programs, Practices, and Strategies . Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press . pp. 72 – 75 . ISBN 978-1-4522-5770-9 . Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: " Since 1978, the Breakthrough Collaborative (BC) is a national non-profit group that has changed the lives of more than 20,000 students in 33 locations across the country. Sixty-eight percent of the students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. The Collaborative accepts high-potential, low-income students who are the first in their family to attend college. Ninety-two percent of the BC students are students of color. Thirty-four percent speak English as a second language. And thirty-nine percent live in single-parent households. BC communicates with middle and high schools where BC students attend since they track students' academic performance and needs. The Collaborative has two main program groups-middle school students and the high school or college-aged teachers who instruct and mentor them. ... They attend two 6-week, academically intense summer sessions, year-round tutoring, and continuous college preparation and assistance." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Breakthrough Collaborative to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. There is a fair amount of coverage on the subject, including from Atlanta , Florida , and New Mexico . Here is a WaPo article on the subject: https://www.proquest.com/docview/410189668/9B03E7FD37AB4E20PQ/18 . Enough to qualify in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 16:43, 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

Bruno Holzträger: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads per WP:NOLY . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @ Nenea hartia : Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times. As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul , and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries. Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nenea hartia : That book source is a nice find - with 49 mentions of him, it's almost certainly significant coverage on Holztrager; as for the others, looking at the one clipping, it seems to be mainly an interview? Unfortunately I don't think it would help much. Do any of the other matches for his name cover him in-depth? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : There are a couple. Please use the same link , I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee. There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the great finds by Nenea hartia, especially the book that mentions him on 49 pages and the last two newspaper articles; his obit mentions that he was one of the "greatest handball players in the world in the 1930s" and the other one is an in-depth piece on his life almost 20 years after he died. We've got enough for a pass of WP:GNG . @ Geschichte and FA Myn J : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , he is clearly notable. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 17:05, 17 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

Birds of Prey (1973 film): The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews. Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and Utah . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it meet WP:NFILM ? At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them? Both are significant coverage. I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4. One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia. SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention." Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace. Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now [61] — siro χ o 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is a review at DVD Talk [62] Donald D23 talk to me 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Have enough references of reviews with good coverage. Strivedi1 ( talk ) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I have added a couple more references. There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers. — siro χ o 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:16, 5 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

Otto Spoerri: Almost 100% of the Google results for him are of his obituary. There is only one Google result from before his death, a passing mention in a 1999 Entertainment Weekly article . There have been only three passing mentions of him ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) in reliable sources since his death per Google. There is absolutely no depth to any of this "coverage," if it can be called that. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , and Entertainment . Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Who said obituaries did not count??? Substantial coverage in Los Angeles Times , The Denver Post , The Times , The Wall Street Journal , The Philadelphia Inquirer , The San Diego Union-Tribune , Variety (magazine) .... .and that’s only a one-click list.... Please.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:25, 21 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! 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's not the first time I've seen complaints about obituaries, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them (at least in the context of notability). Especially when it's a RS. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album): I went back to look at this article as I was rewriting and splitting the main pages to determine if they should stay, and after looking I couldn’t find much (or any) reliable sources for the albums and most singles. The redirect for this page was reverted by Atlantic306 again for the same reasoning as before. I reasoned that even though it did chart high, there still wasn’t much reliable sourcing to make it pass WP:GNG and just because it charted high did not make it notable when it’s the only thing that I could find. The only things I could really find was an announcement for this and another album being remastered (which only has a bit of text before giving the track list), the Oricon/Billboard chartings in the article, and articles that only mention it as part of writing of the whole career of the band (like the OtaQuest reference in the article). reppop talk 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That said, I would like to put my vote to redirect to Carlos Toshiki & Omega Tribe , as I had did prior to being reverted. reppop talk 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:29, 30 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! 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:NALBUM#2 by charting at #2 on the Oricon Albums Chart . — siro χ o 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Person who contested prod is correct. Charting establishes notability. Notability can be established by either GNG or specific criteria; meeting both is not required. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful it additional sources could be brought into this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to band article. Chart positions definitely contribute to a band's notability, and I get pissed whenever an AFD commenter pulls the "Chart positions do not contribute to notability" comment when a song or album has like 10 of them. However, there is only one chart position. We still have to write a full article at the end of the day, and a chart position alone just does not give you enough. In all fairness, contemporaneous coverage about Japanese music in the 1980s is REALLY tough to find if your only source to everything was on the Internet and (probably) if you lived in the Western world. However, if what is on the article is all we have, the band article can easily summarize it. Additionaly, you could just list the Oricon peak in the discography section. The amount of content you could write is just too little to make an article on its own. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or redirect to band article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM . We have WP:SNGs for a reason. 4meter4 ( talk ) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep , with respect, nominating for deletion a second place charting, 20th most sold album of the year just to make a point about SNGs vs. GNG debate is a gigantic wastle of time. If we were talking about a 2010s American album that ranked 40th in the gospel airplay chart maybe the nominator would have had a point, but for a Japanese band of the 1980s it is perfectly perfectly understandable why sourcing is difficult to find, but almost certainly exists. C avarrone 07:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Incest in literature: WP:NOTTVTROPES . If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Popular culture , Sexuality and gender , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The subject is absolutely notable, without the faintest doubt. There are scholarly books on the subject [42] [43] , the subject is of interest to very reliable newspapers (The Guardian) [44] which makes the point that this goes back to Sophocles and Oedipus Rex. I can see that the current article is basically an extended list and needs drastic sorting-out, but I don't think the existing information is of zero use to anyone who wants to make improvements, so I cannot recommend a TNT delete. This is one of those situations where the encyclopaedia would benefit from more improvement and less deletion. Finding good sources on this is ridiculously easy. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Best case scenario, the utterly ridiculous example farm that is spread across three different articles should be removed, and a singular article on the topic of "Cultural depictions of incest", or something like that, should be generated instead, using the sources like the ones Elemimele presented. The current state of the articles are such a mess, though, that there's not a super simple way to do this. As both the nom mentioned, and backed up by Elemimele's comment, this one is in marginally better shape than the other two, so I suppose my suggestion would be to Redirect the other two articles here, and use this one as the base of a rewrite. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been rewritten, therefore I am changing to Keep per WP:HEY . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. I support Rorshacma 's scenario. The topic is notable as shown by Elemimele , and therefore does not fail WP:NLIST / WP:GNG . There are some references/referenced comments to preserve here. Daranios ( talk ) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No criteria or scope. Purely list cruft. ScriptKKiddie ( talk ) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I agree that this is pure listcruft. There is almost no prose in it whatsoever outside of bullet points. But the title in no way indicates that this is a list article, so it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to stubify it. We can leave a link to this historical version of the article on the talk page for anyone who thinks the lists would be helpful for future expansion. Any objection to handling it in this way? I'll happily write up a stub about the topic in general, but I don't want to do that unilaterally while the AfD is ongoing. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering : Sounds fine to me and in the vein of Rorshacma 's suggestions. Thanks! But please be aware of this parallel discussion . Daranios ( talk ) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that. I'll get on it a bit later today unless anyone has an objection in the meantime. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go for it, that's the constructive way of applying WP:TNT . If you wait, this could be hard deleted (I prefer soft delete myself, some tidbits from history might be useful for someone). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ps. To be constructive, I volunteer to translate the referenced seciton on Japanese literature from Japanese Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be out of scope for literature but it is only about novels and manga, not about anime or other media as I initially thought, so it should fit into the 'literature' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've stubbed it. Unfortunately I don't have online access to that contemporary lit book Elemimele found, so I couldn't use it as the basis for a stub. There's much more that can be done, obviously, but I've got to take a break for now. Honestly, I don't think there's much useful at all in the previous version; I grabbed the only examples that I thought would be useful in an overview article. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering That book seems accessible through Wikipedia Library: link (if it does not work, go to WL, OUP collection, and just seearch for the book title). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and rewritten, addressing all of my concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Aviv String Quartet: - Altenmann >talk 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per the following significant coverage in reliable sources: Kozinn, Allan (2007-10-23). "A Substitute Steps Up, an Ensemble Settles In" . The New York Times . (Concert review) Adams, Martin (2000-05-12). "Aviv String Quartet Masonic Hall, Molesworth Street, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Dervan, Michael (2001-06-08). "Aviv String Quartet Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Ashley, Tim (2004-01-07). "Aviv String Quartet" . The Guardian . Retrieved 2024-01-11 . (Concert review) There's more, but that's more than enough to establish notability. Jfire ( talk ) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concert reviews are not significant coverage. They say almost nothing about ensemble itself. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree. Concert reviews often contain analysis and critical commentary, which does constitute significant coverage, particularly in the genre of classical music, where concert reviews are one of the primary venues for music criticism. Here's an excerpt from the Guardian review: Aviv String Quartet, founded in 1997, is rapidly emerging as one of today's finest chamber ensembles. Rich, warm and distinctive in sound, their playing combining technical exactitude with instinctive emotional intensity. Their methodology is often striking. With many quartets, the first violinist tends to be the principal figure. Here, however, the second violinist Evgenia Epshtein and viola player Shuli Waterman are predominant, anchoring their performances in rhythmic and harmonic density and gradually prising the music open from within, while the leader, Sergey Ostrovsky and cellist Rachel Mercer weave gracious tendrils of sound around them. Not only is this significant coverage, the fact that this ensemble has concert reviews in major general-audience newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times is strong evidence that it will have also been covered in specialist publications such as The Strad -- and hey, look: [49] , [50] . Jfire ( talk ) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What you cited is an advert. The only fact is that it was founded in 1977. - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The excerpt I posted was written by Tim Ashley , a classical and opera critic for The Guardian . It is not an advertisement. Jfire ( talk ) 03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Examples provided by Jfire are sufficient to establish notability. Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Substantial coverage through critical reviews. Also, the intro does not contain a valid reason to delete. Instead of after the fact inisting that a critical review is an advertisement, why not do a solid BEFORE ahead of nomination? It's not the case that there are insufficient AfD nominations! WP:SNOW outside and here. gidonb ( talk ) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : easily meets GNG. A search shows up plenty more concert reviews and other good sources, but those above already meet GNG. Additionally, I found this quite substantial programming of Shostakovich quartets on BBC Radio 3 , which aired the quartet's recordings over several days on a national radio station. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 10:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Heart of England School: Was de-ProD'd by Necrothesp stating "secondary schools in the UK are usually kept" however SCHOOLOUTCOMES does state that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" . There is routine coverage online, of terms dates and school fêtes as you'd expect, only news-type coverage is that some of it's students have been victims of crime (while not actually in the school) [4] [5] which isn't anything unusual - There's also a little about the bus that was going to get cut and then wasn't, [6] [7] which I would only say counts towards notability if the article were about the bus, which it isn't. -- D'n'B - t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Schools , and United Kingdom . -- D'n'B - t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per above and WP isn't a directory of schools. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a full page case study in: Val, Brooks (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability . McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7 . This also cites a paper by the Head of Science. That book has 134 citations. It seems to be mentioned in a number of other books too with an educational research focus. Research conducted at the school does not make the school notable by itself, but it is not insignificant. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Balsall Common where the school's mentioned, if notability cannot be established. It was opened in 1957. As might be expected, there's local news coverage on matters such as a school uniform dispute, theatricals, drugs, sporting achievements, exam results, headteacher appointment/retirement etc but haven't come across anything that makes this school notable outside of the area it serves. Rupples ( talk ) 01:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As with any other secondary school in the UK, there's plenty of detailed coverage in government reports and in the local media. Easily enough to meet WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, I fail to understand something, can you clarify what's the significance of the school that needs the Wikipedia entry? 1keyhole ( talk ) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete What I see on the internet is routine coverage, social media (not considered to be reliable sources) and databases. The Banner talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is a well established school, created as a secondary modern in 1957, and with enrolment that was 1100 and has risen slightly with the establishment of a sixth form after conversion to a comprehensive in 1974. It has featured in national press coverage, including this article in the Independent [8] describing an innovative website developed by the school in 1996. There is significant newspaper coverage, including negative coverage about a drugs "scandal" [9] . Across the 66 years of the school's life, this news coverage is sustained. News reports themselves are usually primary sources, but in some cases they will be secondary sources regarding the school, such as the information about the school in the Independent article or the history found in [10] and [11] . In addition to the news sources, the school is cited and discussed in research such as [12] - a 7 page article that has a fair bit of secondary information about the school, some of which I have used alreasy to provide some citations on the article page. The abortive attempt to reintroduce selection, rejected by parents in 1988, [13] led to discussion in another paper [14] , whereas there are also mentions in some books. I mention Brooks (2002) above. That one has a case study from the school which cites a paper written by the then head of science. This book has 134 citations. Hunton (2018) also uses the school as a case study, and both books contain secondary information about the school itself, as does the paper above (Schofield, 1982). The school website itself is well produced and provides information (not independent) from which an article can be constructed. All in all, I believe there is sufficient here to pass WP:GNG and it is a whole lot more than we would have for a lot of articles (but I am aware that OTHERSTUFF is invalid as an argument, so I'll say no more on that). What we are lacking is a book with a history of the school, but that is not a necessary precondition for a school article page. Bibliography Brooks, Val (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability . McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7 . Hunton, Jake (13 August 2018). Exam Literacy: A guide to doing what works (and not what doesn't) to better prepare students for exams . Crown House Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78583-354-0 . -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NSCHOOL has a threshold that non-profit schools need to meet WP:GNG at minimum, and I consider this met. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sources. Having a problem seeing how the report/book sources contribute to the school's notability. Mary Schofield was Deputy Head of the school, when writing her research paper so not independent. The Val Brooks book references a paper written by the Head of Science of the school, so again not independent; the page summary of the case study may contribute to notability of the research paper but not the school itself. The Jake Hunton book mentions a teacher at the school who created a DNS strategy, but there's nothing about the school. There's little content from the above sources that could be added to the article. The Independent article does contribute to notability; it's coverage in a national newspaper. Rupples ( talk ) 01:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I especially think that "School pupils smoke cannabis", "Headteacher retires" and "School builds an extension" could all be described WP:DOGBITESMAN . -- D'n'B - t -- 05:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought I was clear about the limitations of newspaper reports. Yes, they are primary sources. But the level of coverage across the years is indicative here that there is sustained interest in a well established school, such that secondary sourcing likely exists. Indeed, more does exist. The smoking cannabis article leads to more national coverage, which I have now placed in the article. In 2003 a new headmistress hired a counter drugs firm to use sniffer dogs to prevent pupils bringing drugs to school, making national news. [15] [16] There is also at least one notable alumna, Lorna Want , who I have added with a reference (write up in a national newspaper). The mention of the school in the newspaper reports are passing, but notable alumni point to notability of the school. The Schofield paper is not independent, because it is written by Schofield who was a deputy headmistress at the school, and is also primary in the research itself, but the placement discussed also gets national newspaper attention, [17] which is secondary coverage of the research, making the primary sourced material notable. And the primary source has secondary background information. And there is still more. I just don't have any more time right now to put it all together. But I am confident that this school meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The school made an episode for ITV's series Good Health , written by the school's drama teacher, and acted by pupils. You can see it here [18] and it is described in the Times Education Supplement for January 13, 1984 here [19] . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or merge to Balsall Common . Thanks to the effort of Sirfurboy not only have many more sources been found but they have been used to expand the article. There's enough coverage in national newspapers and local sources to establish notability under the GNG for me to strike the qualified redirect previously suggested. Merge is an option because the cited content isn't especially lengthy and could fit within the target article without making it irretrievably unbalanced. Rupples ( talk ) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nom : now a substanially different article to the one I nominated. I mantain that "because it's a UK secondary school" would never have been a good reason to keep it, but as it is now, there's sufficient evidence of SIGCOV to call the school notable. -- D'n'B - t -- 09:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's generous of you. The nomination is understandable, made in good faith and has led to the article being improved. What's more, many of the sources dug out were I suspect not easy to find and the nominator is under no obligation to spend hours looking; the onus is on those seeking to keep the article. Rupples ( talk ) 15:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the withdrawal by @ DandelionAndBurdock is indeed generous, I disagree with the statement by @ Rupples . Per WP:Before the onus is, instead, on the nominator to check for sources before nomination. A quick check on Wikipedia Library - e.g. ProQuest - identifies many sources for this subject. Resonant Dis tor tion 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator did check for sources, there's four linked to in the nomination statement. None of the sources I can see in ProQuest from the Coventry Telegraph support notability, viz, a piece written by the school's principal (not independent, 12 Sep 2015), a reader's letter from a former pupil (not independent, 17 May 2007), a panto writer staging a play at the school (a mention, 01 Jan 2014), an "advertisement feature" by the school's principal (22 Sep 2016). Granted, there's The Times (5 Aug 1992) on cannabis, but all I can see is a headline. In any case, we don't know whether the nominator checked the Wikilibrary/ProQuest. To be fair, yes, perhaps the search could have been more rigorous, but a lot of the news coverage found may have resulted from having access to paid-for sources. Rupples ( talk ) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no doubt the nomination was entirely in good faith, and that a WP:BEFORE was carried out. And the article as it was at nomination was also entirely unsourced and had been for 18 years, which is a very poor situation. Some sources did require significant searching, well beyond the basic due diligence suggested in WP:BEFORE. The "because it's a secondary school" comment seems to be elicited by the DEPROD by Necrothesp. I would say I think AfD is best for secondary school nominations. As we are often told, AfD is not for cleanup, but this article is a case in point: the only way to get editor attention to some articles is to nominate them for deletion, and sometimes improvement is the happy result if it turns out sources do exist. PROD doesn't tend to achieve that. However "because it's a secondary school" is no longer a reason to keep an article, per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so once at AfD it is all about the sourcing. Thanks to D'n'B-t both for bringing this here, and for agreeing to withdraw. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:30, 5 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

Alfonso Cobo: As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI. Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion. The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media. There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets. Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature. ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Business , and Sexuality and gender . ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy delete : Per norm. Non-notable businessman, I don't see how they meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG . The author has also failed to disclose if they are a UPE, despite several attempts he/she has ignored the tags. I would recommed WP:SALT , as the author seems adamant on getting the page up without adhering to our policies. Jamiebuba ( talk ) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Cobo is actually notable, and his app/company Unfold is now an integral part of Squarespace , a notable company. WP:SALT is also too drastic. I don't see how this is COI. I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short. If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online. I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in. Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated. This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out. I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sendero99 ( talk ) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Sendero99 ( talk • contribs ) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD . [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep The Fast Company link used is green per sourcetool. Rest arent, but I can't open it behind the paywall. I find this [21] and this [22] . Enough to give context, but minimal coverage. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Looks like there are conflated issues here 1) is the subject notable? 2) is the editor an UPE? Let's separate the two. As far as the subject itself, there's more enough for me that he satisfies WP:GNG . As for the second - I don't know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Is there anything we can do other than take his word for it? MaskedSinger ( talk ) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independent coverage by Forbes and CNBC more than establishes notability. The issue of COI/UPE should be handled by a topic ban imposed on the related parties, while others rewrite the page, not be deletion. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 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

Heer Da Hero: We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer : Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . Coverage in Daily Times ( [2] ) and Dawn ( [3] ) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 ( talk ) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 188.29.129.61 , I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn , signed by Sadaf Haider , and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": " This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show. .- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib ( talk ) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib ( talk ) 20:53, 13 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! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 ( talk ) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177

keep

Sha'ir: The article as currently written is really principally oriented toward a Dungeons & Dragons class. For the sources employed, it seems like what the article is meant to get at is the role of the poet in Jāhiliy Arab society. Arabic poetry#Pre-Islamic poetry already covers this in a more substantive way. It's not clear that the term sha'ir as such has a notability distinct from Jāhiliy poetry. Pathawi ( talk ) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am at a loss as to why this AfD was brought to this location: the article makes no pretense of being about a religious topic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I probably made a mistake. Which location? I thought I put it under 'Fiction and the Arts'. Pathawi ( talk ) 07:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Never mind. I see that someone else cross-listed it. Pathawi ( talk ) 07:23, 21 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! 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - probably could be merged with Arabic poetry per nom, but has additional notability from D&D which might be enough to let stand. Britannica also deems the subject notable enough to cover with a standalone article. - Indefensible ( talk ) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Indefensible. The pre-Islamic sha'ir seems to have adequate coverage in tertiary sources, not least of which is course the above-mentioned Britannica. The fact that the word has broader meanings is no obstacle , since articles are not generally about word meanings. That said, I would have no particular objection to a merge. The D&D thing seems pretty peripheral to the topic. -- Visviva ( talk ) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know that the two sources linked here are actually evidence of notability: Neither is an article on the sha'ir—both mention shu'ara' in discussions of Arabic poetry. The Britannica entry does count, but its content is pretty meager. Together these don't seem to me to constitute significant coverage in secondary sources, which are among the criteria for notability. Pathawi ( talk ) 06:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As pointed out, it's recognized by another encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica , as originally a poet having a supernatural connection. 5Q5 | ✉ 12:11, 30 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

Cyriac Abby Philips: Most of the sources cited have only his tweets and the controversy surrounding it. A Google search mostly returns articles with only his tweets in it. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , and Kerala . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is someone who got in-depth coverage from ThePrint , and whose alleged professional misconduct was covered by an article in The Hindu . Yes, it is true that some of the news articles cited as sources are about claims that the subject made in his tweets, but The Hindustan Times and Mint (newspaper) are good sources who wrote about his tweets because either (a) he is significant or (b) what he is saying seemed to be significant. It is also interesting that his paper in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology was withdrawn because "the scientific methodology, analysis and interpretation of data underlying the article were insufficient for the conclusions drawn, and, with its removal, the article can no longer be relied upon." Being the subject of an article in Wikipedia is not meant to be a mark of approval or praise. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as "The Liver Doc" (Twitter: @theliverdr) is a clinician scientist, senior consultant and certified liver disease specialist based at The Liver Institute, Rajagiri Hospital, Kochi, Kerala. His core clinical work and research focus is on severe alcoholic liver disease and drug induced liver injury in the context of Indian traditional systems of medicine. His pioneering work has been the introduction of stool transplant for salvaging patients dying from severe alcohol-related hepatitis and also disruptive peer-reviewed publications that showcases the adverse impact of traditional Indian healthcare practices such as Ayurveda, Siddha and also Homeopathy on public health. Dr. Abby currently is the most published research on Indian systems of medicine related liver injury (called Ayush-liver injury) in the world and has been invited to faculty position on the Guidelines Committee of the Asia-Pacific Association for Study of the Liver (APASL) - Drug Induced Liver Injury consortium. He uses social media to promote evidence based medicine, empathetic care and improve scientific temper on informed healthcare decisions by using his own disruptive peer reviewed medical publications. He is also the winner of the President of India Gold in Hepatology, awarded by the Late (Hon) President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi in 2016. Dr Abby is a three-time American Association for the Study of Liver (AASLD) clinical research plenary and four-time AASLD Young Investigator Award winner, the only Young investigator Hepatologist to do so from India and Asian continent. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology awarded the National Award (Om-Prakash Memorial Rising Star) to Dr Abby in 2022. Dr Abby is a prolific researcher with over 170 peer-reviewed publications in major Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals with over 2300 citations. Dr Abby has been extensively featured by almost all major Indian Media and prominent International Media on his professional, personal and academic work including Germany’s news media behemoth Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider. The Week Magazine featured him as the top “Influencer Doctor” from India in their special feature, and The Hindu featured him on their Special issue on “People Waging War on Medical Science Misinformation.” 49.37.226.196 ( talk ) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly mention the sources for the claims you have made. It will be useful for other editors to make a decision on this. I still think he is a mere internet personality than a notable one. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read what he/she wrote, you will see that he/she did. Some of the sources he/she mentioned are already cited in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read it and that's why I asked for the source(s). Whatever he/she has written apart from what already exists on the article looks like original research to me. I did look for "Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider, but only found the insider which is a trivial mention once again. And an IP editor with no other contributions comes and drops 3 paragraphs with 0 refs? Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is an article from Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in the references in the article. Maybe that is the one the IP editor is talking about. Though it is possible that the South China Morning Post has done more than one article about Cyriac Abby Philips. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I may be wrong here but the South China Morning Post's article revolves around a controversial tweet by him. He has significant coverage just from controversial tweets as a whole. Also, I just checked Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) and feel he may pass one of the criteria listed on it. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep – might be the Heymann Standard in action again based on what I have seen so far. The sourcing is very extensive from locally mostly-reputable sources, clearly demonstrating fulfillment of the GNG to me. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please can someone do a source analysis Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Soso Baike: No zh interwiki, no Chinese name. English name appears in a few places according to my BEFORE but only in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Basic confirmation it exists [6] and [7] . Most hits in Google are wiki mirrors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to Soso_(search_engine) which briefly references it. In Chinese Wikipedia this redirects to Sogou Baike [8] but we don't have an article for that. Oblivy ( talk ) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : From zh:搜狗百科 , it sounds like this was a former name of Sogou Baike , which is surely notable. If that's right, then the article should be moved to Sogou Baike , or at worst redirected to Sogou . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep and rename to Sogou Baike @ Mx. Granger 's suggestion makes sense. In fact, the Chinese version was moved from Soso Baike to Sogou Baike in 2014 [9] . Changing my vote to keep and rename. If a consensus was to emerge around merging with Sogou with a redirect I'd be OK with that too. Comment . Interwikis have now been added by User:Yinweiaiqing . I will be happy to see it rescued, although the sources in the zh article don't seem to be very strong - one is Baidu, one is the company itself, the two others are, well, hard to judge for me b/c of the language barrier. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to the Sogou Baike article is ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 23 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! 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Sogou Baike , although I remember it under its original branding. First source at zh:搜狗百科 (the 163 article) is fine; the rest are basically OR. The permanent dead link on the zh.wp article also just needs a domain name update, but I haven't fixed it. It's a primary source anyway. Folly Mox ( talk ) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of private schools in San Jose, California: Incomplete and uncited article. 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists . 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a list of nine Wikipedia articles. Articles are assumed notable until deleted when it comes to list inclusion. Basically, it is just a category in list form, and those are usually kept per WP:NOTDUP . If it drops down to below four or five entries, then I would probably support deletion. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 03:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets the purpose criterion of NLIST as a navigational list. — siro χ o 05:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 9 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. D r e a m Focus 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moral delete (or redirect to the category page, since this has nothing beyond a bare listing) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization . No navigational purpose is served by its existence. Why can't public and private schools be on the same page? Why make a list at the city level instead of the county level? Too many arbitrary decisions to warrant keeping. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Lists of schools in California All of these wouldn't fit well on a single page. If the private and public schools in a county fit together, then by all means merge them. D r e a m Focus 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Useful navigational aid. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 14:09, 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

Basehor-Linwood High School: Article and BEFORE showed no independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Routine local news mentions, database records, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Kansas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I need to look longer at this, but initial searches show it mentioned in 11 research papers, multiple books (although initial thoughts are these are mostly directories) and many newspaper articles (but per nom, these could be routine). There's a lot of reading to do. But I will just make a point now that this page was only created today. Yes, it was not exactly created in a good state, but couldn't something have been put on the talk page in the first instance? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A quick look at newspapers.com finds that Basehor-Linwood High School was the result of a merger of Basehor High School and Linwood High School in approximately 1966. Newspapers.com shows approximately 3700 results for Basehor High School, dating back to at least 1930. It shows about 2500 for Linwood High School (limited to Kansas), also dating back to 1930. If shows approximately 1700 articles for Basehor-Linwood High School. It would be very surprising if these nearly 8,000 newspaper articles didn't provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Jacona ( talk ) According to this non-reliable source, Basehor High School has roots back to 1885 under the name Prairie Gardens, so we're talking about nearly a century and a half of history to peruse. Jacona ( talk ) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . After wading through a small portion of the material available on newspapers.com, it is readily apparent that there is significant coverage in WP:RS which WP:NEXISTs to meet WP:GNG . I've added a very small portion of this to the article. There are currently 13 references. Many more are available. The difficulty is that there are so many references to wade through to find the ones that are useful. In 150 years, there are probably a lot more sources offline than there are online. These count, but they are hard to find. Jacona ( talk ) 02:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Jacona, and WP:HEY as the article is already in much improved state and passes WP:GNG . There is a lot to wade through, but there clearly are multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of strong, non-transactional sources. Easy meet on GNG. Thanks to Jacona for the HEY , and I think a withdraw from TimothyBlue would be very appropriate. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 03:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HEY. Great job. Bearian ( talk ) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:28, 1 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

Datangshan: The location itself is not notable. DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND . Does Datangshan pass WP:GEOLAND ? Datangshan is a hill and village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , where it is mentioned. Xiaotangshan, Beijing is a possible redirect target if Datangshan found to be non-notable. Here are two sources I found: "北京小汤山，热气腾腾的疗愈之地" [Xiaotangshan, Beijing, a steaming place of healing]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). 2022-01-25. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: "北京城北约40里，有一座由三个山峰组成的独立小山，山形如笔架，因有温泉泉眼，被古人命名为“大汤山”。大汤山以西约一千米处，有三个低矮山丘，也有温泉，被称为“小汤山”。在因抗疫而被载入史册之前，小汤山就是著名的疗愈之地，并受到多位皇帝青睐，也是民国时的旅游胜地。" From Google Translate: "About 40 miles north of Beijing, there is an independent hill composed of three peaks. The mountain is shaped like a pen stand. It was named "Datang Mountain" by the ancients because of its hot springs. About one thousand meters west of Datang Mountain, there are three low hills and hot springs, which are called "Xiaotang Mountain". Before it was recorded in history for its anti-epidemic work, Xiaotangshan was a famous healing place and was favored by many emperors. It was also a tourist attraction during the Republic of China." Wang, Jiucheng 王久成 (2023-06-23). "北京小湯山" [Beijing Xiaotangshan]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: 小湯山村發展成小湯山鎮，幾乎人所共知；殊不知還有一個鮮為人知的大湯山村，明代已經形成村落。 村北有一個一百三十餘米高的山丘，與小湯山村一樣因山丘得名。 原來大湯山村水資源豐富，山腳下有多處泉眼，泉水常年流淌不斷，溫度攝氏二十度左右，足以供村民生活和灌溉附近的農田所用。 曾有諺語說：「大湯山好地方，山清水秀好風光。 蔬菜四季有，花果滿山崗；池塘黑泥藕兒白，山下熱水稻兒香。 」自然資源並非無窮盡，一九六○年代水源枯竭。 大湯山村隸屬小湯山鎮，距小湯山村很近，雖然也有些企業單位入住，但村的境況遠不如小湯山村。 From Google Translate: Xiaotangshan Village developed into Xiaotangshan Town, which is almost known to everyone; but little-known is that there is also a little-known Datangshan Village, which was already formed as a village in the Ming Dynasty. There is a hill more than 130 meters high in the north of the village. Like Xiaotangshan Village, it is named after the hill. It turns out that Datangshan Village is rich in water resources. There are many springs at the foot of the mountain. The spring water flows continuously all year round. The temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius, which is enough for the villagers to live and irrigate nearby farmland. A proverb once said: "Datang Mountain is a good place, with clear mountains and beautiful scenery. Vegetables are available all year round, and the hills are full of flowers and fruits; the ponds are black and the mud is white, and the rice is fragrant in the hot water at the foot of the mountain." Natural resources are not endless. In the 1960s, Water sources dry up. Datangshan Village is affiliated to Xiaotangshan Town and is very close to Xiaotangshan Village. Although some corporate units have moved in, the village's situation is far inferior to that of Xiaotangshan Village. Cunard ( talk ) 10:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND per Hzh's rationale below. Cunard ( talk ) 05:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 04:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second opinion on these new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Datangshan looks to be an officially recognized and populated village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , [55] [56] therefore should qualify under WP:GEOLAND which, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything against the inclusion of a village. If anyone disapprove of a village being considered notable, then that should be taken at the talk page at WP:Notability (geographic features) . Hzh ( talk ) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Hzh . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:28, 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

Dan Reisner: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5 and 9 are about a sculpture he made, seems to pass as an artist. Just notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Oaktree is correct. Reliable sources currently in the article giving significant coverage include The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and The Jerusalem Post. Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Okatree. Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes the WP:GNG . New user. Not sure why they chose to nominate a notable sulptor. gidonb ( talk ) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm having trouble finding notable museums that have collected his work, but it isn't necessary; the sources in the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:GNG by providing reliable independent in-depth coverage of him. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independent coverage is more than adequate. Kablammo ( talk ) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The editor who started this AFD has a ... bizarre editing history to say the least and I've blocked them as an obvious sock (the quacking is deafening). Graham87 ( talk ) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking action, Graham87 ! Can you also snow keep? There are two more discussions in the Israel queue that can use a speedy snow delete. At one I haven't ! voted, just miss the button. gidonb ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb : Didn't think of that; will do. Graham87 ( talk ) 16:29, 21 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

Coin rotation paradox: This term has been used in a popular internet video and in few books which rather target maths learners than scientific demands. But since it isn't really a paradox and covered by regular geometry, this doesn't need an article for it's own. Is is correct that there was an mistake in the exam, but this was not really because of a phenomen called "coin rotation paradoxon" then, this was just because of a wrong calculation. In the linked youtube video it was goven the name "paradoxon" and given an extra-complicated explanation to make a paradoxon out of a simple calculation. See also discussion page for more. - Flexman ( talk ) 01:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 27 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 02:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There are (as far as I can tell) two arguments presented in favor of deletion: It's "not a paradox" and it's redundant to some as-yet unidentified article. This particular quirk of rotations is not discussed at geometry , nor was I able to find it after a brief skim of rotation (geometry) , so presumably the nominator was thinking of another article, but until that article is specified, this argument is incomplete. As for "not a paradox" - take it to WP:RM . Badly-titled articles should not be deleted, they should be renamed. -- N Y Kevin 02:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe it fits into the article of rotation. This video provides the simple answer without calling it paradox: If the radius of circla A is 1/n of the radios circle B, the answer is n+1. Nothing paradox about it. There isn't even an expression for "Coin rotation paradox" in other languages since it is more connected to the phenomen of this SAT test than to regular science. Flexman ( talk ) 10:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is indeed a veridical paradox . The coin rotates more when rolling around another coin than when rolling on a line segment of the length of the latter coin's circumference. This is strongly counterintuitive at the first glance, enough to be called a paradox. If this wasn't a paradox, just geometry , birthday paradox would also not be a paradox, just simple probability calculations. Janhrach ( talk ) 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are plenty of sources for this, the article should be cleaned up for sure but it passes WP:GNG Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Murtagh, Jack. "The SAT Problem That Everybody Got Wrong" . Scientific American . Retrieved 2023-12-27 . Keep : Seems to pass GNG. For the record, I contested the PROD. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a tendency of certain people on YouTube to call everything a "paradox" as clickbait. This is one of the reasons that YouTube isn't a very good source. But the right answer, if it is a documented mathematics topic, is to take the YouTube clickbait out of the title, not nominate the article for deletion. Uncle G ( talk ) 13:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment "Paradox" is definitely sensationalistic; "puzzle" would be justifiable, as it appears in books of them, e.g., [43] [44] . An abstracted version of the puzzle appears in group theory [45] . XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree with XOR'easter that calling it [a?] coin rotation puzzle rather than paradox would be more apt. -- JBL ( talk ) 18:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we take a look on Deferent and epicycle , does this have a relation to the puzzle? - Flexman ( talk ) 23:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vaguely but not even really enough to be worth mentioning in either article. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You won't be shocked to know that Gardner did an extension to a single coin rolling around a closed loop of n coins ( n > 2 ) in Mathematical Carnival in 1975, which was an updated version of xyr 1966 Scientific American column. And the chapter in the book is titled "Penny Puzzles". Uncle G ( talk ) 19:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep : It is too specific a phenomenon to belong to geometry or similar articles. Just because it is obvious to Flexman doesn't mean it is to others; it is described in Scientific American , Wolfram MathWorld etc. Regarding the name, a Google search shows many parties calling it a paradox . cmɢʟee ⎆ τaʟκ 03:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MathWorld is known to be a bad source for terminology, and a generic Google search turns up unreliable rubbish. XOR'easter ( talk ) 15:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also the choice of title of the Wikipedia article for a relatively obscure thing like this with no "real" name will have a pretty big impact on the google hits. 100.36.106.199 ( talk ) 01:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: “This isn't even a paradox, it's just geometry” is such a lame excuse for destroying someone’s hard work on writing an article on a truly remarkable topic (in geometry :-p) that has garnered significant attention in both popular and scholarly circles. It’s extremely telling that you would rush immediately to deleting it instead of first suggesting a rename or something non-destructive. Stop the deletionism! — Timwi ( talk ) 10:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The notability of this mathematical phenomenon does not seem to be in dispute. Maybe the title should be changed, but I would note that describing counter-intuitive results as paradoxes is very much a regular occurrence in the field. TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : discussed in many reliable sources, clearly notable. Deleting this article solely because it uses the term "paradox" in a colloquial sense is absurd. Must we also then delete Epimenides paradox , Barbershop paradox , Cantor's paradox , and every other non-intuitive but logically sound idea? Dan • ✉ 04:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This seems like a clearly notable observation/phenomenon. Retitling would be fine if someone can find a different name which is more common (or comparably common and clearer). – jacobolus (t) 05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are plenty of sources. As nominated, it already had two sources associating it with a "paradox" (Mathworld and Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes ) and a major national newspaper story about the SAT snafu. There is plenty more where that came from; for instance Martin Gardner also calls it the "coin paradox" (again separate from the SAT). There is no need to rename; it fits perfectly well into Category:Mathematical paradoxes which clearly states on the category page "Paradox" here has the sense of "unintuitive result", rather than "apparent contradiction". The fact that this is unintuitive is attested by the failure of the SAT creators to notice the problem and the tiny percentage of SAT participants who reported the problem. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:16, 30 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

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh: Unreferenced for 17 years and fails GNG. Would reconsider if someone found coverage in Hindi or Marathi. LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maharashtra . LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, what WP:BEFORE was performed here? There is certainly sufficient material available in English to establish notability. Take for example, Hindustan Times , "Apart from a rise in wages, the union also demanded the scrapping of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a law that allowed only one trade union – Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) – to function. For long, industrial workers had accused RMMS of being hand in glove with owners. " Economic and Political Weekly , "...Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which has enjoyed the right of being the sole bargaining agent for all textile workers in Bombay, [...]" Indian Express , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS),the recognised union of mill workers." The Western Political Quarterly (1958) "...governments for their existence. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. (RMMS) of Bombay City serves as the major exception to this dual classification and thus constitutes a third type of textile union . In comparison with the “ weak areas " the RMMS is thoroughly entrenched in its legal "representative " status and enjoys a significant degree of independence from political ties ." Economic Times , "The Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills cleared the last tranche of its dues amounting to Rs 3 crore payable to workers belonging to the company’s Mahalaxmi unit. The mill has 3 units in Mumbai at Mahalaxmi, Dadar and Prabhadevi. Following an agreement signed with the official union the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) in ‘02, around 2,000 workers opted for VRS." India Today , "But Salunke is steadfast in his support for firebrand union leader Datta Samant, the one man most responsible for the unprecedented strike. "We are prepared to go back to work even if our monetary demands are not conceded," he says. "But the Government must recognise Samant's union as the legitimate one, and kick the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) out of our lives." DNA , "The Congress party had nurtured its “chamcha” union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), and mill owners colluded with it to engineer ... [...] the Khatau saga that had “all the ingredients of a ‘Mollywood’ blockbuster, replete with guns, gangland killings and the subversion of unions." Rediff , "In November 2000, a final agreement on a voluntary retirement scheme was arrived at between the Indian National Trade Unions Congress-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the managements of the Standard Mill (Prabhadevi) and New China Mill (Sewri). Naik and 3,550 others took VRS but got the money only after two years" Hindustan Times , "Ahir, who began his career as a trade union leader, once led the powerful Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), the only recognised union of ..." Economic Times , "While the officially-recognised Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) is supporting the land development plans, the Left-leaning unions have ..." The Indian Labour Year Book (1948) , ""The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, handled 218 cases during the year 1948 and realised Rs. 90,911 as compensation. Both the unions have opened special branches to attend all matters relating the claims and to render assistance to all workers whether members of the Union or not", p. 347 indicates a membership of 20,462. The Politics of Labor in a Global Age: Continuity and Change in Late , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (National Mill Workers' Union). Under the corporatist Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, a single trade union is ..." Outcaste Bombay: City Making and the Politics of the Poor , "... Bombay Industrial Dispute Act of 1946. The RMMS thus became an important presence in the lives of the workers by the end of the 1940s." The Power of Place: Contentious Politics in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Bombay , "... Bombay shut down and 250,000 workers (full-time and badli) went out on strike. The Maharashtra government declared the strike illegal. Labor officials and mill owners refused to discuss terms with any union other than the RMMS." Organising Labour in Globalising Asia , "... RMMS is the most extreme example of this phenomenon in Bombay.7 The power of the RMMS was first created by recognition under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, but was boosted by legislation restricting the closure of mills that ..." The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India , "... RMMS is shaped by its legal status under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ( 1946 ) . The view is frequently put forth by government , labor , and management officials in Bombay that the RMMS would even collapse without this ..." A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India , "... ( R. M. M. S. ) , Bombay -- the name the organization bears today . The Sangh started a determined effort to remove the Red Flag organization from its position of leader of the Bombay textile workers . Its prestige was greatly enhanced by ..." Bombay Brokers , "... Bombay mill workers to lead them in a conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association and the union: the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which had represented the mill workers for decades. This led to a complete shutdown of the ..." Workers Education in Asia , "THE WORKERS ' EDUCATION ACTIVITIES OF THE RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH ( RMMS ) , BOMBAY ( INTUC ) ( a ) Aims and objectives of workers ' education pogrammes for 130,000 members of RMMS ( INTUC ) are as follows : ( i ) To prepare ..." India Today , "... ( RMMS ) , which repre- sents the city's over one- lakh textile mill workers ... " Labour and Unions in Asia and Africa: Contemporary Issues , "discrimination against non-RMMS workers , and arbitrary dismissals . It is these phenomena that gave ... RMMS began to lose its autocratic control over the workers . The alliance between ..." Also here on a scheme for illegal resale of subsidized apartments... perhaps can explain adverts like this one ? All, in all, I think there is sufficient material available to conclude that RMMS is a notable organization and that there is material for the sourcing and expansion of the article. -- Soman ( talk ) 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mr. Soman's sources. The article must be expanded though, it contains nothing. MrMkG ( talk ) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would have draftified it rather than taking it to Afd. Grab Up - Talk 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup : That's not an option for articles older than 90 days without consensus from an AfD discussion. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh , Thanks for the information. Grab Up - Talk 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Challaghatta metro station: Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) if this cannot be expanded. Members of notable sets that are not individually notable should be merged and redirected to the article about the set in almost all cases, and there is no evidence that this should be an exception. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ Thryduulf , @ Spiderone and @ Timothytyy , Sorry to have forgotten to tag you to my reply. Hoping to see response from your end. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thryduulf , I've expanded the article. Would you mind taking another look to see whether in your opinion there's now enough for its retention? Rupples ( talk ) 03:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pls let me know what more useful information is needed for this metro station as well as the Benniganahalli metro station. Cause the information which is required for the audience is given. I don't seem to perform the task of adding more information that are not needed for the audience to know more about the above mentioned stations. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy ( talk ) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations . S5A-0043 Talk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:GNG already, and given it's only just opened will doubtless soon meet it even more. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide some SIGCOV? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. WP:SIGCOV is a matter of individual assessment. There's not a fantastic amount of coverage but there's enough at present to write a brief yet informative article on the station. Rupples ( talk ) 22:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's only one RS that seems to provide some degree of individual coverage for the subject. Can you provide more? Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See what you mean. Running through the sources in the article most are about the line rather than the station. I'd include both the new sources I put in, including the article on the access because it relates specifically to the station, but I'll run a further search. Thanks. Rupples ( talk ) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further material now added. Rupples ( talk ) 23:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given expansion of the article. Source assessment would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above - as discussed several times in other AfD debates, I struggle to believe that metro stops which have only been in operation a short time can be considered notable. In time, I'm sure things will happen on the new Bengaluru lines which will be reported in the news. But right now the only coverage is routine. On a personal note, I've traveled on the Namma Metro and quite enjoyed it. I hope it continues to expand and improve. JMWt ( talk ) 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A further reason I'm favouring keeping this article is the potential for expansion from adding a paragraph or two on the new train depot that's being constructed adjacent to the metro station (which is the western terminus of the Purple Line). I came across a couple of articles on the depot but there may not be sufficient coverage for a separate article. I'd support changing the title of this article to Challaghatta metro station and depot . Rupples ( talk ) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ TimothyBlue , This needs to be kept as a proper article since all information has been mentioned in the wikipage. Kind request to remove the deletion bar from the page. Santosh4118 ( talk ) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Santosh4118 The problem is not about the amount of info, it is about the notability of the subject. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean like the notability issue with Yuyuan station (Shenzhen Metro) ? Rupples ( talk ) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples 1. I don't understand why you are linking to another article 2. There are 3 sources providing independent coverage on the subject 3. Yes, this article isn't notable due to the lack of sources. 4. There was an SNG years ago that was deprecated as the consensus was train stations do not have inherited notability without enough SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not just a train station, it is a metro (rapid transit) station. I am sure all of them have enough coverage to pass the notability threshhold. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:55, 5 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! 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , we seem to be going in circles. Another similar discussion has been just closed as no consensus, there are sufficient sources in this article, and it would be odd if some of the articles in the line get redirected and some not given the same coverage. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OTHERSTUFF . Timothytyy ( talk ) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothytyy , I don't think you need to remind an administrator who has been editing for 12 years about this essay. L iz Read! Talk! 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do you think "some... and some..." is a constructive comment? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found out this metro station was part of a recent bundled AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station and kept seemingly on the proviso to check the individual metro stations for sources and expand the article, if possible. It depends on sourcing as to whether the article can be progressed from a stub. If it can't, then yes a redirect/merge solution to a list of metro stations is appropriate. If it can, and I believe that's been demonstrated here, then the page should be kept. I don't see why there shouldn't be a mix of some stations being kept and others redirected/merged. Rupples ( talk ) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Still waiting on an assessment of the expansion of this article by User:Rupples rather than general statements on metro stations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Rupples' expansion work has turned up a good number of sources, and even the ones that are mainly about the Purple Line expansion still discuss the station as a matter of necessity, since it's the new terminus of the line. It's already longer than what I'd consider a stub, and it looks like there's still potential for expansion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Elements of Moral Philosophy: No inline sources and a quick online search found no significant coverage. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:TEXTBOOKS . This book is the most popular philosophy textbook according to open syllabus, it clearly meets the requirement of "whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - car chasm ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ( edit conflict ) I have found the following sources which are sufficient for GNG: [6] , [7] , [8] . I would also note that this review of another of Rachels's book begins with: James Rachels's The Elements of Moral Philosophy is one of the most popular philosophy textbooks ever written. At one point nearly a third of all ethics classes in the United States were using this book . WJ94 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reviews in Teaching Philosophy (1993) [9] , (2000) [10] ; review in Personnel Review (1993) [11] ; obituary of author noting its bestseller status [12] , a "popular textbook" that "contains one of the best-known critiques of moral relativism" [13] , a "widely used textbook" [14] , a "famous textbook" [15] . Jahaza ( talk ) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion. Clearly fulfills WP:TEXTBOOKS and reliable sources exist. ULPS ( talk ) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Andre 🚐 01:33, 18 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

Keepa Mewett: JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Rugby union , and New Zealand . JTtheOG ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career. Worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 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! 22:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though I was initially leaning toward a delete some research shows the BoP Times profile, and other articles about being selected to play internationally as part of the Māori All Blacks . Its thin but I think it is enough. David Palmer // cloventt ( talk ) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He captained the Bay of Plenty side and played for the Māori All Blacks. As well as the Bay of Plenty Times profile, there is this profile from the Manawatu Standard during his stint playing for Manawatū, and this podcast that profiles his life journey. Paora ( talk ) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:HEY . I will insist the sources per se be incorporated into the article. All the best. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:55, 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

Lu Sheng-yen: There is simply not enough coverage of this person in reliable sources, most sources being used in the article are primary. The article makes some grandiose statements about him, but none of them are reliably sourced (some were inserted by SPAs) so it's difficult to know how influential this person actually is in China/Taiwan. SparklyNights ( t ) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Buddhism , China , Hong Kong , and Taiwan . SparklyNights ( t ) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Idk yet. Dude gets news coverage. I got lots of hits on google news (four of which on the first page are from this year and setn.com, the RSness of which I'm uncertain about). Also got hits on google scholar from Buddhism sources. I'm on lunch so I don't really have time to read Chinese and assess whether the sources contribute to notability, but they're there. Hope to circle back this weekend. Folly Mox ( talk ) 18:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI Sources 33 and 36 are the only green ones per the source tool, looks like a whole bunch of iffy sourcing, but this is just my quick scan; I'll perhaps look later. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge - this person has "references" largely because of the grandiose claims of primary sources. When the ones from the organization are removed, this article gets a lot thinner. I think this should either be deleted or merged into the True Buddha School article as a subsection. Kazamzam ( talk ) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Tam, Wai Lun (2016). "The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School: The Chinese Transformation of Vajrayāna Buddhism" . In Gray, David B. ; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation . Oxford: Oxford University Press . pp. 309–313. doi : 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199763689.003.0009 . ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: "The True Buddha School has arisen out of the life and experience of Master Lu Sheng-Yen (盧勝彥, b. 1945). Born in Jiayi 嘉義 County, Taiwan, Master Lu is the author of more than 240 books, writing extensively on his own religious experience and cultivation. Lu received his tertiary education in a military college in Taiwan and was trained as a surveyor. He had a deep religious experience in 1969 that led him from his Presbyterian Christian upbringing to a period of seeking, studying, and learning Buddhism (Yao 1994; Tam 2001; Melton 2007). This period lasted for some twelve years during which time Master Lu began to openly accept disciples to teach them Buddhism. Near the end of this period, he also founded the True Buddha School (first known as the Lingxian 靈仙 School) and moved from his native Taiwan to the United States, a symbol of his intention to spread Buddhism internationally. ... Much in the same fashion, Master Lu was an onlooker in 1969 when he accompanied his mother to a temple where there was a medium serving the community. Master Lu was suddenly "possessed" and was given, without his prior consent, the ability to see and communicate with the spiritual world. After this miraculous encounter, Master Lu continued to receive the nocturnal visits of an invisible master who transmitted to him Daoist and Tantric teachings." Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon Melton (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism . New York: Checkmark Books. Infobase . pp. 316–317. ISBN 978-0-8160-7744-1 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Master Lu Sheng-Yen, the founder of the True Buddha School, one of a small number of relatively new Taiwanese Buddhist groups that have emerged as international movements, was born in 1945 in Jiayi (or Chiai) in south central Taiwan. He attended Chun-Jen Polytechnic College in the 1960s and after completing his work joined the army. Lu was raised as a Presbyterian (the oldest Christian movement in Taiwan); however, in 1969, while visiting a Taiwanese temple, the Palace of the Jade Emperor, he encountered a medium named Qiandai, who was a member of a new Taiwanese group called the Compassion Society, based on worship of Xi Wangmu, the Royal Mother of the West, under the name Jinmu. During her presentation, Qiandai told Lu that the gods of the temple wished him to acknowledge them. Thrown into a state of confusion, he found himself able to communicate with the spirit world. Communications continued daily for the next three years. He also met a Daoist master who ..." Gray, David (2011). "Tibetan Lamas In Ethnic Chinese Communities And The Rise Of New Tibetan-Inspired Chinese Religions" . In Orzech, Charles D. ; Sørensen, Henrik H. ; Payne, Richard K. (eds.). Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia . Leiden: Brill Publishers . p. 570 – 571 . doi : 10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200.238 . ISBN 978-90-04-18491-6 . ISSN 0169-9520 . Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books . The book notes: "One of the most successful self-proclaimed Chinese masters is Lu Sheng-yen 盧勝彥 (1945–present), who refers to himself as the “Living Buddha Lotus-Born” (Liansheng huo Fo 蓮生活佛), most likely in reference to the great founder of the Nying-ma ( rnying ma ) school of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava. He founded in Taiwan a new religious movement called the True Buddha School (Zhen Fo zong 真佛宗), which identifies itself as a Vajrayāna Buddhist tradition, although it also draws heavily from traditional Chinese popular religion, both Buddhist and Daoist. The school now has numerous temples throughout the world, with the majority founded in areas where there is a sizable Chinese community, such as Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, and North America. Lu Sheng-yen currently lives in Redmond, Washington, where the main temple of this school is based. He is a prolific author, and has written, according to one source, one hundred and ten works in Chinese, several of which have been translated into English." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lu Sheng-yen ( traditional Chinese : 盧勝彥 ; simplified Chinese : 卢胜彦 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043 Talk 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG , sources given by Cunard appear reliable. JimRenge ( talk ) 20:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hirofumi Torii: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources . DCsansei ( talk ) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG ( talk ) 00:17, 11 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

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace: For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries . Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , Lists , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it. There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There would be as good players. People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Don’t make rules by your own. It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not. The minimum threshold of 25 int. centuries is an informal guideline. The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles. Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST , particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage. 103.121.36.100 ( talk ) 03:00, 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

Freight Farms: Doesn't pass WP:CORP . Four of the references are from the company's own webpage and one is from Kickstarter. The only real source is BI. Uhooep ( talk ) 13:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some coverage from an NPR story [56] . With the BI article, I think we're ok. Needs a rewrite though. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep When I created the article years ago I referenced the ample coverage in reliable sources at https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/06/27/grow-produce-anywhere-in-freight-farms-60000-truck/? sh=321f4d0e4cb0 and https://newatlas.com/freight-farms-cropbox-shipping-container-farms/36689/ but the current version seems to not have those. I click the news search at the top of the AFD and I easily find https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/16/boston-organic-food-farming-agriculture-startups and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/boston-based-freight-farms-takes-high-density-urban-farming-to-a-new-level as well. D r e a m Focus 15:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources listed above by Dream Focus (which need to be re-added to the article) are sufficient to pass the WP:SIGCOV test. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Note that other wars also don't have "children in... x" articles. The choice of topic dooms this article to be a POV fork, because a country that is very rich can afford to not send its children to war (e.g. by using drones) or when they do they can afford advanced weaponry and armor. Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article. I've removed this photo from the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How is this a POV fork? There is far more material here on the topic than there is in the alleged parent. The rest of this nomination reads like a political speech, what are the policy reasons for deletion? Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't think its a bit weird to have a photo from the IDF that shows Palestinian children with cancer on a ski trip in an article about " Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict "? This kinda stuff would get reverted in milliseconds on the main article. Its just one example, there are many examples of POV in the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NPOV problems are not a reason to delete. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both content and articles get deleted for being POV all the time. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two editors already cannot agree which is the parent article, because there isn't one. Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is more than one. This is not uncommon for POV forks (or so I'm told). Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Palestinian child cancer patients on a ski trip organized by Israeli soldiers Merge - “Other stuff doesn’t exist” has never been a good argument at AFD. The article is well sourced and potentially viable as a topic. However, I do have concerns about the Neutrality of the article as it currently exists. While AFD is not for article clean up, I think it best to merge it back to the parent article (where it will get more eyes) and improve its flaws… then, perhaps, split it off again. Blueboar ( talk ) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multi-merge and split : [EC] I don't agree the article will be necessarily a POV fork. (It is already a topic area that is in a state of constant POV chaos, the removal of one photo says little -- I removed another shortly after it was posted for similar reasons -- at least this article is not WP:OWNed the way so many others in this topic are.) However, it is currently an unspecific jumble of topics only related by being in the same multigenerational conflict -- everything from child terrorists to child war victims to propaganda to child welfare and education in the respective states. The content should instead be merged into the main article and appropriate sub-articles ( Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict , Category:War crimes in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (which is an absolute mess if you want to find something in need of TNT) and others apparently not categorized or that need to be created regarding welfare and education in the Israeli state), and parallel articles such as child soldiers and terrorists. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To this point, on article splits with nonspecific titles, see my suggestion for the only appropriate image lead for "Children in X conflict". On the other hand, for a properly scoped fork of longstanding conflict, see for example Child soldiers in Sri Lanka , Healthcare in the State of Palestine vs Healthcare in Israel (could be improved certainly), Education in Afghanistan , etc. "Children" on the other hand is not a specific policy topic from which to split a geopolitics article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The image I'm referring to is nonfree, but it's the one in Think of the children § Lovejoy's Law . I bothered with the meme to make it clear that I am mocking the title and scope of this article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and work to improve it. The OP's main argument is fallacious. We don't have "Children in the X war" articles because that wasn't a focus of RS coverage. For example, there are not many RS about children in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But children victims in Gaza have certainly been a focus of RS coverage in this case. For good reason, in my opinion (I'm disclosing that I'm not "neutral" about this war.). NightHeron ( talk ) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is clearly untrue. Look at the sources used in the article. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sure there are news articles about specific incidents that involve children, sources that include a portion about children, and sources that talk about Palestinian children. But where are the sources that are about this specific topic (children on both sides of this particular war)? Also, there *are* RS that discuss children during WW2. Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: On the subject of WP:PAGESIZE , this page has a readable prose size of 68kB, while the parent page is 74kB, so anyone suggesting a merge back into the parent is suggesting something entirely impractical: it would cause an immediate, glaring WP:TOOBIG issue, in addition to immediately unbalancing the parent page with undue, overweight child material. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case its probably best to get rid of it. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bad nom of a page that is clearly not a POVFORK of anything, but a sub-topic/child article on the conflict. The suggestion to merge is meanwhile nonsensical given that the substantial body of material here (extant since 2004) would clearly bloat the parent and be undue there. It is also clearly a viable standalone topic. Aside from the existing body of sourcing here, there are scholarly sources out there that even more expressly address the topic, making it unlikely that WP: BEFORE was done. Examples include: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Meta-analysis of exposure and outcome relations for children of the region , The impact of conflict on children: The Palestinian experience , Young children in intractable conflicts: The Israeli case , The effect of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance in the West Bank , The Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Effects on youth adjustment, available interventions, and future research directions , The age of conflict: Rethinking childhood, law, and age through the Israeli-Palestinian case , etc. It's a bit of an endless river on Google Scholar . This sub-topic likely has its own fair share of sub-topics - not least, for example, a page on child detention in the conflict, as per the sources already on the page, such as the book: Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iskandar323 : If you do a WP:BEFORE you'll find that these links are NOT about the topic of the article: 1) A meta-analysis of studies. The studies focus on one of the sides. 2) The Impact of Conflict on Children - The Palestinian Experience 3) The article examines the political socialization of young Jewish-Israeli children 4) In this paper we analyze the impact of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance of Palestinian children in the West Bank 5) "updated review of research". Again, the studies focus on one of the sides. 6) The studies focus on one of the sides. 7) That's just google scholar. 8) incarceration of Palestinian children. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, so two sides, which makes one whole, so no NPOV issue. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The POVFORK is a NPOV issue. And a BEFORE search clearly shows that the article topic does not meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being right isn't how this works; the issue is that there appears to be no obvious cause for deletion, merging, or anything else here. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except the fact we are dealing with a WP:POVFORK that does not meet WP:GNG Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can keep repeating that but it doesn't improve the argument any. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge individual sections with corresponding existing articles. The main problem with this agglomeration of unrelated topics with the theme of "children" isn't POV, but WP:SYNTH. The provided sources do not link the use of child soldiers with, say, child victims among civilians, and rightly so. The connection made in this article is an artifact created by the WP author. That said, the article does suffer from an NPOV issue, albeit not the usual one. The choice of 18 as the threshold age for the term "child" reflects a specific POV. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas have both said that they consider children of 16 to be adults, as does Israel in the occupied territories. By us labelling 16- and 17 year olds as "children", we are forcing our Westernized PoV on events where participants consider these people to be adults. To the credit of the article, it does mention this discrepancy in the "Legal issues" section, but plum ignores the issue in the rest of the article. The statistics quoted would be dramatically different if the term "child" was defined as under 16. I don't believe there is a clean way to resolve this problem without splitting the article into separate, topic-based pages, which we need to do anyway to resolve the SYNTH issue. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Won't the parts suffer from the same criticism you are making of the whole? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would they? WP:SYNTH opens with the instruction, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source . Once we've separated the material that was improperly combined by the article, it will no longer suffer from SYNTH. The POV issues can then be fixed per section. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the POV issues can be fixed in the parts, then they can be fixed in the whole. That leaves the SYNTH (original research) assertion but with sources like Children as Victims and Activists in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Book Chapter) , as well as those above, I don't see that assertion as convincing, at any rate not sufficiently convincing that some judicious editing of the article won't fix. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is just a chapter of a book with that title. The book is actually called: "National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"... And the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues can't be fixed without at least splitting the article in two parts. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty more if one actually looks, Children in Palestine and Israel continue to suffer as international law is routinely ignored , splitting into two parts is something you just made up. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Imagine if we find a source that actually is about the topic of the article, after ~310 attempts, that still does not fix the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR (whatever you wanna call it) and WP:POV problems. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Selfstudier : the Conversation article you linked to specifically talks about children as victims of military violence. Not a word about child soldiers or children being used as suicide bombers. This further supports what SamuelRiv , Polygnotus , Blueboar and I have been saying about the need to split this article. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure you can somewhere find a book that talks about the challenges children face in Israel/Palestine holistically. It would just be either a young adult motivational/inspirational/guide book, or else a teachers or parents manual. Not the kind of reference for positing that "children in X" form a coherent topic for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. It's not worth trying to make up some objective lawyery RS argument here though -- it's just how to do expository (i.e. encyclopedic) writing. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 20:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a technical nitpick: the hodgepodge of unrelated children-related topics into a "Children of X" article isn't SYNTH, it's a MOS issue of article titles and organization. While an example like this isn't spelled out in the rulebook (it's sorta alluded to in WP:PRECISE and WP:REORGANIZE ), it shouldn't have to be since this is a pretty straightforward mess. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you're right, SamuelRiv . Either way, I think we both agree on what the solution is. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the solution is to clean up the mess, btw, if your views hold sway, are y'all going to do the work? Y'know, splitting it up and parking the parts wherever, cleaning up? Probably not, right? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an AfD. Merge has always been a viable consensus option in such discussions. Don't you think it would be a bad form to start merging the article while the AfD is ongoing, for less than a day even? SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TNT Polygnotus ( talk ) This article was created in 2004, good luck with that. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Articles on this topic enjoy massive editor participation. But in the unlikely event that no one else does the split/merge job, then yes, I'll be happy to jump in and do the work. I'd also love it if you, Selfstudier , helped with the mergers, seeing as you have ample experience editing articles on this topic, and can probably do a better job than I could with this one. There's really no need to be adversarial about this. We both want the content to stay here, we just need to find a better spot for it. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the goal is to make something better then I'm down of course. I don't know how to split/merge but I can take a critical look at the result. Polygnotus ( talk ) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have listened to the arguments and find them wanting. The idea that an article with a 20 year history suddenly becomes a deletion candidate is entirely ridiculous. If over time, the article has lost focus, presumably due to random additions not strictly speaking within scope, then the remedy is to undo that, not start ripping up an otherwise perfectly good article. Selfstudier ( talk ) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally all articles are candidates for merging or deletion. The problem isn't just that the article "lost focus". The problem is more fundamental than that. Polygnotus ( talk ) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is an encyclopaedic topic with clear and persistent sourcing. The article needs cleanup, but WP:DINC . Easily meets WP:GNG on all points. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. This is a POV fork with serious neutrality issues. Coretheapple ( talk ) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iskandar323. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 16:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This is very clearly a WP:NOTABLE topic with a lot of coverage, and the scope is broad enough where WP:NPOV issues can be addressed through standard editing. Deleting this article outright is completely unnecessary. I also agree with the WP:DINC argument. XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Due to the significant media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are already articles about some very specific sub-topics of the conflict, for example: school airstrikes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war , attacks on health facilities during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war , etc. Moreover, saying that other wars don't have an article about the affected children misses the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't just a war, it's something much wider and children are being affected also when there is no active war at all, for example by Administrative detentions . The topic of children being affected from the conflict, is heavily discussed as well, some examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] . Moreover, this article presents the topic in a very neutral way, discussing the affected children in both sides. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HilbertSpaceExplorer : School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is, of course, also a WP:POVFORK and should also be deleted for that reason. If you click on those 4 links you see that none of them are about the topic of the article (children in the conflict as a whole, in both Israel and Palestina, since the beginning of the conflict till now). They are about Gazan children. Based on your choice of links I am surprised that you vote keep; do you really want Wikipedia to keep an article that by its choice of topic is automatically biased against Palestinians and pro-Israeli? Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you believe School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is a WP:POVFORK that's completely fine, as right now we discuss another article. I mentioned those 2 articles, to emphasize the fact, that creating articles that discuss specific aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common thing, and that claim by itself doesn't justify deletion. I agree that theoretically, this article could have been merged into other articles, but that's not making it a WP:POVFORK . This article's topic is mentioned in researches, for example: [10] , [11] . I can't see why this article is biased against Palestinian children - I find it balanced, and that's one of the reasons I ! voted keep. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 09:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "Other wars also don't have children in x articles" isn't a very policy-based argument. The article clearly has citations to numerous reliable sources, with sources documenting actions by both sides of the conflict. There is more than enough material specifically covering how children are affected by and used in the conflict to justify its own article. While legitimate concerns may be raised on whether the article is NPOV, as well as about the quality of the article, there is nothing that can't be addressed by rewriting the article, the nom's NPOV concerns alone are not sufficient reason for deletion. Take for example the argument 'Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article.' If you really believe indoctrination by one side wasn't covered by the article, just go look up reliable sources documenting said indoctrination and cite them in the article. Also if you think the article doesn't talk enough about children who are victims of the conflict, you could easily add that in - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering that. Combustible Vulpex ( talk ) 12:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Neutrality issues should be addressed, rather than serving as a reason to remove articles. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think it is credible to call an article that has existed since 2004, has been edited 1619 times by 445 different users and has 261 incoming links from article space a POVFORK. POVFORKs are normally made by individuals or very small groups of people and are either stomped on quickly or fly under the radar for a while before being detected and dealt with. This is not an under the radar article! Sure, people have had concerns about its neutrality since 2004, and those need to be addressed, but wiping the whole subject out and pretending that it doesn't exist is not a way towards neutrality, or anything else of value. I'm neutral to mildly sympathetic towards a merge but I don't think this AfD is the best place to choose that. It would be better to keep this and then let somebody put together a coherent merge proposal and then to discuss that separately. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep an article with this title. I do not know if the current text is NPOV, but that's not what XFD is for. Andre 🚐 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Andre. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:10, 26 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

Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan: I couldn't find any reliable sources online. A PROD was contested. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Pakistan . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Coverage exists: The Express Tribune , Daily Times , Daily Ausaf (in Urdu) , Radio Pakistan , APP , mentioned in the book The Snow Leopard and the Goat: Politics of Conservation in the Western Himalayas . Insight 3 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Insight 3 : Thank you for bringing up the sources. I have no clue how I didn't see them. That being said, I had a look through the sources (JSTOR was being really laggy for me so I couldn't see the book source) and most of them seem to be either passing mentions or people from the department speaking. I'll wait until a few more editors input. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong KEEP Plenty of news coverage exists as shown above by Insight 3 plus the article already has 3 working government websites references. Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yakuza (band): No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources . AllMusic citations not ideal . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Japan , and Illinois . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17). "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade" . Chicago Reader . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence" . Pitchfork . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band. I retract this AfD nomination. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant coverage. Fulmard ( talk ) 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

ESTREAM: lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete. I've read the article and still have no idea what it's about. Techno news is fine, but this is too long, it doesn't explain what it is or why it's important. The sources are largely technical or legal documents, too complex for the lay person. No attempt to explain what this is or why we need an article about it, only presenting a wall of text and charts about the various specifications. I can't find sourcing about this "thing", so I can't begin to understand what to look for. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, is there a notability problem here, Lettherebedarklight and Oaktree b , or is the nomination based on the current state of the article and WP:NOT? Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there aren't any reliable, independent sources, so yes, there is a notability problem. lettherebedarklight 晚安 07:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't really looked for sources yet but have you looked at Bernstein's notes in the EL section? Even if you don't consider that independent it seems to point towards some conferences. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the sourcing is only laws and primary sources. So there is nothing that points towards notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 11:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing , and Europe . Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy ( talk ) 01:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. ESTREAM is one of the major crypto competitions, the article is not much different from other articles about crypto competitions, such as NIST hash function competition , Advanced Encryption Standard process , CAESAR Competition etc. Relying on primary sources is a problem, sources should definitely be improved. Clicking on "books" and "scholar" at the top of this discussion gives a lot of additional sources, but for "news" and "google" searches one has to add an additional keyword to filter out unrelated stuff (e.g. adding "cipher" keyword works). ESTREAM is also quite often mentioned in various crypto papers, such as today's NIST report on lightweight crypto. I already added one journal article as a source, it seems to be a good overview, but I have no free time at the moment to go deeper. TheInevitable ( talk ) 09:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I forgot about this one as well, I'm keep on this also. Cursory glance seems to indicate significance in the field, as mentioned above, and there's a whole book about it in Lecture Notes in Computer Science , New Stream Cipher Designs . While I agree that it should be written to be accessible to a less technical audience per NOTGUIDE, that is something to be resolved with editing . I don't really understand what reasoning could lead one to believe the encyclopedia better off without it entirely. This would be speedy keep per SK 1/3 were it not moot. Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:07, 18 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! 04:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: FInal relist. Also, please check out the sources that have been added since the nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Sources seem to meet WP:NORG which is probably the most appropriate measure (we don't have a separate WP:NPROJECT ), given some of the sources provided. The state of the article is a bit wanting, but I don't think it violates any voice guidelines enough to merit deletion on that grounds. — siro χ o 08:10, 29 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

Dedication: The page summary for Dedication that exists does not address the overall concept, instead addressing the contents of one of the sub-pages. I have requested that the disambiguation page be moved to the mainspace page . This page needs to be dispositioned; if it is to move somewhere else it needs substantial help. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 01:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw AfD Keep without prejudice , and move to Dedication (ritual) . (If someone wants to open a new AfD after that, go for it). — siro χ o 04:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not going to withdraw the AfD. It's a reasonable suggestion, and voting to Keep (without prejudice to future AfD after a move) does the same thing while hopefully provoking additional relevant discussion. Darker Dreams ( talk ) 07:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright I've updated to a keep ! vote. My main motivation here is to facilitate your good idea of moving the disambiguation page to improve navigation. — siro χ o 07:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Judaism . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep under the new title once the move is complete. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By all means move, but then keep under the new title. The article occupies a valuable middle-space between detailed articles on each specific ritual, and a mere unexplained list of rituals as would come from a traditional dab page. It is valuable to have an overview of the diversity of dedication rituals that exist. Elemimele ( talk ) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Keep but move under the new proposed title. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable topic and useful summary overview but move to Dedication (ritual) as proposed above to make way for disambiguation page, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 18:27, 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

WeLab: Poor and not-independent sources BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Cohan, Peter S. (2018). Startup Cities: Why Only a Few Cities Dominate the Global Startup Scene and What the Rest Should Do About It . New York: Apress . p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4842-3392-4 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Two Hong Kong gazelles are the Uber-for-delivery-vans-service GogoVan and WeLab, which operates a personal lending platform. ... whereas WeLab's ascent appears to have been smoother sailing." The book notes: "WeLab's story is less dramatic but another great example of a gazelle becoming a unicorn. Cofounder and CEO Simon Loong started WeLab in 2013 after over 15 years in the banking sector. ... In 2013, he founded WeLab, a mobile lending platform that uses risk-testing technology to conduct credit assessments in seconds and enables customers to borrow money with a few taps of their smartphones. Now valued at more than $1 billion, it was Hong Kong's first tech unicorn and its WeLend leading online lending platform has sourced more than “$154 million in loan applications and 16,000 members.” By January 2016, WeLab had loaned money to 2.5 million customers, the majority in mainland China. That month WeLab raised a $160 million Series B from Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Malaysia's strategic investment fund, with participation from ING Bank and Guangdong Technology Financial Group, which is run by the Chinese government, leading to total funding of $182 million." Leung, Grace L K (2019). Innovative and Creative Industries in Hong Kong: A Global City in China and Asia . Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge . ISBN 978-1-138-06849-0 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "WeLab: founded in 2013, WeLab is reinventing traditional financial services by creating seamless mobile lending experiences. WeLab effectively analyzes unstructured mobile big data within seconds to make credit decisions for individual borrowers. WeLab operates Wolaidai, one of China's leading mobile lending platforms, and WeLend, Hong Kong's leading online lending platform. The company also partners with traditional financial institutions, which utilize WeLab's technology to offer Fintech-enabled solutions to their customers. WeLab did 6 rounds of funding exercises and raised a total of US$425 million. Her investors include CK Hutchison's TOM Group, Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah Nasional Berhad, ING Bank, Sequoia Capital and Chinese provincial government fund: Guangdong Technology Financial Group. In 2016, WeLab was ranked in a KPMG-sponsored report as one of the top 100 Fintech companies in the world – sixth in China and 33rd globally. " Fannin, Rebecca A. (2019). Tech Titans of China: How China’s Tech Sector Is Challenging the World by Innovating Faster, Working Harder & Going Global . London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing . ISBN 978-1-52937-451-3 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book has a section titled "AI at Work in Fintech: WebLab". The book notes: "An example of AI disrupting traditional banking comes from Hong Kong-based fintech startup WeLab, which provides small consumer loans in an online instant, with fewer than average defaults by relying on AI and data to determine creditworthiness. WeLab technology combs through online data such as bill payment records and social media profiles to figure out which potential borrowers are likely to pay their loans on time. Then it prices and tailors online consumer loans. Consumers complete the entire lending process over their smartphone and don't need an established credit history—an issue among young people starting in their careers. Loan decisions for individual borrowers are made online within seconds. One hint: don't fill out the online form in all capital letters. WeLab has found applicants who write in upper case are not good credit risks. A technology team of more than 210 engineers and data scientists have ..." Mohan, Devie (2020). The Financial Services Guide to Fintech: Driving Banking Innovation Through Effective Partnerships . London: Kogan Page . p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78966-106-4 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "WeLab is a Hong Kong start-up that was founded in 2013, and which became the first peer-to-peer lending platform in the country. WeLab enables users to borrow money as personal loans from other indi- viduals while delivering lower interest rates than traditional banks. WeLab makes this process as easy as possible, with an online application form and relatively short assessment process being the only barriers to accessing credit. One of the fascinating initiatives implemented by WeLab is Wolaidai, a mobile peer-to-peer lending platform for top-tier university students in China. With the founder of WeLab, Simon Loong, having experience in the commercial banking industry at Citibank and Standard Chartered, this fintech solution draws on experts in the traditional financial system, while taking on some of its biggest proponents. We will undoubtedly see more of this in the years to come." Rubini, Agustín (2019). Fintech in a Flash: Financial Technology Made Easy . Boston: De Gruyter . p. 136. ISBN 978-1-5474-1716-2 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Founded in 2013, WeLab is a Hong Kong-based internet finance company that uses exclusive risk management technology to analyze Big Data and offer reliable credit services to individual borrowers in the Asian market. WeLab operates two leading online lending platforms, Wolaidai in China and WeLend in Hong Kong, seeking to offer its customers a seamless mobile lending experience. Furthermore, the company has partnerships with traditional financial institutions, which use WeLab's sophisticated credit risk management tools to use Big Data analytics and offer their customers advanced fintech solutions. In January, WeLab raised $160 million in Series B funding from domestic and international investors, including Khazanah Nasional Berhad wealth fund, ING Bank, and state-owned Guangdong Technology Financial Group (GTFG). This was the first time that funds were raised by a Chinese fintech firm and one of the first times that an international financial institution (ING) financed a leading Chinese fintech player." Less significant coverage: Lo, John Y. (2016). Angel Financing in Asia Pacific: A Guidebook for Investors and Entrepreneurs . Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing . p. 27. ISBN 978-1-78635-128-9 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 – via Google Books . The book notes: "There appears to be a consensus that the startup scene in Hong Kong has taken a quantum jump in the last five years. A major breakthrough in January 2016 is probably the announcement of the receipt of US$160 million investment in a Series B financing by WeLab. This is a local fintech startup that specializes in peer-to-peer lending technology and operates both in Hong Kong and mainland China. While not publicly disclosed, the valuation of the company has been estimated to be near US$1 billion, qualifying it as the first unicorn24 from Hong Kong." Gough, Neil (2014-06-16). "Start-Up WeLab Raises $14 Million From Sequoia Capital and Hong Kong Tycoon" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2023-09-19 . Retrieved 2024-05-27 . The article notes: "WeLab Holdings, an Internet finance start-up in Hong Kong, said on Monday that it had raised $14 million from Li Ka-shing, Asia's richest man, and Sequoia Capital, a stalwart of Silicon Valley." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow WeLab to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On top of the sources found by @ Cunard I'd add: Financial Times article profiling the company. This is an earned media feature article, not an interview. Forbes with a short market report (which I suspect was leaked by Loong) Forbes again with a feature on the company. This one is a nice profile but clearly based on an interview with Loong. Keep This is a major fintech player in Asia Pacific, and although WeLend has its own article this is the parent that also includes Mainland platform Wolaidai as well as a bank in Indonesia I think. There are other bits and pieces out there, at the paragraph scale similar to those found by Cunard, but I think the FT piece along with the Forbes 2022 piece should be enough. Oblivy ( talk ) 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies , and Hong Kong . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clean up is not deletion. Per se, the sources are significantly impactful for the article. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Joseph R. Volpicelli: Mason ( talk ) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Psychiatry , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC with one article cited over 2300 times, and others cited > 500 times. Lamona ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't sure that that meets the criteria for highly impactful, as my impression was that they were a middle author on those highly cited papers . facepalm, I clearly missed this one Mason ( talk ) 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a way to withdraw a nomination? (I'm still new to new page reviewing) Mason ( talk ) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Gryzelda Konstancja Wiśniowiecka: Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nom who failed to do WP:BEFORE and whose nomination is just a WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE assertion. The subject is notable, by the virtue of, among others, being a subject of a dedicated biography in Polish Biographical Dictionary , which is even linked from our article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, by the way, her article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (translated into English) seems to be mostly about (not particularly interesting) palace intrigues/tensions. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article indicates nothing about subject but whose daughter, wife, and mother she was. Obviously, I can read the tea leaves on the way this is headed but I stand by redirect proposal based on the article as it is written not how it could be written. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expand article to tell us abou the portrait, from the sources shown which don't seem to convey much. Pam D 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per Piotrus. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO . And Polish version of the article is lengthy. —Kaliforniyka Hi! 04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously, per everything that was said Marcelus ( talk ) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above. Nobody ( talk ) 09:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep fall into WP:ANYBIO . I'm glad that Piotrus gave a speedy keep vote, even though Piotrus rarely votes to keep in AfD discussions. 1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 05:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

David Cantolla: Shellwood ( talk ) 11:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think the BAFTA win gets him ANYBIO, but at the very least, merge to Espacio Solo with which he's done a lot of work and where he's mentioned. Star Mississippi 00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I did an outside search, and there are a lot of sources containing his name, the BAFTA win also makes him pass ANYBIO, He has created notable films too, if this reason is not too plausible, probably Merge will be better. Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul ( talk ) 07:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It looks like UPE, but FWIW the subject is easily notable per SNGs/NBIO and may also pass GNG. There will be coverage from different timelines independent of each other as he is known for being the co-founder of Espacio Solo , creator of Pocoyo and the co-creator of Jelly Jamm . Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk ) 08:17, 19 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

Surprise! (film): The notability claim here, that it won an award at a regional film festival, would be fine if the article were properly sourced -- but the "awards" criterion in NFILM is looking for top internationally-prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists, so winning an award at the Seattle film festival isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from actually having to have any sources. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll try to find a source for that; SIFF is about one level down from the aforementioned. It is certainly not a "regional film festival". - Jmabel | Talk 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source for a film festival award cannot be said film festival's own self-published website about itself, as that isn't independent of the statement — the source has to be a journalist-written newspaper or magazine article, or a book, that shows that the film festival's award announcements are considered newsworthy and/or historically significant by people other than the film festival's own staff. (The awards at the top-level likes of Cannes or TIFF make films notable because those are awards that get reported by media as news — they're special because media tell us they're special by treating them as newsworthy , not just because we like them more than we like smaller film festivals.) But so far the source you've added is SIFF's own website, not a piece of GNG-building third-party coverage — and even if you can find a more GNG-worthy source for that, we would still need to see other GNG-worthy sourcing about the film alongside that anyway. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not citing for the importance of SIFF. We are citing for whether they gave the award. An instutition's own site is the preferred source for an an official action by that institution. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . A lot of the material here is in German, and a lot of it appears to have come narrowly too early for widespread digitization. Here is unquestionably relevant coverage in a German film studies book. I believe this Google Books snippet view is actually of a magazine article reviewing its release as part of a DVD. Finally, I only have a citation so I can't evaluate the source, but there appears to be a Spanish-language scholarly article about this short film: Meier, A. "Sorpresas educativas en Surprise de Veit Helmer." Posibilidades del análisis cinematográfico (1era ed., Vol. 1, pp. 365-373). Secretaría de Educación del gobierno del Estado de México (2015). Lubal ( talk ) 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added another citation (from shortfilm.de) for the film having had 48 festival invitations and 26 awards. Surely that is enough. And, no, I'm not working on this further. - Jmabel | Talk 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : new sources added and mentioned; awards. A redirect to the director should be considered anyway, so, opposed to deletion. (Will try to add things) (added coverage in various languages including English, more exists)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 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

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer): One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN , failed WP:BIO . He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , Oregon , and North America . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TOOSOON . That guys been a prosecutor for a long, long time. It maybe created once notability has been established, but at this point, no. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] withdrawn Graywalls ( talk ) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media ( AP , New York Times , New York Times , Oregonian , Willamette Week ). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico . The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. It would be ridiculous to say he's not notable until the moment he takes office in six months now that he's won. Therequiembellishere ( talk ) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus ( talk ) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject is very notable. His win and the election as a whole have been reported on national news (AP, NY Post, other local sources, etc). PortlandSaint ( talk ) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE , local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling • talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Midwest Schools: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.. source two is malformed: newspaper with no url or title even so cannot confirm if an article exists or mentions the school. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Wyoming . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments News coverage about this school was not hard to find. You can read the USA Today story referenced under "Wyoming" on page 4b here [5] . Here's an AP story about the subsequent reopening of the school after a gas field leak [6] . There's a long write up of the incident in Inside Energy [7] . Another story in the Casper Star Tribune [8] . KGAB [9] , a different AP story [10] , another in the Casper Star Tribune [11] . It's an important policy point that with a publication, date and page number, it doesn't actually matter that there's no link, because sources don't have to be published online. In the past I would have argued for the deletion of this under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT , but in practice, those policies seem to have fallen by the wayside to a large degree. Jahaza ( talk ) 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - no comment on notability here, but deletion wouldn't be appropriate even if it isn't notable. Per ATD and SCHOOLOUTCOMES , if notability can't be shown, the article should be redirected to the school district article. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes WP:NORG , lots of verifiable evidence from outside sources about the school. Plenty of news coverage and sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG , including significant converage that will be able to verify that the school is a real place. Please make sure to diligently review WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, as AFD is not cleanup . Burgeoning Contracting 04:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Natrona County School District Number 1 . I have been unable to locate any significant coverage in secondary sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", per WP:GNG . Aside from a nasty gas leak, there is nothing written about the school , such as when it opened, its unique place in the community, its history, and so forth. The article also fails WP:ORG . Magnolia677 ( talk ) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change my vote to keep , based on new sources added. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added two sources with content relating and written about the school. I don't see how fails WP:ORG , would you mind explaining? Burgeoning Contracting 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Kudos to BurgeoningContracting for the WP:HEY effort. I have found clippings on newspapers.com that I will be adding to the article this evening. Besides, non-profit educational institutions are not required to satisfy WP:ORG (including WP:AUD ): The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The notability requirement for public or non-profit schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:27, 6 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

Bangladesh Pratidin: M.parvage ( talk ) 11:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I considered WP:BEFORE ; But I encourage contributors to do a search on it before giving an opinion. I also did a source analysis. Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Source 1 Own website; see WP:IIS ? doesn't matter ✘ No Source 2 Own website ? self promotion ✘ No Source 3 Not at all content is just about a refernece ✘ No Source 4 promotional content No significant coverage, WP:SIGCOV ; Just a PR content ✘ No Source 5 not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 6 About an employee not the organization ? ✘ No Source 7 No mention ? No mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . M.parvage ( talk ) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Table above shows that WP:GNG has not been met. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the source table, there is nothing showing notability, or even using RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The largest circulated newspaper by print sales is the type of article we should have in an encyclopedia. It has been the best-selling newspaper in Bangladesh, a country of over 160 million people, for the last ten years; if that does not suggest notability, then I do not what does. The article is in bad shape, but it can be improved. The Daily Star is a rival publication and the article on Bangladesh Pratidin mentions it is the most circulated newspaper based on the government database while the Daily Star's sister concern, Prothom Alo, comes second; this cannot be considered promotional. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best selling is not a notable thing.please read WP:IIS and see the examples also. Thanks M.parvage ( talk ) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) , Bangladesh Pratidin is a newspaper of record in Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NPERIODICAL , 1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area: But it is not. 2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level: but it is not 3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Unfortunately it is not 4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works: But it is not None of it's source represent those. M.parvage ( talk ) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article has been expanded since its nomination, with sources quadrupled. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep extensive article expansion and many sources added by @ Vinegarymass911 - WP:Hey does apply. Note here that the significant expansion has shown the veritable lack of WP:before undertaken by the nominator. Also see WP:NMEDIA #2 have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history : a fair interpretation of significant history is being the most popular print newspaper in a major nation over a sustained period (and this is verified by WP:RS in the article). Resonant Dis tor tion 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article was expanded and now it is enough to keep. Mehedi Abedin 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article is now enough to keep. ≈ Farhan «Talk» 09:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Harland Hand Memorial Garden: I don't see evidence of notability, just a handful of local news stories. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in article, source eval: Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 1.  Joyce, Alice (March 27, 2002).  "Harland Hand made the most of a hillside with a view".  San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 19, 2009. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Eaton, Joe; Sullivan, Ron (2012-07-17).  "Harland Hand Memorial Garden on tour".  SFGATE. Retrieved 2023-04-17. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 3. ^ McCormick, Kathleen (September 2000).  The Garden Lover's Guide to the West. Princeton Architectural Press.  ISBN 978-1-56898-166-6. Interview, promo >> 4. ^ "East Bay garden tour set for July 22".  The Mercury News. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2023-04-17. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Reliable sources available. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:28, 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

1974 Sutherland District Council election: Simply does not pass WP:GNG . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman . Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils , all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Good improvements. I think Template:1974 United Kingdom local elections is a clue. The fact that many of the Sutherland wards were unopposed and none contested by candidates representing political parties should not mean that we exclude this District from coverage that is seemingly non-controversial elsewhere. Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Havalinas: Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Not much found for the band, the song that Springsteen covered seems to have much coverage. I'd redirect there. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per above. Seems appropriate. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources so we have the short bio there but it doesn't have the usual byline so thats a problem, then there is the Rolling Stone piece in the article and a link to the LA Times archive which suggests there is coverage there but without a direct link so its a weak keep and I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found quite a bit of LA Times coverage such as this , this , this , and this , Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306 or merge to Tim Scott McConnell . Disagree with other merge targets. - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306. The sources found indicate coverage and passing of GNG. Tails Wx 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Havalinas were active in the early 1990s. There is substantial offline coverage. Proquest search returns 329 results in publications ranging from the Chicago Tribune to USA Today . [1] . (The Wikipedia Library is an amazing resource.) JSFarman ( talk ) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Atlantic306 and JSFarman . There is plenty of coverage in RS to meet gng. Jacona ( talk ) 01:23, 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

Ramon Reyes: 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 ) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. 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" ]: [ reply ] Myong J. Joun ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Mónica Ramírez Almadani ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Jeffrey Cummings ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Vernon D. Oliver ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Kenly Kiya Kato ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Pinging BD2412 , Novemberjazz , care to weigh in? There are others that have been separately nominated as well. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : So here's my question then, if it's "too soon" then are we supposed to wait to create an article until after a nominee is confirmed? Thereby waiting months, maybe years to do so? That seems really counterintuitive to me. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes! Assuming these nominees will be confirmed is WP:CRYSTAL . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jeffrey Cummings ; move to draft as to the rest . These articles raise an interesting conundrum. If these nominations are confirmed, as the substantial majority of federal judicial nominations eventually are, then notability will be automatic. If the unlikely event that any of these nominations are rejected in a Senate vote, that in itself would be a point in favor of the notability of the subjects. If these linger until the end of the administration and are never acted on, I don't think they confer notability thereby, but would be some evidence of notability in combination with other information on the subjects that might be found. Among these subjects, there is some coverage of notable rulings made by Cummings as a magistrate, and I think that one can likely stand as an article as is. The rest can be moved to draft for further research and/or developments. BD2412 T 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , California , Connecticut , Illinois , Massachusetts , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 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 ) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Tiffany Cartwright precedent, the articles can be moved to the mainspace until when they are actually confirmed. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tiffany Cartwright's page has already been moved back & she has not been confirmed yet. So if you're using that precedent, feel free to remove your deletion request. Thanks MIAJudges ( talk ) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article was moved unilaterally by one user in contradiction to both the AfD and a corresponding deletion review. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While I think all of these individuals meet GNG, I do think that it might be worth reviewing the policy separately. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 04:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG, and note that all of these judges have not been confirmed due to a hold put on them by a Senator in reaction to Trump's indictment. That is a political move, and should not be a factor in determining Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is my vote as a bundled nomination. Individually they could be assesed and best option would probably be Draftify for those that don't pass GNG before confirmation. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:51, 6 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

Radio Reșița: -- NGC 54 ( talk ｜ contribs ) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Romania . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Czech government thinks they're useful (?) Elinruby ( talk ) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Link Elinruby ( talk ) 23:30, 10 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! 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to have ample coverage (and also considerable importance). Looks to have been at the center of some significant political controversies in 2019 and 2020 . Even the subject of some English-language analysis from journalistic and technical perspectives (although I suspect that the latter "journal" is not an RS) and some very interesting political analysis . One show from the station appears to have given rise to an entire book. Here is a story from RRC about the station's 25th anniversary that contains some interesting background (independence may be an issue for that one, although I'm a bit unclear how closely the different public stations in Romania are related). In sum, although I am ill-placed to evaluate the sources, even with my very poor Romanian search skills there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources. Unclear why nom considered what appears to be a prominent and fairly controversial station to be "not notable". -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the great work done above by Visviva . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dingbat the Singing Cat: CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat , Cash Box , and Variety . Those three are plenty enough. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 00:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Added a couple of sources. It was apparently a pop music favorite ca.1946-47. — Maile ( talk ) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and improved with sources. dxneo ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America . dxneo ( talk ) 00:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 00:10, 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

Eastern Conference Champions: Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , California , and Pennsylvania . UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:MUSIC ; there are a substantial number of independent sources out there, e.g., [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] . Chubbles ( talk ) 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Paste Magazine, IGN, AllMusic bio as shown above. Also found an AllMusic album review here . Overall there is enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani: Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , History , India , and Rajasthan . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More citation added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Terrisa Bukovinac: There appear to be two claims to fame here. Running against Joe Biden and being the executive director of Democrats for Life. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. There is no evidence that Bukovinac's candidacy will meet any sort of historic record or ten year test. It's raised funds equal to the value of a half-decent used car. The second claim to notability would be as the executive director of Democrats for Life. I don't believe being the executive director of the organization itself warrants notability given their form 990 cited on Wikipedia gives them annual revenues in the 5 figure range which much like figures of major parties turned minor parties, does not meet GNG and warrant an article. Mpen320 ( talk ) 04:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Mpen320 is correct that this fails NPOL. However, as that guideline notes, candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." A review of the references in the article demonstrates that with coverage in outlets like the NY Times, HuffPost, AP, etc, that the subject passes GNG, and a quick DuckDuckGo search shows there is additional content that could be added as well. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk ) 04:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Except she GNG too. Most of that coverage is run of the mill coverage any minor presidential candidate would get. It doesn't separate her from most of the 1,200 candidates declared with the FEC.-- Mpen320 ( talk ) 13:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Allegedly taking home a box of aborted fetuses isn't routine coverage, see below... I wish I was making this up. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Michigan , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She's notable, but not for NPOL. The article glosses over certain facts, but she appears to have taken home aborted fetuses [25] , [26] , [27] , which borders NCRIME. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even clicking on the NYT link above gives five hits in the New York Times. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable per GNG . A quick Google search reveals many articles from reliable sources. I took the liberty of adding some of them to the article. Dhalsim2 ( talk ) 20:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , notable for quite a lot of reasons; article has a wide variety of good quality sources demonstrating this. Chessrat ( talk , contributions ) 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per GNG. Even if she fails NPOL as a minor presidential candidate, she has had adequate coverage in reliable sources outside of her campaign, specifically regarding the aforementioned crime. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Democrats for Life of America . This will preserve her edit history in case she demonstrates more notability in the future. -- Kerbyki ( talk ) 19:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more thoughtful opinions. I'm not sure any criminal charges is sufficient to establish notability as laid out by Wikipedia notability guidelines. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep. She borderline meets WP:GNG but it's close. ~ Politicdude ( About me , talk , contribs ) 19:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I believe she meets the criteria for notability. DocZach ( talk ) 02:50, 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

Jessica Kingsley Publishers: The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , England , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gosh thank you for fixing this for me. I could NOT figure out what part of the code was keyed wrong. Pumpkinspyce ( talk ) 00:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the sources are all fine. This meets WP:GNG . At worse this could be merged into John Murray Press , but I don't see the need. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 29 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to meet WP:NCORP based on existing sources (van Goidsenhoven, Leni, The Bookseller , PW ). While a minor edit pass could help it's not even a bad case of WP:PROMO . — siro χ o 07:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , widely & internationally known publisher of books on topics related to autism with numerous notable authors. -- TempusTacet ( talk ) 11:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions . Randykitty ( talk ) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [33] Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way. For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source? Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:52, 2 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

ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data Standards: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology . UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 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! 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , Medicine , Computing , and Software . UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Nom Seawolf35 ( talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . ISO standards have a large effect on the products we use and are well-covered by articles in the technical literature. This one could use some independent sources. We cover ISO/IEEE standards extensively; see Category:ISO standards and Template:ISO standards . There is also ISO/IEEE 11073 and IEEE 11073 service-oriented device connectivity , which has appropriate sources. StarryGrandma ( talk ) 18:52, 18 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! 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as @ StarryGrandma says, these standards are important and have a significant impact on industry. That's especially true in a field like personal health devices. Questions of how to implement ISO 11073 have been the subject of entire academic articles. For example: Consideration of the generated network utilization of the IEEE 11073 SDC standard , Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 8 Issue 2 (2022) Applying the ISO/IEEE 11073 Standards to Wearable Home Health Monitoring Systems, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing (2005) 19: 427–436 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-005-2033-7 (cited in article). Integration of a surgical robotic arm to the connected operating room via ISO IEEE 11073 , SDC Wickel, Noah ; Vossel, Manuel ; Yilmaz, Okan ; Radermacher, Klaus ; Janß, Armin, International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023, Vol.18 (9), p.1639-1648 It is disheartening to see an article this well developed nominated for deletion, apparently based solely on some editor's decision to add a notability tag 13 years ago. No support given for the claim that it "Fails GNG". In fact, a simple google scholar search (mandated by WP:BEFORE ) shows hundreds of articles entirely devoted to this standard. Admittedly many are from IEEE, but all it takes is a it of additional searching/filtering to find independent sources. Per WP:NEXISTS that should be enough to avoid an AfD. No indication is given by @ UtherSRG as to why no acceptable sources exist. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This topic looks to be very widely and deeply covered in the academic literature at least, just from a few minutes of clicking around here . I think that taking your pick of any pair of sources there establishes GNG. - Astrophobe ( talk ) 02:45, 27 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

Brigitte García: As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ecuador . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death. There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion. https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice ( talk ) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice ( talk ) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person. Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323 The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death. Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News. We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it. I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia. The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 ( talk ) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And? So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Crime . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here . Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL , which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T · C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN . As multiple other ! voters have commentated on, Garcia was well-known in Ecuador prior to her assassination due to her youth and political agenda. Inter&anthro ( talk ) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If she was well known, could you provide significant coverage sources that demonstrate this? WP:NPOLITICIAN is only met if she holds Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I see no sources prior to her death to show that she was a notable politician as claimed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The one article I've seen from when she was mayor outside of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle was a local paper's interview with her, which doesn't count. Is there more? SportingFlyer T · C 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom or move per @ LaborHorizontal . No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death. Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García . toweli ( talk ) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ideally keep , otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination: https://www.ecuavisa.com/noticias/ecuador/quien-es-brigitte-garcia-la-alcaldesa-mas-joven-del-pais-XN4582770 https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230308/281754158537849 https://www.eldiario.ec/actualidad/manabi/en-manabi-esta-la-vicealcaldesa-mas-joven-del-pais/ https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/seccionales-2023/millenials-politica-elecciones-edad-alcaldes/ LaborHorizontal ( talk ) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx ( talk ) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 ( talk ) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 ( talk ) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby ). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. Flip and Flopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If consensus is keep, then keep with this move is my strongly preferred option rather than keeping as a biography article. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The consensus is to keep without moving. BilboBeggins ( talk ) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T · C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's definitely an option as well. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 ( talk ) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] No. See @ Joseph2302 's response. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx ( talk ) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move , per LaborHorizontal and SportingFlyer. There is clearly significant coverage of her murder, while it's debatable whether she had any such coverage before her death. I see no reason for deletion, but the scope of the article should probably be changed towards covering her death, per other articles about similar killings. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 11:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep , a young female mayor, that's remarkable on its own. Bdschi ( talk ) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's purely trivia. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep any mayor killed during an internal conflict is notorious. If she had another nationality there would not be so many doubts...Passes WP:GNG . _-_Alsor ( talk ) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Still WP:1E though. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - perhaps the worst nomination I've seen in a long time. Major in-depth international coverage. Can you please remove this User talk:Joseph2302 . Nfitz ( talk ) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPA , this is a fair AFD as a discussion is needed. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation. Nfitz ( talk ) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Abcmaxx. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this article should not be deleted at all. 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardGamer775 ( talk • contribs ) Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Current Tally: 15 Keep 3 Delete 2 Move I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer ( talk ) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments ( WP:DCON ). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz ( talk ) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:1E was the original argument. Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García . 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reopening discussion per my talk page discussion as I don't have a mop, yet. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you relist this AfD? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK. 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual ! vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON . It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon ( talk ) 09:38, 3 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

Ailem Carvajal Gómez: Article is sourced entirely to self published sources. The tone is also not encyclopedic. WP:PROMO applies. Possibly created by the subject or someone connected to them. 4meter4 ( talk ) 01:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Bands and musicians , Women , and Cuba . Shellwood ( talk ) 10:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The creating editor seems to have edited widely on Cuban music so I think the COI suggestion is probably not justified. I see there's a piece about her in EcuRed , but that is probably not a RS (have added it as an EL). Pam D 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This archived source may be useful though Google Translate can't handle it and nor can my limited Spanish. Pam D 08:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has an entry in Latin American Classical Composers: A Biographical Dictionary published by Rowman & Littlefield . Pam D 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Great find PamD ! Nom withdrawn . 4meter4 ( talk ) 13:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Singapore Mediation Centre: a before search for sources came up with unreliable sources such as social media etc. or partial matches such as the Singapore Mediation Convention. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Singapore . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete . Agree that the sources used are Primary. I find this one [8] , don't think it's enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I even used newspapers.com and newspaper-archive.com via the Wikipedia Library and found only partial matches. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a seminal organisation in the mediation profession of Singapore. See [9] . Google scholar also reveals: [10] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order [11] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore [12] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take [13] - talks about SMC, its history and importance [14] - mentions SMC [15] - talks about SMC See also: [16] - SMC develops an ADR process for . sg domains Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph. So in total your sources do not showcase how WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not agree with your analysis of source independence. See WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources . The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC. The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC. To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent. You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given. Dawkin Verbier ( talk ) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the sources in the discussion would be good. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm ( talk ) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There seems to be enough reference coverage to support notability of the subject: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-contractors-association-unveils-mediation-centre-to-resolve-construction https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/new-mediation-scheme-be-launched-telcos-and-customers-resolve-disputes-1834571 https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2023/04/17/singapore-high-court-enforces-agreement-to-mediate-in-a-multi-tiered-dispute-resolution-clause/ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-mediation-centre-saw-record-number-of-cases-and-disputed-sums-in-2017 https://www.asianscientist.com/2018/04/features/smu-eunice-chua-mediation/ https://borneobulletin.com.bn/online-session-educates-on-power-of-mediation/ Keep - although some quoted material is primary, overall there is still enough that can be used to support the article in my opinion. This was just a quick search too, I am sure more searching would yield additional sources. - Indefensible ( talk ) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Assessment of recent sources found would be useful for a closer to see. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] a review of the sources presents by Indefensible the first straittimes source is about the Singapore Construction Mediation Centre not the Singapore Mediation Centre and only mentions SMC in passing the todayonline source is about an ADR scheme authorised by the SMC and only mentions the SMC itself in passing the globallitigationnews sources is a bout a high court case and only mentions SMC in passing the second straittimes source is mixed it begins being about the SMC for the first 4 paragraphs but morphs into a general piece about the rise of acceptance of mediation in Singapore in general. the asianscientist piece is an interview with prof Eunice Chua and only mentions SMC the borneobulletin piece is a short article on an event hosted by the BDAC in collaboration with SMC and mentions that they were collaborating and that SMC's principal trainer was a guest speaker. so in total the sources presented are yet again more mentions of SMC which don't count towards notability. the second straittimes sources would count towards notability if there was more WP:SIGCOV , passing mentions fail SIGCOV required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding the 1st ref: "More than 4,000 matters of various kinds have been mediated at SMC since it was established in 1997. Construction disputes make up about 40 per cent of the cases each year." That seems fairly significant in my opinion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] that is not what is meant by WP:SIGCOV , that sentence counts as a mention. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you have to interpret what the mention is saying, not just count the number of words. Anyway, that was just regarding the 1st ref, have to review the rest again. - Indefensible ( talk ) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG . Given the location, I think it likely that coverage in non-English sources could be significant, but it's unnecessary to search as there's enough in these English-language sources to meet WP:GNG Jacona ( talk ) 17:46, 22 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

Anna Gutto: This isn't a close question. Banks Irk ( talk ) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Theatre , and Norway . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with Banks Irk , just typing "Anna Gutto" to the Google and there is a big list in the "News" section, seems to be pretty notable. @ Revirvlkodlaku : , are you sure you've done a proper WP:BEFORE ? Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This article is the most repetitive one I have ever seen on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some helpful rewriting has been done. The theatre section should be streamlined more, more dates need to be added everywhere, and it should be made clear that her film career is more noteworthy than her rather WP:MILL theatre work. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lots of recent coverage about the feature film Paradise Highway she wrote and directed, which for some reason is only mentioned in the article as a screenplay (needs updating). Reviews include Variety (saying it "is a singularly promising debut for a first-time feature filmmaker") and mostly negative reviews from other notable outlets including NY Times and Rogerebert.com . My sense is that she meets WP:FILMMAKER ; agree with others though that the article is in poor shape. Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - A Google search shows this is a notable artist. The sources are out there, and need to be added to this article. I've done a few, but more is needed. The issue is not lack of notability, but adding the available sourcing to the narrative. — Maile ( talk ) 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per WP:NDIRECTOR and above replies. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY . Make no mistake, this article was in horrendous shape when it was first nominated for deletion, and much of the article needed to be cut as it was incredibly repetitive (per above comment) and many passages were unreferenced. Many editors have since contributed to improving the article, which easily satisfies notability criteria per sources now cited, such as this feature article in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten ; the Paradise Highway review in Variety (which discusses Gutto's direction); and the review on RogerEbert.com , which analyzes Gutto's writing and direction in detail. There are many other sources cited discussing other aspects of her multi-faceted career as a film director, writer, actor, and translator. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly has significant coverage in reliable sources . Recent edits by Cielquiparle have drastically improved the article. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 15:24, 23 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

Faraz Rabbani: Failed notability Ontor22 ( talk ) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising , Philosophy , Academics and educators , Islam , Pakistan and Canada . Ontor22 ( talk ) 06:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Rabbani has got some nice coverage here , in The Revival of Islamic Rationalism: Logic, Metaphysics and Mysticism in Modern Muslim Societies by Masooda Bano , published by CUP, and I suppose there should be more but I will take a look later. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ayesha S. Chaudhry , happens to cover him nicely in Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition , published by OUP, from p. 159 onwards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure how much but it appears that there is some good stuff in Islamic Reform in South Asia from 388 onwards but I am not able to get a preview of pages from 389-92. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is one more paragraph in Brill's Muslim Subjectivities in Global Modernity: Islamic Traditions and the Construction of Modern Muslim Identities ; and these all make me believe that Rabbani satisfies GNG and I support Keep ing this article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not satisfactory. Repeated views from a site. google.books is primary source. Apart from that, self-published. Reliable sources independent of the subject is absent. GNG doesn't show up everywhere. Ontor22 ( talk ) 15:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This simply means you have failed to understand what Google Books is and where do these resources come from. These are independent, reliable and highly trusted sources from the Cambridge University Press , Oxford University Press and the BRILL ; if you don't understand how that works, I am sorry, you need to go through WP:RS , WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV . You do not even know what Google Books is, and this is a pretty good reason to say that you have not done the necessary WP:BEFORE before filing this AfD nomination. FYI, Google Books is not any source but a service to look for resources available on any given topic. I am not sure how the works published by CUP, OUP and the BRILL are "self-published". This is really a weird nomination. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate your statement. I aren't unable to understand Google Books. If so, you should start creating articles of all the mentioned people in Google Books/Press. I believe it is reliable but not satisfactory, so I said. Can you clarify the issue by showing the published online version or print of reliable newspaper? Ontor22 ( talk ) 16:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these are newspapers and neither is it required for them to be. The details of all of these resources is provided within the links I have included. None of these databases avail free access to their resources for each and everything so I am sorry but I am linking the sources once again: Disputing Contraception: Muslim Reform, Secular Change and Fertility ( Islamic Reform in South Asia , p. 388), Global Shifts and the Rise of Islamic Rationalism ( The Revival of Islamic Rationalism , p. 23), Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition (p. 159 onwards; unfortunately I cannot view anything but what is available on Google Books preview, WP:TWL does not have access to Oxford) and the BRILL , The Modernity of Neo-Traditionalist Islam ( Muslim Subjectivities in Global Modernity , p. 126). I can see there is much more than this "much" and it is enough to presume that Rabbani passes WP:GNG . ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources mentioned by User:TheAafi above. Insight 3 ( talk ) 14:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP per sources shown above by The Aafī , passes WP:GNG . Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources by User:TheAafi. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 10:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Norman Nuñez: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Belize . Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG With signicant coverage already on page, this and this . -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Although more local to Belize, I feel it just scrapes by on basic GNG for whats out there. That first citation just puts it for weak keep for me. Govvy ( talk ) 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Clearly significant figure in Belizean football and definitely as offline sources as well as good ones already there. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now at No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep lengthy career in Belizean football, multiple appearances in international matches, praised by Belize's largest newspaper, which describes him as a "a football legend". Mooonswimmer 16:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep First Amandala link goes over his 20 yr career (noted a few !votes above this one), rest are highlights, seems notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Burrows Court: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply per what's already in the article, keep . Uncle G ( talk ) 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as many sources were found (so many that I haven't quite finished with all the fixes). The building is covered extensively by Nottingham Evening Post over a period of decades, showing WP:SUSTAINED interest (and literally impossible and unnecessary to include every single piece). So I spent some time looking for coverage in other sources, and that exists as well, like this BBC News article focusing on lack of security and drug dealing at the property, and poor upkeep of the building by the council. Plus there are several others which have been added to the article. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for contributing to this and proving me wrong. Boleyn ( talk ) 08:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sri Edi Swasono: Article also seems a little too favourable towards the subject. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Economics , and Indonesia . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This Indonesian economist passes (weakly) WP:Prof and WP:GNG . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 21:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL , was a member of the MPR (national parliament) in the late 1980s [12] [13] . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 10:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as he was the part of People's Consultative Assembly , he will pass notability by WP:NPOL . ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NPOL . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Teleflora: NN business. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies . UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think the coverage of the company's advertising is enough to establish notability. I added some relevant references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The company is quite obviously notable. Sources need to be beefed up, that's all. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Lots of coverage of their ads (Teleflora ads are apparently a big deal in the ad world), so that establishes notability. There's some stuff that can be added to the article about how florists don't like them. Like UtherSRG , I'm surprised there's not other stuff, too. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Avon Safety Wheel: I've been able to find a very small number of brief references but they don't seem to have enough coverage to WP:V what is currently on the page. If substantive refs exist, I'm not seeing them JMWt ( talk ) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom . JMWt ( talk ) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's widely described and easily sourceable for anyone who still has back issues of Motor etc. It's also significant in that this fairly obscure technology did make it onto some mass market cars (even if only a few models). Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok please give us some references to go on. JMWt ( talk ) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete pending magazine sourcing. I wasn't able to find anything in newspapers. WP:V is quite important. Keep following the thorough source discovery below. BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Looking at Google Books, there are lots of results that are about the wheel or its manufacturer. Unfortunately none of them have preview sufficient that I can tell how in depth the coverage is. I was able to discount two results as adverts, I can't say for certain none of the following ones from the first page of results are adverts but the latter two definitely aren't: The Autocar 1975 Investors Chronicle 1976 Likely to be about the manufacturer European Rubber Journal 1976 Automotive Industries 1973 Possibly an advert? Science and Australian Technology 1971 The Bermudan 1973 Design 1974 Bristol Cars Model by Model 2015 I don't think this is in-depth coverage, but the preview ends too soon to be certain. Long Lane With Turnings 2014 . Thryduulf ( talk ) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . After spending a little more time looking I've found: There is a small amount of coverage on Page 34 of the March 2023 edition of Jaguar World https://issuu.com/jdcsa/docs/jdcsa_cm_march_2023_final_150_mb There is an advert on PDF page 17 of the October 1974 edition of Motor Sport magazine that includes quotes of coverage in The Times, The Guardian and Custom Car https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/lib/magazines/ms/1974/10.1974.PDF The November 6th, 1973 edition of Felix (the Newspaper of Imperial College Union) contains a short article about the wheel on page 8 https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/felixonlinearchive/issues/pdfs/felix_345.pdf An advert appeared on page 20 of the 20 April 1975 edition of New Nation (a Singapore newspaper) suggesting wide distribution. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/issue/newnation19750430-1 There was coverage in Volum 60 of New Scientist (1973) ( page 264 ), but again this is a snippet only view so I don't know how extensive it is. Taken together with the many other snippets from google books that are clearly independent coverage, I'm convinced that there is enough coverage to sustain an article but that very nearly all of that coverage is offline - which shouldn't be that surprising for a product that came and went in the 1970s. Thryduulf ( talk ) 20:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is quite a wonderful and thorough source discovery. Changing my weak delete vote to a keep! BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:08, 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

Vittorino Milanesio: Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy . Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 06:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This looks like it should be a keep; this source comments that he was the joint-subject of a book . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I don't know Italian but in addition to the above book I was able to find another book from 2021 that says it has "an important section of the book dedicated" to Milanesio, which I added to the article. Thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it by adding that other source. -- Habst ( talk ) 23:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Book sections focusing on him from decades after his career indicate notability and show a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:GNG . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, it would help if editors could identify or link to new sources found so that others can evaluate them as well. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The book in question is recounting the gatherings hosted by the committee the author is president of and just contains anecdotes from the subjects. This is not in any way independent enough. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay , thank you for voting. In addition to the two books we found so far, I found several more sources -- the ones I could machine translate I added to the article, which include important information that he ran alongside world record holder Pietro Mennea in winning the 1977 national championships. I also found several recent magazine articles about Milanesio (this isn't even including contemporary coverage) -- the problem is, I couldn't find a way to extract the text from them for machine translation, so I added them to Talk:Vittorino Milanesio . Do you by any chance know Italian so you can help us translate those three sources for the article? -- Habst ( talk ) 00:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would help to get another review of additional sources added to the article and listed on the article talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment –  the new sources added don't seem to fulfill notability guidelines –  presiding over ceremonies and being on the cover of a book don't make you notable. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 04:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ InvadingInvader , thank you for the comment. If the books (there are two we've found so far) cover the subject in an independent, reliable, and significant manner, then they would fulfill WP:GNG per the letter of the policy. This isn't even considering the more recent magazine articles we've found on the talk page that still can be added to the article. -- Habst ( talk ) 04:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – More sources have now been located by Habst , and there are certainly more offline. Svartner ( talk ) 13:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Boss (Metal Gear): I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [46] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games . Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD . I found a GameRant article [47] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS . 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, half a source. But my ! vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:ATD . There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV . This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [53] [54] [55] [56] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 ( 🔔 ) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my ! vote: Source analysis by Conyo14 Source assessment by User:Conyo14 The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger Plot WP:SUMMARY /brief routine mention of a plot. N [57] Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise. Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time WP:BLOG N Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y La legendaria soldado The Boss ] Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games Brief mention, not in-depth analysis. The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size WP:BLOG N Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y The 25 most inspirational female characters in games WP:ROUTINE N Not that it matters to affecting your ! vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP . I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Found it [58] . I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 ( talk ) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep ! votes? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed above by Cukie Gherkin. X ( talk ) 05:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per WP:ATD . The article itself was made by a blocked editor with zero conception of notability. I've noted the sources raised by Cukie Gherkin and do not believe they indicate enough SIGCOV for the article to be notable. If these are the best sources, the character is most fitting to a list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , based on the sources found by Cukie Gherkin and as analyzed by Conyo14. Searching in Google Scholar was also promising, with results including Metal Gear Solid: Hideo Kojima's Magnum Opus . Those inclined to WP:OHW may find the coverage in Emotions, Technology, and Video Games and " On Narrative and Gaming Gestalts " useful as well. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:09, 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

Number Eight (Battlestar Galactica): QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters . This article is unsourced, so regardless of its notability, its best off redirecting to the list right now. No prejudice towards its recreation if anyone can find sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Per improvements made since nomination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . AGFing on BEFORE, the abysmal state of the article (practically unreferenced plot summary) is self-evident. Redirect, preserve history, and hope one day sources appear and this can be restored. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to keep per the source found by User:Vanamonde93 . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and recommend remedial BEFORE training for nominator. Seriously, if you haven't checked scholar, you really haven't done a before... especially on a sci-fi character: Academics are geeks and like writing about such things: Techno-butterfly: Orientalism old and new in Battlestar Galactica Paywalled, and I don't have access. Battlestar Galactica and International Relations , Nicholas Kiersey and Ivar Neumann, ISBN 978-0415632812, p. 124, possibly more. Caeners, T. (2008). Humanity’s Scarred Children: The Cylons’ Oedipal Dilemma in “Battlestar Galactica.” Extrapolation (University of Texas at Brownsville) , 49(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.3828/extr.2008.49.3.3 Once again, I don't have access to this. Here's some of what I could grab via Google Books from Space and Time: Essays on Visions of History in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television by David Wright and Allan Austin, ISBN 978-0786436644 "Sharon Agathon is a significant incarnation of number Eight among the Cylon humanoid models. Her character repeatedly challenges the presumptions of what it means to be human in this world, often very directly in her confrontations or conversations with Bill Adama. Although another copy of Number Eight, Boomer, attempted to assassinate Adama at the end of season one, this version, who bonded with her co-pilot, Karl Agathon, while on the run on Caprica, becomes pregnant and throws her lot in with Colonial humanity. This version of Number Eight bears the first known human/Cylon child and also becomes a close confidante of Bill Adama over the course of seasons two and three. Although ostensibly a prisoner of the Colonials, once she engineers an escape from the ruins of Caprica for herself, her lover, and Thrace, Sharon Agathon repeatedly demonstrates her trustworthiness so that she is eventually made an officer by Adama and given the call-sign Athena. "Adama's protectiveness towards this copy of Number Eight that he has come to know further blurs the barriers between Colonial and Cylon. For the first time, we see the suggestion of a concept of reciprocal accommodation between Colonials and Cylons on more than a personal level. How ever, this accommodation is based upon mutual respect emerging between..." You get the point. So, those are just the top four Google Scholar hits on this topic as picked from the default search template--I didn't have to search with other words or remove the words in parentheses... these are lying around for anyone to see... as long as they take even a perfunctory look at Google Scholar. Jclemens ( talk ) 05:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize for forgetting to check Google Scholar. I will try not to make that mistake again. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 11:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apology accepted--can you access any of the three scholar refs I cannot, perhaps through the Wikipedia Library? I have access through two university libraries, but neither has access to those journals. Jclemens ( talk ) 22:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you cannot access them, how is this different from WP:GOOGLEHITS / WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES ?? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Jclemens ( talk ) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect WP:BEFORE shows either trivial mentions or plot recaps. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to write a meaningful section about its reception or analysis. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Striking ! vote, since editor has entered an amended ! vote below. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The topic is unquestionably notable; google scholar has at least a dozen reasonable hits, of which I'm particularly struck by this , which is an entire journal article analysing the character: there's also the first source mentioned above that has a lot of material. This is also one of the primary characters of the show (well within the top 10 by screen time); as such, I think improvement is more likely if we actually have an article rather than a redirect: and while the current content is bad, it isn't material that would be out of place in a fleshed out article, so I don't see an urgent need to remove it. The ! vote immediately above mine is way off the mark; the other redirect opinions are, at least, based in fact. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 23:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice find. I've added the source to the article. @ Zxcvbnm , @ Shooterwalker , in case they'd like to reconsider their votes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has not reached the WP:HEY standard for me yet, especially given it could be discussed in a section. Sources may exist, but right now there is no reason to split. It should be improved in the character list and later split off if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Now greatly expanded. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 18:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Due to the effort put into improving the article, I am changing to weak keep. It still only has a couple of sources, but it is in a significantly better state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per sources added to the article. I'd appreciate more being added, but for now, this should be enough to demonstrate notability and keep it around. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as the sources demonstrate notability and because of the improvements made. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 06:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge. I earlier supported delete/redirect, but there is enough content here that it should be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. A merge discussion can take place, if anyone believes it's better to clean it up than to expand it. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Alison Chartres: Consensus has shown that ambassadors do not automatically meet WP:NPOL and there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. She is lacking significant coverage, most sources are her speaking in the role of ambassador, not her being the subject of the source as required by WP:SIGCOV . LibStar ( talk ) 23:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , and Australia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references. While there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, most of them are quite good at getting their name in the newspapers, and I was able to find several references for Alison Chartres. This one shows her posing outside the farmhouse in Kenya where he father once worked. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Eastmain decision. Not sure it's there are many sources to get. CastJared ( talk ) 03:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . The sources added by Eastmain are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC , if not WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Deus et lex ( talk ) 22:37, 1 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

Companion (Doctor Who): Though this article is extensively footnoted, a closer look reveals the sources as officially licensed, in-universe material with few to no RS, thus failing SIGCOV. In addition, each companion has their own standalone article, making this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. (Whether each companion deserves their own article under WP:NOPAGE is another discussion, which may well become part of this one.) My attempts to rectify the problems of this article have been reverted, with discussion stonewalled and talk page comments censored. It's possible the individual Companion articles could be merged into this one and/or turned into a WP:LIST. Either way, something needs to be done and I haven't made any progress on my own, so here we are. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Your concerns about this article are valid, but it's a highly notable topic. A move to List of Doctor Who companions or similar may be appropriate, and further improvements would certainly be welcome, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP . Also note that some companions do not have their own articles, with some such as Katarina (Doctor Who) deleted in recent months as they're not independently notable. That move arguably gives this article more purpose. U-Mos ( talk ) 12:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As has been said above (and numerous times in previous discussions, both in the talk page and Dispute Resolution ), your concerns are valid and there are definite issues with the article. But it is a notable article and deletion is not the way. There have been numerous requests for suggestions on how to improve the article with constructive edits, but by and large the suggestions that have been provided call only for deletion, whether of content or the article as a whole. Your opinion not being agreed with is not the same as being "stonewalled". The outcome of the DRN was for the filing editor to post these concerns in either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction , and then potentially to file a Request for Comments in order to discuss and to get opinions from the community on what is needed to be deleted, changed, reworded, better sourced, etc. As far as I can see - and please do correct me if I'm wrong - this has not been done. Could it be clarified why the filing editor has escalated to AfD before going through the measures suggested by a moderator after extensive discussion and feedback from multiple editors? Irltoad ( talk ) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Just Another Cringy Username I would also be curious as to your answer to the above final question. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Glad to answer. As I've said from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle, most of the issues with this article result from its having been written "by fans, for fans," as the saying goes. (I'm guessing it's a holdover from an earlier iteration of WP where notability standards were looser and WP was explicitly pop culture-focused.) If you go to the Dr. Who project, all you'll get will be more Dr. Who fans. Bringing it to AfD and raising the issues of standalone notability, duplicative material, etc. will get more eyeballs on this article and hopefully bring forward a much broader consensus. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So, when advised to not go for the deletionist point of view, you decided that instead of discussing it further, you'd go for the deletionist point of view once more. Unfortunately this hasn't seemed to work for you, since there is a clear consensus forming here. Is there a reason why you have not attempted to improve on the article at all? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've made several attempts, all of which got reverted in short order, which is why we're here. And I don't think there's any doubt about my being an unabashed deletionist. It's right there on my userpage for all to see. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Simply an admittance to the desire to not improve articles. It's clear the majority of editors are against that opinion here. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Having trouble collaborating with other editors is not grounds for deletion. Current state of the article is also not grounds, as deletion is not cleanup. The thing that matters at AfD is whether sources exist that talk about the subject of the article, specifically and in detail (see WP:NEXIST ). There are certainly sources that discuss the role of the companion on Doctor Who — for an entire book on the subject, see Who Travels with the Doctor? Essays on the Companions of Doctor Who (McFarland, 2016). Toughpigs ( talk ) 16:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per above. My argument echoes those of above editors. There are significant sources that discuss this topic in depth just from a simple search, and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as AfD is not cleanup. This article needs substantial work, yes, but the article should be improved by other editors instead of deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep No valid policy has been quoted to supports its deletion; this editor's issue with the article are over their own conduct, not the content. No attempt at a civil discussion has been attempted. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 09:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename/Merge I don't agree that a content fork can be fixed by the mere existence of sources. But that doesn't necessarily mean editing, either. If there isn't support for a merge here, I would at least agree with User:U-Mos that a move to List of Doctor Who companions would clarify the scope. Shooterwalker ( talk ) 21:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Given that there's already a List of Doctor Who companions article, this appears more redundant than ever. Anyone want to discuss merging as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That link is just a redirect to the Companion page that we're talking about. Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What exactly are you intending to merge? Can you explain how you'd merge an article with a redirect? What about the redirect makes this article redundant? Or did you not actually view the article you linked? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 10:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep See previous discussion(s). Again, it can be improved. So, improve it. I've tried to be nice about this, but here's the bottom line: quit *whining* about it and do the work to improve it if you're serious. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've done the work. You just didn't like what I did. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 06:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Take a look at the difference between recent edits (careful deletion of unnecessary detail, along with justifications for such) and the ones which sparked this discussion (sweeping removal of entire sections due to "Excessive detail"). Evidently, the consensus here is that there is excessive detail and fancruft in the article, but that there is also plenty of encyclopaedic value that warrants more care than that. No one would take issue if you looked for sources where they are needed and only deleted content that genuinely contravenes WP:NOR or WP:NOT . At no point have you actually attempted to fix the problem . If there is excessive detail, you could remove the detail instead of the entire section. Irltoad ( talk ) 13:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 15:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The entire section is excessive detail. It's in-universe and sourced from the show itself. Moreover, the same information is duplicated in each companion's individual article. This should be a general interest article about the concept of the Companion as a whole with an emphasis on real-world discussion, not just a reiteration of Dr. Who lore. As my tag suggests, what's there now may be of great interest to fans of the show, but we're not here for them. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I echo Irltoad here. These sections are very iffy and fall under excessive detail, but you've made no effort to improve the article. You deleted swathes of information and put in nothing of substance that actually would improve it, arguably leaving it worse off than it was before. No one would have said anything if you had axed those sections but instead replaced it with paragraphs of Reception or Analysis of the role of Companions in the show, all properly sourced and cited. Your edits provided no benefit, and you then took it to AfD solely because you had a disagreement with other editors about this. These are consistently bad faith actions. I respect your effort to try and improve a middling article, but your efforts right now have proven disruptive, and I'd suggest taking the advice of other editors on what to do when it comes to improving it in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If all the time spent complaining about the article actually equalled actions to improve it, the article would be a lot better already. — Shada Ng ( talk | contribs ) 23:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All I see is WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTHERE . JACU, you have no consensus here, your arguments have no support. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 07:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Highly significant and obviously meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Schiedam train accident: As pointed out by Rosguill, this event fails to meet WP:LASTING . Assertions that it fulfills this standard should be backed up by reliable independent sources. The effects currently described in the article are not of "historical significance", as required by that guideline. Other criteria don't apply; I don't see evidence of widespread impact covered in diverse sources, nor enduring historical significance. This is the kind of routine event described by WP:EVENTCRIT #4. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Transportation , and Netherlands . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Schiedam train disaster , an actually notable incident from 120 years after this one. signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seconded. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as an easy pass of WP:LASTING , WP:SIGCOV , WP:NEXIST and WP:EVENTCRIT #2. In and out of the article and are plenty of SIGCOV, V, and IS sources that run up to the present. Unsure how the article neverthless could have been nominated. gidonb ( talk ) 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you identify which sources establish NLASTING in your view? The only accessible source postdating the accident by more than a week is this brief coverage . Are you confusing coverage of the 1976 disaster for coverage of the 1856 incident? signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No not confusing anything. I'll get to that soon! gidonb ( talk ) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See more below. gidonb ( talk ) 20:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Gidonb. But rename to 1856 Schiedam train accident to avoid ambiguity with the 1976 disaster. Strange that the latter far more notable incident has a much shorter article! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plus one for the rename! I guess where someone took more time, there is more text. Both events are notable. gidonb ( talk ) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The accident happened between Schiedam and Rotterdam; after Schiedam near Delfshaven . Delfshaven is a borough of Rotterdam. So a more precise title would be 1956 Delfshaven rail accident or 1956 Rotterdam rail accident . 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support the 1856 retitling in the event of a keep outcome, but the available two sources that postdate the 1850s both refer to it as an incident at Schiedam in their brief coverage, so this further suggestion seems ORish. signed, Rosguill talk 12:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at WP:Lasting is written: “Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation.” -> this is the case in this accident: the accident resulted in exerting pressure on the directors on the Railways. This resulted in multiple safety adjustements that still exists and now seen as “completely normal”. In addition (while there is even still coverage recently) it’s not a rule that there must still be coverage decades after an event “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect.” There was still aftermath coverage of this accident for at least a month. A last point, the Dutch NOS listed it in 2012 as one the 15 main train accidents ever with victims in Dutch history. ( see here ) 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you link to or otherwise identify this recent coverage you mention? Most of what you're saying seems to be original research . Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All what I say is sourced in the article. As I said, recent coverage is not needed per wp:Lasting, but see the link by the Rosguill above and the NOS-link. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 09:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep & Rename per Necrothesp 's reasoning. This is a well-sourced and reasonably well-written and encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge selectively to Amsterdam–Haarlem–Rotterdam railway unless someone provides sources to demonstrate secondary SIGCOV or provides a source that explicitly connects this accident with industry reforms. If neither of those exist, then this is just one of the millions of non-notable things that happened that year and got published in newspapers. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that most of the 1856 (secondary) newspapers articles “addresses the topic directly and in detail” (SIGCOV). Especially for that era where there were much less pages of newspapers as nowadays. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Has been provided several times over. gidonb ( talk ) 20:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being curious I started searching for more sources. I see there was still coverage of the accident at least up to November (3 months after the accident). This sources gives more details of the (formerly unknown) victims. I added some extra information in the Victims section. 109.37.150.153 ( talk ) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree. This was the first major railroad disaster in the Netherlands. That, the extensive coverage at the time, and the fact that the coverage continues to date, e.g. [43] and examples brought and talked down (yikes!) above, make the event notable. This very disaster brought change to the Dutch railroads: lights on the last car were introduced after the disaster (although dropped for a while, later), and the impact on the awareness of the hazards of standing trains are connected in the literature directly to THIS VERY disaster. The fact that there was an even bigger train diasaster in or near Schiedam does NOT justify deletion. There is no case for deletion. gidonb ( talk ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Gumbi Ortiz: Essentially no coverage in reliable, independent sources online aside from an All About Jazz article. Meets no other notability criteria. Obviously created for undisclosed payments (see User_talk:WikiDMM ). Clear friend a 💬 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Florida , and New York . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Found this source from the TB times [3] . Also, All About Jazz profiles are typically self-published, as this one appears to be, so that doesn't count towards notability. Mach61 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per this Orlando Sentinel article . Mach61 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - this is truly a marginal case. There's at least some evidence of some coverage (per Mach61 ), but he has surprisingly few followers on social media such as Instagram. So I'm not ! voting. Bearian ( talk ) 17:05, 8 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! 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as well as the Tampa Bay Times and Orlando Sentinel articles linked in this discussion there is also an album review here so that in total there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, this is either a Relist or No consensus so I'm choosing another relist to see what other editors' opinions on it are. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep RS with in-depth coverage added. - Altenmann >talk 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep notable musician with a significant career, having worked with renowned artists and contributed to various music projects. However, the article needs more reliable sources and detailed information-- Assirian cat ( talk ) 08:29, 17 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

FashFilmFete: A WP:BEFORE search turned up only the routine local coverage cited. Festival's website doesn't yet mention it running a third time. Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Fashion , and Arizona . Wikishovel ( talk ) 10:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Added a few refs. Seems notable. Keep . (At least a redirect to Phoenix,_Arizona#Other_attractions_and_annual_events seems warranted). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The updated sources demonstrate notability. To the point about their website not yet mentioning a third festival- the second one was only in September 2023 so may well be too soon for that. In any case, I think there's enough notable coverage from the first two years to justify the page. Thebookstamper ( talk ) 13:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per added sources. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress: Filmfrae Filmfare awards is owned by The Times Group , disqualifying both ET and TOI. Sohom ( talk ) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , Film , Awards , and India . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is your signature meant to be displayed like it is, with the nowiki? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean by independent sourcing? Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible? Sahajitbro ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed. For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected). (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae -->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sahajitbro Take a look WP:INDEPENDENT . You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources. Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Questions: 1) what about coverage such as this or this or this for example? 2) if the award itself is judged insufficiently covered, would you consider a redirect to Filmfare Awards ? Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mushy Yank All of those sources are classic examples of WP:CHURNALISM . 2 and 3 are effectively parroting press releases. 1 might be debatably reliable, however it is very short and does not constitute sustained in-depth coverage. No opposition to a redirect. Sohom ( talk ) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also noting that this was originally a contested BLAR. Sohom ( talk ) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT from the main article. Has reliable sources coverage as shown during this discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:07, 16 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 ) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per WP:SPLIT and has coverage. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 22:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

St Mark's Church of England School, Southampton: Despite Necrothesp’s assertion, the notion that secondary schools are inherently notable was abandoned years ago. Repeatedly re-created. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Indeed we do have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." This article is entirely unreferenced, for goodness' sake. How would this place be presumed notable? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 11:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you'll find, if you actually look, that it is not unreferenced! It has no secondary references, but it is certainly referenced. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That'd be the two references you added AFTER my comment above was posted? So what was I to 'actually look' at? Your intent? The future? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that would be the reference in the infobox that was already there before it was even prodded! Check the history if you don't believe me. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A total misrepresentation of what I wrote (which frankly, and sadly, surprises me not at all). Editors need to read WP:PROD before they use it. It is for uncontroversial deletion only . AfD is the forum for any other deletion. The deletion of a secondary school in a western country is never going to be uncontroversial and should not occur without discussion at AfD. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced after Necrothesp added 2 good refs to the article. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep as it skirts by on the multiple RS requirement for notability guideline of orgs. The only source of sustained converse appears to be the local Daily Echo , though, hence my apprehension towards a full keep. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Southern Daily Echo is the main newspaper for the Southampton area. It's reliable. It doesn't have to be big. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. My concern is that the only sustained coverage comes from that source, while the other RS I could gluons exclusively covered a single event. ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this webpage should be deleted because other pages for example St George Catholic College Southampton share similar notabilities where as they have not been deleted Parabelleum ( talk ) 19:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG , as do most western secondary schools. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 07:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you guys remove the deletion thing on the page because so many people have said keep and I also say we should keep it. Parabelleum ( talk ) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Parabelleum is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See the instructions for participating at AfD. Theyre linked in the box at the top of this page. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . References used do not show any notability that passed the WP:GNG or WP:NORG bar. The first school in a single city - Southhampton - that is able to serve from year 4 to year 16 is not notable enough in my opinion. The second reference is just covering about the expansion of the school, and the notability claim on the second reference is similar with the first reference. Secondary schools are assumed to be not notable, so deletion for them is somewhat uncontroversial. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, secondary schools are certainly not "assumed to be not notable". They are assessed on a case by case basis and most western secondary schools are kept, so should never be prodded as uncontroversial deletion. It's primary schools that are generally assumed to be non-notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article is sourced and proves notability. Bleaney ( talk ) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Don't know what to do with it but I'll have to leave this article as is as there is adequate sourcing. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:12, 30 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

Ayersville, Georgia: It appears to be a rail point which it was hoped would develop into a town, but apparently that failed to happen. I am becoming suspicious of claims of populations which aren't backed up by the census, and this one isn't: there's no mention of the place in the 1900 summary for Georgia in Habersham County, which is where this spot was located at the time. The histoy book would be something except that it's the source of the population claim, which casts doubt on its reliability. Mangoe ( talk ) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state) . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : As much as I hate geographic stubs like this, I suspect reference 4 is just enough to pass notability. Its population claim is dubious, but it does seem somewhat authoritative and researched (I wouldn't take the number seriously, but I think we can conclude there were a few dozen people living there in 1900). Satellite view shows there are still several homes and a cemetery in the area, so this wasn't simply a siding or signal point that someone at GNIS decided was a "populated place". But that's about it, not a whole lot of information. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Discussed in the Guide and Biographical Sketch of North-eastern Georgia and the Carolinas: Pen Pictures of Beautiful Scenery, Watering Places, and Points of Interest on the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway, 1878, as a distinct town with 50 people. Also lots of hits from people who lived there, including WWI draft cards listing a resident, and people buried in the cemetery there. Clearly much more than just a railroad point. SportingFlyer T · C 02:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Stephens County article. This place is very old and nothing of any import is written about it. There is only 2 sources and 1 or two websites, that I can find, (including the ones already on the article) that directly address the subject of Ayersville. WP:GEOLAND doesn't confer automatic page status to all populated places, it confers presumptive notability. WP:N says that presumptive notability is not a guarantee, and provides WP:GNG as the criteria that must be met to be a stand alone page. Ayersville Georgia simply doesn't have any sources that could be used to write an encyclopedic article. James.folsom ( talk ) 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That last sentence is clearly incorrect, there's quite a bit of historic sourcing that can be found in a web search. SportingFlyer T · C 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and they are not written about ayresville, they only mention ayresvilles in relation to the main topic, train wrecks and the like. This makes them non significant coverage of ayresville. This type of coverage doesn't establish notability. They also typically only provide largly unencyclopedic information about ayersville. James.folsom ( talk ) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter - Ayersville is or was a populated place, all we need per WP:GEOLAND is that it is verified . SportingFlyer T · C 09:43, 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! 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep – I agree with some of the statements presented in the keep votes above, and there are also established hiking trails, citing in G books. I think WP:GEOLAND is met. TLA tlak 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GEOLAND per above. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GEOLAND per above. ~ EDDY ( talk / contribs ) ~ 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Tall Hajar, Jarabulus: A village I doubt that few outside Syria have heard of before. There is nothing noticeable about it in the news and the secondary sources that we rely on in the first place. Dl.thinker ( talk ) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . According to WP:GEOLAND , Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. There are thousands of pages for villages in Wikipedia; whether anyone from a different part of the world has heard of it is totally irrelevant. Aintabli ( talk ) 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Syria . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article passes WP:GEOLAND because it is a populated place. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 06:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep no valid deletion rationale. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEOLAND . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep All populated places are notable per WP:GEOLAND . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Amar y temer: Tagged for notability since 2012. PROD removed with "de-prod. clearly notably, check spanish wiki", which I had already previously done...and, while that article is more detailed than this English one, there are ZERO references there as well. Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain . Donald D23 talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 23:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The only hit in Google Book Search was a trivial mention in ISBN 9781479893881 . But there are more web results, including [1] ( El Universal (Cartagena) ) and [2] (some random blog). The eswiki article also said it won one es:Premios India Catalina award and was nominated for others. My Spanish isn't good enough to work on this (and I have found no non-trivial mentions in English-language media), but I think there is sufficient coverage for an article. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per nom, Fails GNG and [[WP:RPRGM]. Sources found are promo, primary, database, etc, nothing from IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Additional SIGCOV: [3] . Going to add the sources available so far. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 23:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Donaldd23 and @ TimothyBlue to take a look at my work. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c ) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep following improvements made. – Meena • 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on sources: [4] , [5] (barely), [6] These appear to be IS RS SIGCOV. They address the subject (the show) directly and indepth (it provides significant, not trivial, information about the subject). [7] this looks like an unreviewed opinion post from a reader, if I'm wrong let me know; Fails RS. [8] , article is about another subject. The only thing I can find here is the sentence, "On the other hand, Amar y temer -with Diana Hoyos- will remain on the air, at midnight" while the article discusses schedule changes. Fails SIGCOV. [9] , name mentioned in list. Fails SIGCOV. 3/6, but three IS RS with SIGCOV will pass GNG. // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep switched from delete based on article improvement. // Timothy :: talk 15:37, 20 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

Ee (band): UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , United States of America , and California . UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 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! 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:BAND .5. Released 2 albums on Asian Man Records , which has published albums from independently notable artists such as The Queers , Alkaline Trio , Laura Stevenson , The Lawrence Arms , The Smith Street Band , Smoking Popes , Dogbreth , etc — siro χ o 20:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as SF Weekly here , Asian Week here , AllMusic staff bio here , AllMusic staff album review here , AllMusic album review here , and this here . Together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of black superheroes: The topic is surely notable but no information on why black superheroes are important and how they were and are depicted is provided, and cannot be provided in this format. Dronebogus ( talk ) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Ethnic groups , and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Tough one. The article in its current format is clearly problematic. It reads like a database and the sourcing is patchy to say the least. However, the underlying topic is highly notable ( [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] and dozens more), meeting the criteria at WP:NLIST . There is some raw material of value here, so rather than delete it, I would like to see it transformed into a less indiscriminate list, possibly as a spinout of a main list within Portrayal of black people in comics . Keep I think the basic concept behind it is notable, even if the list needs heavy cleanup. However, as it often goes, WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not a valid argument to AfD a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the article could use a lot of work in sprucing it up, but there are a lot of reliable sources available to justify this list's existence. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate . Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup . — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough blue links to their own articles to show they are notable entries. Any on the list not notable, as proven by having their own Wikipedia article or a reference showing news coverage about them, should be removed. D r e a m Focus 07:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Damn Personals: Band member Anthony Rossomando is notable but has his own page. Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Jprg1966 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably keep. I only looked for reviews online (excluding Newspapers.com), but found published material of varying length: Ox-Fanzine [8] de:Visions [9] Punk Planet [10] (short) CMJ New Music [11] Boston Phoenix [12] Impact Press [13] (short) In Music We Trust 1 [14] (short) In Music We Trust 2 [15] (short) Allmusic biography (very short) - also mentioning blog, unreliable I'm also taking into consideration that this is what has survived on the Internet, from a time period where much has been wiped out. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The above sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 22:54, 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

Whitestone, Warwickshire: I propose either a deletion of the article, it merged into Nuneaton or Attleborough or it deleted altogether. It doesn't seem to be like Hawkesbury Village proposal one as this place has no manor or early history. DragonofBatley ( talk ) 15:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm really sorry, I don't think this can be deleted, despite there not being much to write about it. Per WP:GEOLAND , populated, legally-recognised places are presumed to be notable. The briefest of Google searches reveals that Whitestone has a surgery with that name, a post-office with that name, is regarded as a safe place by the Coventry Telegraph referring to it by that name [13] and is the name of a ward within Nuneaton with a very worthy and respectable-looking councillor. I would advocate removing all the OR content and reducing it to a stub including the geographical information, pending anyone finding anything useful that can be said about it based on sources, but since our North American colleagues would find it to be more than an uninhabited railway siding in Ohio, the article itself is a keep . Elemimele ( talk ) 15:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep it’s a ward so probably passes WP:GEOLAND as well as being an OS settlement. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : despite there being a lot of WP:OR and a lack of references in the article the subject passes WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated settlement. We can always remove any unsourced information that is unverifiable. We can also add some of the sources mentioned by Elemimele. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I rm the unsourced material per V. There are enough database records (not sourced from Wikipedia) to show this exists, but the question is if this legally recognized place? If it is legally recognized, it passes GEOLAND; if not it needs to pass GNG and it fails this. I do not see sources showing this is a legally recognized place, unless sources appear showing it is, I ! v Delete . Sources found, ! v Keep . // Timothy :: talk 03:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Senki Senki Momotama: I may be missing something as I don't read Japanese, so taking to AfD for discussion. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk ) 10:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; the article does not mention this, but it was published in English by Tokyopop under the title Momo Tama and based on that release, I found four reviews from sources listed at WP:ANIME/RS : Active Anime , Pop Culture Shock , The Fandom Post , Sequential Tart . Link20XX ( talk ) 16:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Link20XX : . Just for the record though, I tried searching Japanese results and came up empty in terms of notability (COMIC Natalie just had release info). This looks to be notable from the English side as there are reviews for the series and it was brought over to be serialized. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources found; also appear to be some sources in Japanese but I did not do anything in-depth to verify notability from those since I believe it is already established by Link20XX . DCsansei ( talk ) 13:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep