Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wiki_deletion_discussion

like 0

Richert Vogt von Koch: Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Military , and Sweden . AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Many thanks for flagging this. I've now inserted a bibliography of this individual's novels and other selected publications. It seems notable that several of these work are available online via Gothenburg University ( https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/57909 ). Andrew.T. Levin ( talk ) 16:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sourcing in the article is, as AlexandraAVX points out, admittedly weak. The English article just points to the Swedish article, where the sourcing isn't as extensive as the English note claims. But there are other good sources easily accessible, and with this biography in Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok and this biography in Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon , we have multiple sources (more extensive than in Nordisk Familjebok ) and good proof that he was a person who was repeatedly considered notable enough to be included in various encyclopedic works. / Julle ( talk ) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks to Julle for flagging these encyclopedia entries, which have now been added as citations in this wiki page. Andrew.T. Levin ( talk ) 20:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for raising these issues. The wikipage for Niels Fabian Helge von Koch (the mathematician who formulated the Koch snowflake) has had a longstanding red link for his father Richart Vogt von Koch, so I added content to that empty wikipage using information from the corresponding Swedish page ( https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richert_Vogt_von_Koch ). BTW, the editors of the Swedish wiki pages didn't raised any concern that this individual is sufficiently noteworthy as a Swedish historical figure; indeed, the Swedish wikipage includes citations of a number of novels and other publications authored by this individual. Should those novels be listed on the English wikipage? Does it matter whether any of those works have been translated into English? More generally, is it possible for a Swedish historical figure to merit a Swedish wikipage but not an English-language wikipage? BTW, I have 100+ edits but not the 500-edit threshold required to use the Wiki Translate Tool (which would automatically convert all of the bibliography entries and references from the Swedish wikipage to the English wikipage). Could either of you recreate this wikipage using that Translate Tool, and then I'll be glad to help ensure that the translation is comprehensible? Again, many thanks!! Andrew.T. Levin ( talk ) 15:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Each language version of Wikipedia decides its own policies and guidelines, so, in principle, it is possible to qualify for a Swedish page but not an English one. As far as the English criteria go it doesn't make any difference whether works have been translated into English, and sources can be in any language. I have not looked at this particular case, except to say that his son is ultra-notable, as anyone who has made even a cursory study of fractals will tell you. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 18:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ignoring Swedish Wikipedia, I'd argue Richert Vogt von Koch passes WP:GNG . / Julle ( talk ) 22:31, 25 February 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 ) 03:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources identified by Julle above. Mccapra ( talk ) 07:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made since now. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:01, 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

Dan Madigan: Fails GNG. PRODed in 2010. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Film , Television , Wrestling , and United States of America . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 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! 05:47, 4 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! 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are only mentions of a person at UConn with this name, nothing about a person involved in screenwriting. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – there is more than "mentions" such as Bleacher Report (though some are probably not WP:RELIABLE , but it's mostly just citing quotes. TLA (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Jerricks, Terelle (2007-05-04). "Lucha Libre in the L.A Underground". Random Lengths News . pp. 1, 12, 24. ProQuest 363208421 . The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "Despite his multi-cultural outlook, Madigan worried that race would be a factor in allowing him entry into the Lucha world, only to be set at ease when his bodybuilder physique and knowledge made other luchadores think he was a wrestler himself. ... Though Madigan's background is in writing and art. he also grappled in high school, college, and in the army. ... Madigan's career as a writer has been on a steady incline-especially after he joined the larger than life figure of American professional wrestling, Vince McMahon at his new film division World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). During his first meeting with the producers of WWE films, they started talking about old time wrestling and were impressed with his encyclopedic knowledge of the genre. The producers asked if he would like to write for the WWE show, and Madigan deadpanned, "People write that stuff?" .. This lead to WWE films signing Madigan to write a script for Kane, a 7-foot, 326-pound WWE wrestler whose signature moves included the choke-slam (a maneuver that looks like it sounds) called "See No Evil. " ... When Madigan began working for WWE, Ultimo left a couple of weeks later." Oliver, Greg ; Johnson, Steven (2019). The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Storytellers (From the Terrible Turk to Twitter) . Toronto: ECW Press . ISBN 978-1-77041-502-7 . Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Google Books . The author talked to Dan Madigan. The book notes: "Oh, the boundless joys and endless frustrations of being a WWE writer. Dan Madigan experienced both. During the company’s Ruthless Aggression Era, he penned material for JBL (John Layfield) during his anti-immigrant crusade, which was directed mostly at Eddie Guerrero. As Madigan coached from the sidelines, JBL ranted during a filming in Texas that the Guerrero family snuck into the United States under the bellies of burros crossing the Rio Grande. “ ... At the other extreme, Madigan invented Mordecai (Kevin Fertig) as a white-clad, hypocritical religious zealot and a dream evil-versus-good foil for the Undertaker. WWE CEO Vince McMahon bought into Mordecai, who beat Bob Holly at the 2004 Great American Bash. Then the company abruptly deep-sixed the gimmick. ... In fact, Madigan once considered training to be a pro wrestler with Killer Kowalski, though he instead landed in Hollywood as a scriptwriter. ... Lewinski, John Scott (2006). "Former WWE Writer Dan Madigan". Scr(i)pt . Vol. 12, no. 6. Active Interest Media . p. 16. EBSCO host 23394195 . The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "To get the basics of wrestling storytelling—and to transfer them to movie and TV models, we turned to Dan Madigan. He's a former writer for World Wrestling Entertainment's RAW and Smackdown! broadcasts, as well as the screenwriter of the recent horror feature See No Evil . ... Madigan worked in professional wrestling for a year, or, as it is called by the insiders "the business," before transitioning to work in Hollywood as a screenwriter.' Gross, Josh (2016). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Ali Vs. Inoki: The Forgotten Fight That Inspired Mixed Martial Arts and Launched Sports Entertainment . Dallas: BenBella Books . pp. 114, 167, 169–170. ISBN 978-1-942952-19-0 . Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive . The book notes on page 114: "said Dan Madigan, a writer for the WWE in the early 2000s". The book notes on page 167: "said Madigan, who left the WWE in 2010 and writes screenplays in Los Angeles". The book notes on page 169: "One of the wrestlers Madigan worked with at the WWE was Kenzo Suzuki, a wrestler from New Japan Pro Wrestling. Suzuki had some good size to him, and Madigan didn't want to touch the old characters. They had done the samurai. The ninja. The cliché. Then Madigan pitched McMahon on "Hirohito," the great-grandson of the Emperor Hirohito, coming back to avenge his family honor and cultural heritage." The book notes on page 170: "Madigan once pitched a Nazi gimmick to McMahon. Baron Von Bobbin, the goose-stepping Nazi found frozen in the Swiss Alps. McMahon apparently stood up, didn't say a word, and walked out of their meeting. That one didn't fly, but others did and Madigan was responsible for sparking complaints from high ground. The Canadian government was upset over a character named Eugene because it portrayed a mentally challenged person." Randazzo V, Matthew (2008). Ring of Hell: The Story of Chris Benoit & the Fall of the Pro Wrestling Industry . Beverly Hills, California: Phoenix Books . p. 265. ISBN 978-1-59777-579-3 . Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive . The book notes on page 265: "Writing team member Dan Madigan’s wife suffered a miscarriage, had her beloved father die, and learned that her dog had cancer all within a matter of days. Madigan informed WWE of his family crisis and left the road to comfort her. At his father-in-law’s gravesite, while he held his weeping wife over the loss of her father and their unborn child, Madigan’s cell phone rang. “It was a call from Stephanie’s secretary saying that she was disappointed that I missed the Tough Enough [WWE reality TV show] meeting. It was a fucking disgrace; that’s when I knew I was done with the company,” Madigan told me." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dan Madigan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 23:13, 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

Yuanhang Y6: Non-notable vehicle manufactured by non-notable car manufacturer. Of the two sources provided, the ArenaEV article states that it is based on the CarNewsChina article, which in turn states that it is based on the manufacturers website - so the sources are not independent. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , looks like W[P:PROMOTION ] to me Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) ] [ reply ] What the hell WP:PROMOTION Jothefiredragon ( talk ) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It may be for the article but how is it promotion for a car that will never be sold outside of China. I say no prejudice for a recreation. SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 10:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This could be closed as a Soft Deletion but I think the article would be quickly restored. So, let's keep this open a while longer. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Jiang, Zhiwen 姜智文 (2023-11-10). Guo, Yue 郭跃 (ed.). 开启批量化生产交付 远航Y6何以杀出重围？ [Mass production and delivery started. Why did Yuanhang Y6 break through the siege?]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19 . Retrieved 2024-01-19 . The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, the Yuanhang Y6 adopts a closed front face and a minimalist streamlined body design, supplemented by electric hidden door handles and intelligent sensor frameless electric door openings. The car is nearly 5.3 meters long and has a wheelbase of nearly 3.2 meters ... Economic Daily reporter felt during a short field experience that the Yuanhang Y6 has excellent acceleration performance, and the vehicle stability and quietness are good during driving. Some fellow car media said, "You can feel a strong push-back feeling, and the large central control screen is full of technology. "" Zhang, Xiaodan 张晓丹 (2023-12-28). 售32.98-52.98万元 远航Y6正式上市 [Priced at RMB 329,800-529,800, Yuanhang Y6 is officially launched]. Autohome [ zh ] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19 . Retrieved 2024-01-19 . The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, Yuanhang Y6 adopts a coupe-style body design, with a simple and elegant body shape. Details such as the side door handles adopt the popular hidden door handles, and the side windows are frameless. At the same time, you can also see that this car is equipped with NFC and face recognition units at the B-pillar, which is a popular way to unlock vehicles nowadays. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuanhang Y6 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I am also fine with a merge/redirect to Yuanhang Auto , Yuanhang Y6's manufacturer, but that article currently does not exist. Yuanhang Auto is discussed in the article of its parent company at Dayun Group#Yuanhang Auto but a merge of this article's information (as well as incorporating the detailed information in the sources I've linked) there would be undue weight. Since Yuanhang Auto currently does not exist, I am supporting a standalone article for now. Cunard ( talk ) 09:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043 Talk 12:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a review of newly located sources to see if they are sufficient to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Thanks to Cunard for finding these sources. The first source, on the face of it, seems to be the routine coverage of a product launch, but it does go slightly beyond that with the inclusion of the reporter's personal experience of the vehicle. I’m not sure about the second source. Autohome uses "occupationally-generated, professionally-generated, user-generated content, and AI-generated content" [35] in this case the source seems to come under WP:USERGENERATED . The editor does not work for Autohome but does seem to have viewed the car in person. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article from Xiaodan Zhang ( Chinese : 张晓丹 ) is by an Autohome editor. Her profile picture has a blue checkmark. When I hover over the blue checkmark, the page shows the popup text "汽车之家编辑", which translates to "Autohome editor". Her staff page also says she is an Autohome editor and says she is in the "车闻团队" department, which translates to "Car news team". While some content from Authome is user-generated and AI-generated, this article was written by an Autohome employee–editor so is in the professionally generated category. Cunard ( talk ) 10:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Her editor profile (which is also user-generated / editable), says that her verified employer is Beijing Chehejia Information Technology Co., Ltd. - an automotive products manufacturer. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The blue checkmark verifies that she is an Autohome editor. Her staff page says her employer is "北京车之家信息技术有限公司" ("Beijing Chezhijia Information Technology Co., Ltd."), which is zh:汽车之家 , which is Autohome. This page from investorscn.com and this page from zh:企查查 confirm "北京车之家信息技术有限公司" is Autohome. Cunard ( talk ) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn , passes WP:GNG , per the sources provided by Cunard . SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are other !votes to delete so it cannot be withdrawn, but thanks for your comments! -- 94rain Talk 06:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I also found another English source: McDee, Max (2023-11-04). "Dayun Yuanhang Y6 comes with 150 kWh battery and 634 miles range" . ArenaEV.com . Retrieved 2024-01-28 . There are some comments beyond routine coverage like: "We can only envy the Chinese consumers the choice and value they are getting. Will the Dayun ever leave Chinese shores and land in Europe or the US? Unlikely - to a lot of relief from the likes of Volkswagen and Ford. " The website is by the team behind GSMArena (which is reliable per Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Science_and_technology ) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Antoine Graves (person): US-Verified ( talk ) 11:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Georgia (U.S. state) . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete locally notable, nothing we should keep in wiki. I can't find mentions of him, 80 years after his death, likely showing non-notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] the building named after him is briefly mentioned here [19] , still nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . If this article winds up being kept, it should be moved to Antoine Graves in lieu of the disambiguation page which is there now. The only similarly titled article is about a building named after this person. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. Hkkingg ( talk ) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment -- I cannot judge, but was he a significant figure in the struggle against segregation in the US? If so, it might make him notable. I cannot judge. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 16:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect after move (per Metropolitan90 ) to Oakland Cemetery (Atlanta) , possibly lightly merge to that article. The coverage of him appears to mostly be connected pretty tightly to having the sole mausoleum in the black section of this cemetery. I'm not seeing enough for a full article, but redirects are cheap, and it appears that many books on the cemetery mention him. The Black Calhouns by Gail Lumet Buckley might possibly have deeper coverage, but I'm unable to view the book to determine. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 08:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Draftify Graves appears to have been an important figure in Atlanta's Black community during the Jim Crow Era. There is some coverage in this book , Here is more . Here is his obituary . Here is discussed in a contemporary newspaper . -- User:Namiba 19:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of those are enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 00:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be a little coverage of his race-related activities ( 1 ), and more on his mausoleum ( 2 , 3 ). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 09:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There seems to be enough in books and other sources about this person who lived his entire life pre-Internet. Bearian ( talk ) 17:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per the standard applied to athletes and actors, subject pass GNG this , this . // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently discovered sources. Otherwise consensus is keep. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 01:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per User:Namiba , 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per above. CastJared ( talk ) 08:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this ends in keep, will the closing administrator please change the title to meet WP standard form. Carrite ( talk ) 10:14, 27 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

Bintan Lagoon Resort: Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Closed or not, it easily passes requirements and is well sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . per WP:PROMO . The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort. Also, the main contributor of the article,

keep

Creepy treehouse: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ComputerUserUser ( talk ) 22:53, 8 March 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 March 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Most Wikipedia articles begin with a definition. That does not make them dictionary content if they go on to discuss the topic as such rather than the word that names the article. That seems to be the case here. Although the lead section and one source offer definitions, the other sources and some of the current content discuss the educational issue. (My !vote is weak because I don't know about the issue. The sources do seem to establish notability, though.) Cnilep ( talk ) 02:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above and also per this section of the [[ Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. I've indefblocked the nominator for incompetence and general inflexibility (the latter shown by the nomination statement here). Graham87 ( talk ) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per above. Could be a better article, but it's already more than just a WP:DICTDEF . Brusquedandelion ( talk ) 04:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

List of listed buildings in Dundee: For the US equivalents of the list of U.S. National Historic Landmarks by state , we divide the lists by state to give no page more than 150 entries, even dividing the New York list between the sites within and outside New York City to trim the list length. Similarly, we divide the United States National Register of Historic Places listings by county to avoid more than 200 entries per list. If the number of listed buildings in civil parish of Dundee is too numerous to fit in a single article, then it dilutes their claim to a gigantic list article under WP:NBUILDING . Thus, the fact that these sites are listed buildings should be reserved for Wikidata attributes, article categories, and infobox markers. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating these six sub-pages for violating WP:SUB to host the contested mainspace content of Dundee's listed buildings across arbitrary divisions to avoid excessive length: List of listed buildings in Dundee/1 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Dundee/2 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Dundee/3 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Dundee/4 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Dundee/5 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Dundee/6 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lastly, under the same argument that if article creator Multichill could not identify a rational way to split the hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parishes of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, as they did when creating similar, smaller list articles through a combination of manual and bot editing in May 2012, then these massive list articles arbitrarily split across sub-pages should be similarly deleted. In talk page archives , Multichill received criticism from multiple editors for this approach to list creation, admitting that with hundreds of listed buildings in these four civil parishes, there is no clear way to present the content. None of these lists appear to be widely referenced in wikilinks, aside from their inclusion in their respective cities' navboxes. List of listed buildings in Aberdeen ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/1 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/2 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/3 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/4 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/5 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/6 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/7 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/1 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/2 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/3 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/4 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/5 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/6 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/7 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/8 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/9 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/10 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/11 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/12 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/13 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/14 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/15 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/16 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/17 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/19 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/20 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/21 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/22 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/23 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/24 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/25 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/26 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/27 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/28 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/29 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/30 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/31 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/32 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/33 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/1 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/2 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/3 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/4 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/5 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/6 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/7 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/8 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/9 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/10 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/11 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/12 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) List of listed buildings in Glasgow/13 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions . BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're comparing an European country with the USA when it comes to historic buildings? These are old cities with a long history and plenty of old buildings. Lists are more like List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets . Can you please clarify what part of WP:NOTDATABASE is "clearly violated"? WP:NBUILDING seems to apply if an article about every building would be created. These are lists and not lists of all buildings, only the ones that are listed. Each entry links to a page describing why it's listed. Lists of historic buildings are notable. So the only thing left is how it is split up, I have a link for that one {{ Sofixit }} . @ Dr. Blofeld and Nyttend : I think you worked on this back in the day. Multichill ( talk ) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, I cited WP:NOTDATABASE in regard to the arbitrary division of hundreds of listed buildings across sub-lists. Second, you are correct in arguing that WP:NLIST is more relevant than WP:NBUILDING , and WP:NLIST defers to the WP:LISTPURP guideline to keep informational lists. Whereas Manhattan is a rectangular island amenable to demarcating landmarks by their street number, the next closest geographic distinguisher for these four Scottish cities appears to be postal codes, which adheres to the relevant AfD precedent (see below). Do you think this would work? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hello from Dundee! I would say that the arrangement of the Dundee lists really is pretty arbitrary - they bounce around the city at random, and they often don't use the common names for the buildings so it's hard to recognise what's what. Historic Environment Scotland is where I'd normally go to find this kind of information - it has maps, descriptions and often pictures. Maybe reducing the list to just the few buildings that are likely to have Wikipedia articles would make more sense? Adam Sampson ( talk ) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . These are part of a comprehensive series of lists, nationwide (I believe) or common throughout the country. Deleting the lists for just a few bits of the UK would be preposterous. Moreover, for US lists, we typically subdivide by neighbourhood, or (if nothing else will work) by first letter: "List of listed buildings in Glasgow: A", etc. Nyttend ( talk ) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, thanks for the work Multichill and you did creating these articles on listed buildings ! Looking through the AfD archives, I found WP:Articles for deletion/Listed buildings in Liverpool kept the list of Liverpool 's >2500 listed buildings by splitting entries based on the city's 25 postal codes. The DD postcode area has eleven districts for Dundee , the AB postcode area has twelve districts within Aberdeen , the EH postcode area has twenty districts for Edinburgh , and the G postcode area has 57 for Glasgow and its surrounding towns. I think this approach to splitting will be more effective because many of the listed buildings are officially named with the address, rather than a distinct name of a former business or occupant. Thus, alphanumeric sorting and sub-division may result in confusion if consecutive entries between 1 Sample St and 2 Example Ave are on opposite ends of the city. Your thoughts? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The splitting is indeed not optimal (just last week, I added a few pictures for Edinburgh, and I had to spend quite some time to find in which lists the entries were), but this is not the reason to delete. I would advocate arranging the lists by street name alphabetically (smth like List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/A-B ), and where it does not apply make a separate list. Ymblanter ( talk ) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is a decision on alphabetical reordering, I would be willing to help. Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Nyttend. Listed buildings are notable and a tabled list is the way to go in cases where there isn't enough for an article. I would rather split the list alphabetically rather than number them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Strange. When we have articles on individual listed buildings we're told by some editors they should be redirected to a list like this. And when a list like this is created we're told by other editors that we shouldn't have lists like this. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep unless replaced by a set of better organised lists - eg by council ward or Community Council Area. Alternatively could all the tables be put on a single page (not a single large table)? - but this may not meet other guidelines. These lists were very useful in the early days of Wiki Loves Monuments . Although there is now an upload tool linked to a map for the competition, it can still be useful to see listed buildings in an area (particularly in towns which only have a single list). AlasdairW ( talk ) 16:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for re-organisation – I had been planning to do so with Glasgow. Completely agree that the current divisions are arbitrary, illogical and do not aid navigation in any way. However, it is appropriate that such lists exist, and there are too many to keep them in a single article for cities of this size. I propose that these instead be split between council wards – not perfect as the boundaries can change (though there hasn't been much change since multi-member wards were created in 2007), and there will be great disparities between them (e.g a handful in Greater Pollok (ward) and hundreds in Hillhead (ward) ), but it follows both consistency on this site, where non-urban areas have been divided geographically into civil parishes without much objection AFAIK, and on the British Listed Buildings website, which would in turn make it much easier to re-organise the entries with something to refer back to. There would also be a manageable number of articles. Open to suggestion on alternative criteria; alphabetical order is not ideal in my opinion as many of the entries begin with building numbers and are known by multiple names, in many cases it would still be very difficult for the average reader to find entries (or at least, it has been for me when I've had to do so), albeit I realise many also won't be familiar with what ward covers what area either, even in their home country / city. Crowsus ( talk ) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My suggestion was alphabetical order of the streets (which is also not ideal, because there are sometimes multiple streets, and sometimes none, but better that it is now). Wards are also fine but then someone should go ahead and propose the structure, I have no idea about wards of Edinburgh for example. Ymblanter ( talk ) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ AlasdairW and @ Crowsus , you both have suggested using ward boundaries, but I want to highlight that as recently as 2016 , the Scottish government changed 25 ward boundaries, including in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Thus, not only is it quite difficult to figure out the associated ward for the thousands of sites we need to sort, but we would also lack an easy way to tell which listed buildings shifted into another ward as their boundaries change. @ Dr. Blofeld and @ Ymblanter , you both suggested alphabetizing by street name, but consider the two primary use cases for these lists. First, someone wants a directory of the listed buildings in Scottish cities where any sub-categorization method will suffice. Second, someone wants to know which listed buildings exist in their area, in which case we need a sub-categorization method forced on the site's geographic position. Thus, I want to reiterate that sub-categorizing by postal codes seems like the simplest solution because their boundaries have minimally changed, and even if they change, the mismatch between the list entry and updated maps would be immediately apparent for fixing. Given that these sub-lists already include the coordinates, it seems like a simple process to find their postal code on Google Maps. As previously noted, the listed buildings in Liverpool page showcases that this approach is feasible. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But imagine I have a building in Edinburgh and I have the street address, can I easily convert it to a postal code? Ymblanter ( talk ) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, at random I have chosen the 18th entry on List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18 , which is "St Bernard's Crescent 1 And 12 Leslie Place." Plugging the entry's listed coordinates into Google Maps, I get a matching pin over 1 Leslie Place that Google Maps tells me is within the EH4 postal code. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, using the postcode would be the slowest method, as the Historic Scotland listings do not include this so it would have to be done for every single building. By contrast, the street name is already in the listing in most cases so at least that would be quicker. For the wards, as I've said, British Listed Buildings already subdivided the buildings into council area , then into (post-2016) ward, so it would be a lot more straightforward to organise them. If the postcode option is favoured by the majority, I would suggest using those lists as a starting point as obviously most of the wards have some correlation with postal districts (I think Govan (ward) and the G51 postcode are pretty much the same boundaries) so it would make the task slightly easier than working through the randomised list articles we have currently. Crowsus ( talk ) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That link is currently returning error messages for me on both Microsoft Edge and Firefox. Were you able to access it today? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah it worked fine for me now (Desktop, Edge browser / link created from mobile, Chrome). Crowsus ( talk ) 06:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, the site is working for me now! For Dundee, it reports that 287 listed buildings are in the Ferry Ward, 404 listed buildings are in the West End Ward, and 471 listed buildings are in the Maryfield Ward. I think that 250 listed buildings is the limit of readability, so I would argue that sub-division by ward does not work here , but I suppose we need numbers for comparison, so I will try to see how Dundee's listed buildings split by zip code when I return from a trip tomorrow . Thanks for your input! BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 12:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately the zip/postcode situation will be similar, Dundee only has 5 postcodes for the whole city and splitting them up into sub-codes beyond that (DD1 2--, DD1 3-- etc) would be bewildering even to locals IMO. Perhaps alphabetical would be the best option, as any geographic division in all cases would skew towards probably-unmanageably high numbers for the city centre, with other occasional spikes at other historic areas (e.g around University of Glasgow campus = 843 buildings in its ward, which is only covered by parts of 3 postcodes). Crowsus ( talk ) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Out of curiosity, I don't necessarily disagree with a 250 limit, but is that some kind of site technical/guideline or your own judgement? AFAIK, List of Category A listed buildings in Glasgow contains all the relevant sites, which according to British Listed Buildings should be 795. Crowsus ( talk ) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SPLITLIST does not specify a limit, so I used ~250 as a rough threshold for readability when the individual entries are fairly short. While British Listed Buildings notes 795 Category A sites in Glasgow, only 282 of them are in the associated article , and if that article were updated/improved to include all of the Category A sites, I suspect there would be consensus to sub-divide it too. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah sorry, the discrepancy is probably due to that website counting each individual building that forms part of a listing, while the WP article goes by one entry per HES listing (which is the correct way IMO) - for example, #774 and #775 on BLB are both for Trades House, and the link for both entries ties to a common HES page, #LB32713 . Not sure why they have done it that way, surely its more straightforward for them to stick with the divisions HES decided on?? Anyway, that's not our problem, although probably makes it slightly trickier for us as otherwise it's a useful cross-reference for these lists. PS Sorry just spotted this was now closed. Crowsus ( talk ) 22:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A mess, but a fixable mess. I think there is a community consensus that these types of lists are generally notable for geographic regions with significant historical records. // Timothy :: talk 16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep even if not all listed buildings are notable these lists seem appropriate per WP:NLIST and provide us a place to discuss listed buildings that aren't notable enough for their own article and yes the fact the likes of Dundee have been split are simply because these parishes contain many listed buildings so would be too large for a single list. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 19:28, 16 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

Main line of resistance: I mean could you even say which of those was "main"? Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Chidgk1 ( talk ) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I can't make sense of the nomination, but this seems like a fairly fundamental military term that is used extensively in literature. The article is certainly not in a great shape, but AfD is not cleanup . - Ljleppan ( talk ) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And here's just a few examples of use as a term of art from approximately four minutes in Google Scholar: Miller, Jeffrey. "Battle at the 38th Parallel: Surviving the Peace Talks at Panmunjom." Korea Observer 33.4 (2002): 691. ...fighting along the main line of resistance (MLR) that in many ways eerily resembled... Clark, Rodney A., and Martha B. Myers "A Description of Combat Rifle Squads on the Korean MLR During the Winter of 1952-1953." (1954): 0058. While the troops were in these positions on the Main Line of Resistance (MLR), the researchers visited. . Chambers II, John Whiteclay. "SLA Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New evidence regarding fire ratios." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 33.3 (2003): 6. ...group interviews along the Main Line of Resistance, including... Edmonds, C. J. "Chapter Twenty-Four. The Bolshevik Invasion." East and West of Zagros. Brill, 2009. 295-307. the role of our troops was to be that of an outpost which, if attacked, would fall back to ‘the main line of resistance’. Grau, Lester W. Defending Forward: Soviet Activities in Front of the Main Line of Defense. Soviet Army Studies Office, US Army Combined Arms Center, 1990. Not until 2400 hours did the enemy succeed in smashing the combat outpost and advancing to the main line of resistance... Epstein, Jonathan A. "7. The Belgian Army to May 10, 1940." Belgium's Dilemma. Brill, 2014. 190-209. .. the Belgian army went into 1938 planning for a main line of resistance along... Teschan, Paul E. "Acute renal failure during the Korean War." Renal Failure 14.3 (1992): 237-239. .. experiences in 1952-1953 when the battle line - the Main Line of Resistance, or MLR - had stabilized... Simmons, Edwin Howard. "US Marines in Korea, vol. 2, 1953: The Final Crucible." The Journal of Military History 66.4 (2002): 1245. Most of the fighting occurred at the company or battalion level in a system of outposts out in front of the main line of resistance. Also used by e.g. Britannica ( [4] ). Ljleppan ( talk ) 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Delete - No sources at all . Original source unknown. A google search shows this exact wording repeated on various wiki-like sites, with no sourcing on them either. If this were credible, it would be on a reliable military website somewhere. — Maile ( talk ) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per my thread with Hawkeye7 below, I have changed to Keep after sources were added. — Maile ( talk ) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A well-known military concept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hawkeye7 I'm willing to change my above Delete to a Keep, if you, or anyone else, can do some sourcing in the article. That's really the problem there. — Maile ( talk ) 23:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean just adding sources to the statements in the article, or overhauling it to make it into a useful article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd be satisfied just to see some sources added at the appropriate places in the article. — Maile ( talk ) 01:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added sources at the appropriate places in the article, but a great deal more could be said. Ljleppan is correct in reminding that deletion is not cleanup . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The added sourcing is a start. I've changed myself above to Keep. — Maile ( talk ) 20:38, 17 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

Ulrika Björklund: The article literally just states that she's a person who exists, while completely failing to state what political offices she may have held -- but politicians are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and are only presumed notable in certain specific major offices, so an article that completely elides what offices the person even held in the first place clearly doesn't cut it. Additionally, the fact that there's no article about her at all on the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't bode well, since there's just no way that Swedish editors would completely overlook her if she were actually a holder of any NPOL-passing office. In addition, two of the three footnotes here are just address directory entries, which are not reliable or WP:GNG -building sourcing, and the only one that comes from a real media outlet appears to suggest that she's just a local figure in a small town, which is a level at which we would need far, far more than just one GNG-worthy source to deem her notable enough. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to contain a lot more substance than this, and a lot more sourcing for it than just one media hit and a bunch of phone books. Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden . Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , AFAIK this person has been elected at local (municipal and county) levels only, which doesn't suffice for NPOL, and the sources fall well short of GNG. I had a quick search and found a few secondary sources, but they only cover her in the context of her crossing the floor to a different party, so again not enough for GNG. There could be more if one digs deeper, but it's not particularly easy as the name is fairly common. If the author can produce more and better sources, then I'm prepared to reconsider my stance, but as it stands this seems non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NEXIST , passes the WP:GNG . A simple two minute Google search shows her switch from the Moderates to the Centre Party due to disagreements with the former's embrace of the Sweden Democrats' anti-migration politics received national media attention in 2022: Swedish Television (public broadcaster) Swedish Radio (public braodcaster) . Feature profile in Nerikes Allehanda : [41] . Behind a paywall, but profile on her role in education policy: [42] . Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: meets WP:GNG per Goldsztajn's links. WP:OTHERLANGS should also be kept in mind, and the fact that there isn't an article in the Swedish Wikipedia yet is not relevant to determine notability. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:ONEEVENT regarding the party transfer, and the notion tat she has a "role in education policy" seems like a major exaggeration. Not every person who was the subject of a feature in a local or regional newspaper is Wikipedia material. I have access to the Swedish Mediearkivet, but on the basis provided here, it's not at all compelling to search for gems in newspapers. This looks like a regular person who is active in her community and doesn't like a political party. Geschichte ( talk ) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have multiple, multi-year, sigcov RS, this satisfies the GNG. We may assess the quality, scope or reliabiliy of sources, but I'm not aware of any community consensus that allows us to criticise the editorial decision making of the reliable sources. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a point of interpretation how significant a given piece of coverage is. And my interpretation is, among others, that the significance is being overplayed regarding the education piece. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have four reliable soruces with SIGCOV in relation to the subject (two of which deal with one issue). An editor's opinion of the importance of the coverage (ie editorial decision making) is not relevant. The second Nerikes Allehanda is reporting on the subject's intentions with regard to education policy; whatever one's views on the contents, it's not our job to assess their importance. Even if you take away that piece, we still still satisfy BASIC/GNG. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (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 ) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there are five reliable sources with SIGCOV in relation to the subject. Also per WP:GNG. Her work as CEO of SJ is highly notable. BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The claim of being the CEO of SJ is pathetic. The given source states that Ulrika Björklund is "the director of SJ Contact Center in Ånge ". Not included in the CEO list , although SJ consists of several different parts. The Ulrika Björklund of SJ is not even the same person, it's a different person née Sahlin and born in Timrå ! My opinion of delete stands until the misinformation is sorted out. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Maybe close as draftify ? In that way, the editors who find gold in the aforementioned references can work this into the article, showing its actual importance beyond WP:NEXIST - and also to facilitate a necessary sorting out of things to avoid throwing other people named Ulrika Björklund into the mix. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: But more polishing needs to be done to it. Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Maybe consider the possibility of draftification. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn. More work clearly needs doing but I think this article meets GNG. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:13, 1 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

Nilkamal Singh: no reliable sources availble in article Worldiswide ( talk ) 06:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A lot of reliable Hindi sources are available for the article. News18 , Zee News (Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand is a part of Zee Media Corporation ), Times of India , ABP news , Jagran are all important media houses of India. Also, articles of singers less notable than him are available and included in Wikipedia. For example Priyanka Singh , Ritesh Pandey (singer) . I will be expanding it in near future and more than 50 Sources are available for it from trusted media houses. Admantine123 ( talk ) 06:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some sources covering the personality in depth ( WP:THREE )- [8] , since the subject belong to regional film Industry Bhojpuri Films , we have most of our sources in Hindi language; Bhojpuri is a dialect of Hindi.This source talking about him becoming one of the most viewed singer in Bhojpuri music industry. (From ABP News ) [9] , this source says that in 2022, he left Pawan Singh and Khesari Lal Yadav in viewership in the beginning of that year. It also talks about him as one of the established singer of industry. (From ABP News ) [10] this source specially covers his biography and tells us that he left Khesari Lal Yadav behind in Net Worth. ( ABP News ) Admantine123 ( talk ) 07:41, 20 May 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 May 20 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 07:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , India , and Bihar . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Agreed with the Admantine123 Views. Yasal Shahid ( talk ) 05:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Linda Douma: Falls into WP:BIO1E Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Beauty pageants , and Canada . Let'srun ( talk ) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic "Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E", etc. I challenge both reasons. From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [48] [49] , which are two recent books published by UBC Press . Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement. Materialscientist ( talk ) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources. This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had. If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources. Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago. JTtheOG ( talk ) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Hate to do the standard "per x" thing response, but in this case I have to ! vote like that. Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage. She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books. ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback ) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 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

DarwinHealth: Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business , Companies , Biology , Medicine , and United States of America . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . This article in Science and this article in The Economist are independent and very in-depth. It is a major research organization that has developed algorithms — potentially capable of cracking cancer's code, as covered in WSJ . Being a research organization, most of its coverage is in academia. A search on Google Scholar brings an extensive coverage about DarwinHealth. Sklerk ( talk ) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Science article cited by Sklerk is secondary and in some depth, as is the WSJ piece. The Economist article doesn't mention DarwinHealth at all, though, so it needs to go, but WP:NCORP is just met by the sources given. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm unconvinced by the rationale presented so far. The first editor to keep is the author of the article, which, while it does not invalidate their submission, I do consider there to be a potential bias. I note they state GNG is met by listing a bunch of references. I disagree that they constitute extensive coverage. Most are passing references. This organization does good work, clearly. However the "coverage" tends to merely mention the research undertaken rather than in-depth information about the organization itself. I do not see the sustained, significant, in-depth coverage required by our subject-specific notability guideline for corporations and organizations. Just my view, though. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 11:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Rather than having in-depth details about the organisation, the "coverage" usually consists of mentioning the research that was done. I fail to see the consistent, noteworthy coverage to meet subject-specific notability guideline for businesses and organisations demands. Fails NCORP. 2409:40F3:A:3510:8000:0:0:0 ( talk ) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Obviously, you've commented here at random without actually reading the article or the comments above, where in-depth sources have been shared. 154.21.186.89 ( talk ) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed. Some in-depth coverage already reviewed by WeirdNAnnoyed and additional coverage when I did a proper WP:BEFORE . Personalized Drug Screening for Functional Tumor Profiling by Victoria El-Khoury, Tatiana Michel, Hichul Kim, Yong-Jun Kwon (published in 2022) is independent of the subject and covers the organization directly and in-depth . 154.21.186.89 ( talk ) 21:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per sources found by WeirdNAnnoyed. I'm surprised Andrea Califano doesn't have an article. // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 1 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

Tetouan Archaeological Museum: My BEFORE search (in English) didn't show much outside of tourism websites. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Morocco . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Archaeology . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I’ve added the interlanguage link, some new material and seven refs. There are plenty more and I haven’t even looked in Arabic yet. Mccapra ( talk ) 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - loads of sources in the appropriate languages, as added. Ingratis ( talk ) 10:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Narky Blert ( talk ) 11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Mccapra and Ingratis. --Asqueladd ( talk ) 15:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep Reliable sources have been provided for the article, and you have the final decision whether to leave it or delete it. You are the ones with experience. Thank you Trabeltomed ( talk ) 16:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Notable museum with several good sources, even if they aren’t in English. HarukaAmaranth 春 香 02:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article was only 2 hours old when nominated. I would have WP:BOLDly kept per consensus, but I think attention still needs to be directed at the language of the article. Puffy claims such as "its historical legacy extends back more than a century" should be substantiated. Also, "The Tetouan Museum includes a collection of archaeological and historical pieces dating back to various time periods": which museum doesn't? The article should also be moved to spell its name Tétouan . Geschichte ( talk ) 06:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Toad ette ( Merry Christmas, and a happy new year ) 06:51, 25 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

Din Dong: Orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Hong Kong . Pepper Beast (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There seems to be some (actually, quite a bit of) indication of WP:GNG being met, at least in Chinese press: [52] [53] [54] [55] . The cat has been made the theme of a coastal walkway in Hong Kong [56] [57] , and a bus advertisement based on the character made it to the news [58] [59] [60] . Probably it's just that the character isn't very well known in the English world. S5A-0043 Talk 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Also, I found two English sources, but they don't really talk about the subject in depth: [61] and [62] . Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 06:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I've deorphanized the article, so it should be good to go. Tarantula TM ( speak with me ) ( my legacy ) 06:08, 27 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

China Navigation Company: Draftifying seems the best next step. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , China , and Singapore . UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My name is Robert Jennings. I am the Head of Group Archives for John Swire & Sons Ltd. (JS&S) I do not believe that there have been any breaches of copyright in the content of the page for the China Navigation Company. If any allegations of copyright infringement by a puported copyright holder have been made then I would dispute such allegations. I believe that the page can and should be returned to its previous condition. It certainly shouldn't be deleted. CNCo celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2022 - an extraordinary achievement for a shipping company, made even more extraordinary by the fact that it is still in the hands of its original owners. I can confirm that Swire Shipping and Swire Bulk are wholly owned operating subsidiaries of the China Navigation Company Ltd. (CNCo). CNCo is a holding company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of JS&S. I can confirm that any written history of CNCo that is the copyright of JSS, CNCo or either Swire Shipping or Swire Bulk can be used freely and without specific permission from JSS. The history text (flagged for copyright violation) contained within the description of the CNCo physical archives (owned by JSS and held in the archive collection of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)) and shared on ‘Archives Hub’ https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/ea5125cd-1825-31be-b41a-142a903c5ede? component=e8bf8d21-b4a5-3546-ac96-9bc57cfc7319 has been reproduced (with minor edits to bring it up to date) from the introduction to the JSS collection at SOAS written by Elizabeth Hook and published originally in 1977. The copyright to this text is owned by SOAS but permission to use the text feely for non-commercial purposes is explicitly given. The link to the digitised version of the Elizabeth Hook 1977 catalogue of the JSS collection and to the permission are included below. https://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00001363/00001/1x? search=hook https://digital.soas.ac.uk//permissions/ I do hope the above is sufficiently satisfactory to remove any issue. Please do contact me if there are any further questions. Tie Coup ( talk ) 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tie Coup/Robert Jennings , The license which Wikipedia ascribes the text and contributions by editors to is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 , as stated in the footer of the site. This license allows the commercial usage of the material, which evidently is incongruent with the permission to use the archive materials freely for non-commercial purposes. Do see Donating copyrighted materials for more information. – robertsky ( talk ) 20:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It was I who removed the copyvio content, and left the page in its present state; unfortunately no rewrite was proposed in the four weeks the page was listed at WP:CP . I fully agree with UtherSRG that that's far from ideal, but don't think that we can justify deletion: the company has well over a century of significant history and is indisputably notable . Other options – redirect, merge or rewrite/expansion – are all preferable to deletion. If the page is kept it should be moved to

keep

Rusty Fein: PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America . Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California , New York , Pennsylvania , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [ [39] ] and [ [40] ]. Let'srun ( talk ) 13:37, 11 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! 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions . Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper ( talk ) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't get you. Which part of WP:GNG are you saying? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. - 2pou ( talk ) 19:42, 20 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! 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : The article meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO based on the major awards he has won and was cited to reliable sources . For the nominator, WP:SNGs are followed after checking the WP:BASIC . Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What “major awards” has this guy won? Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The U.S. Figure Skating Championships as well as collab. .ING with Tiffany Scott . Finding sources first WP:BEFORE is also important. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bgsu98 , this mentions and collabs this and this is at least there will be existing source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That a PROD was removed doesn't make an article non notable. I see you nominated articles simply because they doesn't meet WP:NSKATE ; this is a secondary/additional way after the article lacks valuable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 07:30, 30 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

Cisgenderism: This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity , trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [21] ). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender). The only and main secondary source: Ansara, Y. Gavriel ; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies . SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN 978-1-5443-9381-0 . was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM ). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Sexuality and gender , and Social science . -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 16:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. All three of your claims prove inaccurate looking even just at the first source listed in the article. It's an encyclopedia article (not primary), it clearly and explicitly distinguishes cisgenderism from cisnormativity, and again, it's not primary. I also don't think your assessment of the sources that are journal articles is very accurate. Ansara and Hegarty (2012) I believe coined the term, so that one could arguably be considered primary in this context, but the rest are either wholly secondary (Lennon & Mistler, 2014), or contain significant secondary discussion on existing research on cisgenderism. WP:ROUTINE is a part of Wikipedia:Notability_(events) , which obviously does not apply to this article, and I really don't understand how you equate research with press releases or acquisition news or "fireman saves cat" news . -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 16:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You brought up what you consider an example of good source (2014 article), yet it is a study from the journal Transgender Studies Quarterly has an impact factor 0.68 and h-index of 8 ( https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100979259 ) both which are very low for the field of psychology. This goes in with this topic not being notable and just being a routine output of liberal arts researchers (which is a task they are required to do to stay financed, much like firemen are required to help rescue cats). Not mentioning that it is also WP:PRIMARY . That's why I think it should be deleted or merged to cisnormativity as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And journalists are required to write about the news, physicists are required to write about physics, and so on; should we also delete all articles that cite newspapers or physics journals? And by what criteria do you classify Lennon & Mistler (2014) as primary? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All the sourcing here does not fit WP:SCHOLARSHIP , in particular the points: Prefer secondary sources , Citation counts , Isolated studies and POV and peer review in journals . It is run-of-the mill research and does not support the existence of Cisgenderism as distinct from Cisnormativity . In addition, the first encyclopedia source you gave and the article is based upon was co-written by Ansara. Yet according to your comment, they have coined the term, so it cannot be considered independent from the subject. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You still haven't specified how Lennon & Mistler (2014) is a primary source. Rather, you add more arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Here are the citation counts for those sources I could find them for: Ansara (2015): 46 Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51 Rogers (2021): 17 Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162 By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology , one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [22] . You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality , Psychology of Women Section Review , Violence Against Women , Journal of Family Psychotherapy , Transgender Studies Quarterly , Australasian Journal on Ageing , and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 3/4 of those sources: Ansara (2015): 46 Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51 Rogers (2021): 17 Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162 are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science , in other words, fringe sources. The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states: Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174) This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as: In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996). So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like: Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"? This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a gish gallop . Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's also not accurate to say that cisgenderism is only discussed by a small circle of academics; searching for "cisgenderism" on EBSCOhost (available through the Wikipedia Library) turns up 278 results. I haven't surveyed them all yet; maybe I'll do so soon, but I think this shows that this is a pretty commonly used term. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 19:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Independent secondary sources like [23] either use it as a synonym of transphobia, or define it in a way that is indistinguishable with cisnormativity or trans erasure . So it just reads like a WP:DICDEF to me. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm talking about academic sources, not The Good Men Project®: The conversation no one else is having® . -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH ) 20:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes . In the list of vote types presented there, it states: " Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." — The Transhumanist 08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g. Sources discussing cisgenderism and cisnormativity Phipps, Catherine; Blackall, Christopher John (20 October 2023). " 'I wasn't allowed to join the boys': The ideology of cultural cisgenderism in a UK school". Pedagogy, Culture & Society . 31 (5): 1097–1114. doi : 10.1080/14681366.2021.2000012 . S2CID 243485358 . "Findings revealed that cultural cisgenderism and cisnormativity are embedded into the school culture, with gender structures evident in several areas, leading to trans marginalisation." (Abstract, T&F database via the WP Library) Martino, Wayne; Omercajic, Kenan; Kassen, Jenny (August 2022). " "We Have No 'Visibly' Trans Students in Our School": Educators' Perspectives on Transgender-Affirmative Policies in Schools" . Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education . 124 (8): 66–97. doi : 10.1177/01614681221121522 . ISSN 0161-4681 . S2CID 252099884 . (Open Access) "Phipps and Blackall (2021) draw attention to the need for policy enactment that interrogates the embeddedness of cisgenderism and cisnormativity in school culture, which, their research revealed, is at the heart of trans marginalization in the education system (see also Riggs & Bartholomaeus, 2018). " Martino, Wayne; Kassen, Jenny; Omercajic, Kenan (7 June 2022). "Supporting transgender students in schools: beyond an individualist approach to trans inclusion in the education system". Educational Review . 74 (4): 753–772. doi : 10.1080/00131911.2020.1829559 . S2CID 226323236 . (via the T&F database at the WP Library) "...the necessity of addressing the institutionalisation of cisgenderism and cisnormativity in the education system." SJ Dodd; Jama Shelton (2021). "Combatting Cisnormativity in Social Work Education, Research, and Practice". The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities . Routledge. doi : 10.4324/9780429342912-4 . ISBN 9780429342912 . S2CID 237866356 . "Social work institutions, often unthinkingly replicate cisnormativity, cissexism, cisgenderism, and anti-trans bias..." I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV ) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T. ; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey" . PLOS ONE . 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode : 2021PLoSO. .1653589R . doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0253589 . ISSN 1932-6203 . PMC 8294496 . PMID 34288911 . ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article , and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..." "I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV ) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously" You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity , which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV , does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts. Additional sources Lennon, Erica; Mistler, Brian J. (1 May 2014). "Cisgenderism" . TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly . 1 (1–2): 63–64. doi : 10.1215/23289252-2399623 . Shelton, Jama (1 December 2015). "Transgender youth homelessness: Understanding programmatic barriers through the lens of cisgenderism" . Children and Youth Services Review . 59 : 10–18. doi : 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.10.006 . ISSN 0190-7409 . "Lennon and Mistler (2014) define cisgenderism as “the cultural and systemic ideology that denies, denigrates, or pathologizes self-identified gender identities that do not align with assigned gender at birth as well as resulting behavior, expression, and community (p. 63).” Cisgenderism is an ideology that is prejudicial in nature; it others people labeled as transgender (Ansara & Hegarty, 2012)." Salerno, John P. (2023). "Impact of Racist Microaggressions and LGBTQ-Related Minority Stressors: Effects on Psychological Distress Among LGBTQ+ Young People of Color" . Preventing Chronic Disease . 20 . doi : 10.5888/pcd20.220371 . ISSN 1545-1151 . Zubizarreta, Dougie; Trinh, Mai-Han; Reisner, Sari L. (January 2024). "Quantitative approaches to measuring structural cisgenderism" . Social Science & Medicine . 340 : 116437. doi : 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116437 . Afroozeh, Mohammad Sadegh; Phipps, Catherine; Afrouzeh, Ali; Mehri, Ameneh; Alipour Asiri, Zahra (December 2023). " "The spectators ask, is it a boy or a girl? What is it?": Cultural cisgenderism and trans men's sporting experiences in Iran" . International Review for the Sociology of Sport . 58 (8): 1221–1240. doi : 10.1177/10126902231162270 . Ness, Cristalan (28 November 2023). "Dismantling structural and individual cisgenderism in Illinois libraries: a descriptive research study on cisnormativity, transprejudice and biases against transgender and nonbinary populations" . Reference Services Review . doi : 10.1108/RSR-03-2023-0031 . Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one). This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK , that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles" I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. ( t · c ) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans. It reads like a personal essay. D r e a m Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary . Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor . Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk ) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding. I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl , and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [24] [25] [26] My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [27] and [28] . Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia , not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX , but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Your answer does not cover: WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up. Example of WP:DICDEF . Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical) I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE. Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources. By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – cisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity , with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice . While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender . So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into. That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO : "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." And... "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." — The Transhumanist 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep ! vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that. Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [29] ; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [30] ; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [31] . If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [32] , just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [33] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [34] . I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all. The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE , which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist , not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD. WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author) , did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more. WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion. Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC . As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism , cisnormativity , and transphobia : it matches the relationship between heterosexism , heteronormativity , and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them) , this distinction is noted in other sources [35] [36] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism. [37] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk ) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcy isvery cute ( talk ) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk ) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Last1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG , that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks , and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article. — The Transhumanist 13:08, 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

History of Israel (1948–present): Recently, the page creator already tried to split the main article, but there was no consensus to do that, because there are already more than enough of WP:CFORK on this topic ( History of Israel , History of Palestine , History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel ). So he just went against the RfC results, anyway. Triggerhippie4 ( talk ) 08:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep: A bizarre request to delete an article that quite clearly deserves to exist. Most countries have an article for their history since their independence/contemporary-ear founding through to present, or some sort of other article focused specifically on their contemporary history, not least History of India (1947–present) , History of Pakistan (1947–present) , History of France (1900–present) , History of modern Greece , History of modern Egypt , History of modern Tunisia , History of modern Mongolia , History of modern Serbia , etc. This is due to the obvious interest to readers in specifically reading about a country's formation and/or contemporary history in its own right, as well as it being an obvious wiki platform-friendly point for the division of content. The content here is already at 70kB, which rather proves the point that it is a substantial body of content in its own right, and there is plenty more than can be expanded upon; it is possible that further child articles created from this content may also need to be created. The page has already drawn in additional material from other relevant child pages that the body of content would not have been able to absorb in its existing format as a sub-section of an already grossly overlength parent article. In the absence of a consensus in the aforementioned split discussion , the WP:SPLIT guideline notes: "Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split. " (my emphasis) - i.e.: exactly the situation we have here. This article has every right to exist, regardless of the material not yet being removed from parent article due to lack of agreement over how to deal with it. The page has already been edited by 6 other editors, none of whom have raised even a murmur of objection to its validity - a situation already constituting a significant WP:SILENTCONSENSUS on this. I, obviously, also do not agree with you. Other editors have already actively reverted your attempts to delete the page, another has stated "good article" , and yet another has posted on my talk to congratulate a job well done , so to say that you are already obviously in the minority on this is an understatement. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was all discussed at length in the RfC two months ago, and was agreed against to. So you just decided to ignore it? Triggerhippie4 ( talk ) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing was agreed. A discussion reached a no consensus, inconclusive outcome, and the means by which to best go about rationalizing History of Israel remains unresolved. It remains an issue. You are welcome to make further suggestions to that end. That does not preclude page creation elsewhere for reasons that quite obviously abide by WP:SUMMARY . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 10:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Israel . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep the is a DE nom. Nomination rationale is ridiculous and show no understanding of policy and guidelines. Triggerhippie4 behavior on the page that led to this nom need to be examined. // Timothy :: talk 09:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What "policy and guidelines" are you talking about? Triggerhippie4 ( talk ) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: As someone who voted against the split proposal in the past, now I see it's much better to have a more specialized article for post-1948 history, provided the original article on History of Israel also has some summarized content on this period, albeit in a reduced form. Plus this would solve the extra size issue in the larger article. For the record, History of Germany has far more than 140kb, but even in that case they made separate articles to deal with different periods specifically. Dovidroth ( talk ) 09:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - On WP:TOOLONG grounds if nothing else. FOARP ( talk ) 11:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not denying that the parent page is too long. A better way to deal with it would be shortening pre-1948 part there, so there would be no need to create this new article, otherwise History of Israel (1948–present) , History of Israel and History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel are WP:CFORKs . Triggerhippie4 ( talk ) 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothy has already explained WP:SUMMARY quite clearly on the child's talk page . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 12:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems an entirely sensible way to proceed in all the circumstances. Selfstudier ( talk ) 12:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I wanted to wait a bit to see the opinions of some of those who had participated in the previous split discussion. My initial reaction was that the article focusing on modern history of Israel post-Israeli Declaration of Independence should exist on its own, so I am glad to see a lot of other editors express the same sentiment. I think this is a good example of a logical split and it is clear the previous "no consensus" discussion was leaning toward some kind of solution, so to accuse the author (who has clearly put a lot of work into this page) of going against consensus does not seem very constructive. As for the nominator, I can't help but wonder why you are so determined to eliminate this article? You have not refined your argument since CSD request, which multiple editors having already objected to your line of reasoning on the talk page. To be honest, your actions are becoming disruptive and I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is the best route to follow. Ppt91 talk 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Keep There's enough here to support a separate article. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk ) 17:34, 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

Voorweg RandstadRail station: According to WP:V all unrefed claims can be deleted, which would mean deletion. Seems like there has been plenty of time to verify, now is time to WP:TNT until the page can be rewritten according to the policies of en.wiki JMWt ( talk ) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands . JMWt ( talk ) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The deletion rationale here is completely incorrect - an unsourced article can still be notable, and there's nothing in the article that is contentious per WP:V . Notability runs with the topic, not with the content on the page. I haven't been able to find anything which shows this is clearly notable yet, though, because of all the station spam you now get when you search - showing notability will likely involve the Dutch papers. SportingFlyer T · C 16:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I refer you to WP:V Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. and All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. JMWt ( talk ) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Having an unsourced article has never been a deletion rationale. You still have to make sure the topic is not notable. SportingFlyer T · C 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : nevermind the V criteria, this isn't a notable place. Not an historic structure, no coverage that I can find (only five hits in all of Gnews, only mentioning the place). Not even meeting GNG at this point. Oaktree b ( talk ) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I added references that show notability of the station and provide sources for the information provided. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ruud and the GNG. While this is currently a light rail station, it has mostly served as a railroad (i.e. heavy rail) station. In NL, these will be notable, unless only a stop. gidonb ( talk ) 05:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of the newly added sources show that the topic meets the WP:GNG , please? JMWt ( talk ) 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trouw is a reliable, independent source. I added an article in Zoetermeer Nieuws, a local paper. The other references are information sources. A challenge is to filter the large number of hits. The Google search "Voorweg" AND "Randstadrail" gives almost 5k hits, most of which are not very useful to show notability. The reason why I put up a fight for this one is that the article RandstadRail is considered of mid-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and the almost 100 related articles, mostly about its stations, are part of it. Delete one and you might as well delete 100. A lot of hard work has been put in these very informative articles. I´ll do my best to keep them. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion neither of those are in enough depth to meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk ) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, your opinion is clear and respectable. However, the relevant notability guideline is this one . The question is if enough attributable information exists to write a full and comprehensive article about the station. i believe so. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Actually the relevant standard for inclusion of all articles on en.wiki is the WP:GNG in particular WP:SIGCOV . The expectation generally is of WP:3REFS , which you clearly have not yet offered in this discussion. JMWt ( talk ) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic clearly meets the standard for inclusion you mention. I added another reference, this one from Omroep West . The guideline about stations is very useful. As @ Gidonb pointed out, Voorweg is a historic railway station and thus presumably notable. Lightrail stations, as Voorweg is at present, may merit a standalone article if enough attributable information exists. Even interesting quirk or odd bit of trivia may help to establish notability, according to the guideline. Deletion of an article about a station is not an option. I rest my case. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk ) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sourcing in the article is just there to get this across the line. SportingFlyer T · C 15:21, 16 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

Suppachai Srivijit: . Despite my search efforts, I was unable to locate substantial information. It is possible that there may be more coverage in Thai-language newspapers. I kindly request any editors from Thailand to provide sources that could assist in establishing the individual's notability. Based on the currently cited sources, it is evident that the individual falls significantly short of meeting the required notability standards. AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . AmusingWeasel ( talk ) 08:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Businesspeople , and Thailand . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Positioning Magazine [23] [24] and Manager [25] sources already present in the article at the start of this AfD should satisfy the GNG. Why do you think otherwise? In any case, there's also this appearance on the life documentary/talk show programme Kon Kon Kon in 2011. [26] While these sources are interview-based, they all include considerable in-depth introductions as assessed by the writers/hosts, given in their own words. -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Article title was misspelled. It has been moved to Suppachai Srivijit . -- Paul_012 ( talk ) 10:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Google news search of him [27] Those are considered reliable news sources recognized by Google (newspapers, magazines, TV channels). As you can see from the date of each news, he appear in news pretty much weekly or monthly, and this went far back for a decade or two. He is the top celeb agent in Thailand. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk ) 09:28, 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

Igbo-Igala Wars: Without the prior move to draft I would have draftified this as not ready, insufficient sourcing 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , History , Military , and Nigeria . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Keep I see there's nothing on the talk page. What was wrong with this article in the first place such that it was draftified? EDIT: Okay, I went in and formatted the references so we can see what we're dealing with. One book, one questionable source, but mostly serious journal articles. They looked paywalled, so I didn't try to get in there. Due to the vagueness of the titles, I'd have to read the whole article each time to find out if it supports the information cited, but if the claim is "there are no reliable sources," then we've dispelled it, and if it's "the sources are reliable but they don't support the material for which they're cited," then someone does have to go in and check. Has anyone done so already, maybe in the previous discussion in which the article was draftified? Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of these sources look like they could be there for decoration, but a two-second Google search did show that sources that address the topic directly do exist: [13] Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for helping me fix the formatting I appreciate it. Everything I added was cited and I asked the person who moved it to the draft to tell me what was wrong or how I should approach the problem of sources, clearly indicating that I would move it back if there was no response. The nairapen source was just to show that the community spoke an Igala dialect and was not used for any serious topic, if that is the decoration source you're referring to. Ddddemonstrate ( talk ) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's not what I was referring to. The Nairapen source was accessible. I recently edited an article in which there were lots of sources posted. One by one, I got the books out of the library and looked up the articles, and I found out that those books and articles did not say the things they were in the Wikipedia article to support. Either the information just wasn't in there or, in one case, the source said "that idea's not true/questionable." I say they were there for decoration because they made the article look credible, but they didn't actually provide support. Most of the sources in this article on the war are paywalled, which means it's hard for other Wikieditors to go in and confirm that they say what they say. Most Wikipedia articles have a mix of web-accessible and paywalled/paper sources. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] African history isn't that widely documented to where I can find articles that aren't on websites like JSTOR or other paywalled sources, which is why I got my sources from JSTOR. For the first source the first page is all you need as I couldn't access the full article either. For the JSTOR sources all you have to do is make an account and you can read about 100 articles a month, you shouldn't have to pay for them. Ddddemonstrate ( talk ) 01:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there are plenty of sources actually Ddddemonstrate ( talk ) 04:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Meet me on the article's talk page and we can discuss improvement further. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Need a better reason to draftify or delete. Srnec ( talk ) 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I fail to find any critical problems with this article. It needs improvement, but that used to be the Second Rule of Wikipedia. For that improvement, there seem to be a lot of perfectly respectable sources based on a cursory reading of a dozen synopses in gScholar. That said, the sourcing that already exists is acceptable for an article of this size and scope. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Even though this needs improvement, it is a pretty established article with several reliable sources. I do not see a good reason to delete it. HarukaAmaranth ( 話 ) 01:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Costa Mesa Police Department: GameOfAwesome ( talk ) 23:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Subject fails GNG and NCORP. All the source material I could find was ROUTINE (police activity in the news, complaints against the police), as this article relies on the subject's website. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is a major police department. It is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi ( talk • contribs ) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A search turned up a racial profiling incident ( here and here ) which seems to pass WP:ORGCRIT : A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In addition to those, we can also add this trivial mention . Putting aside for the moment all of the primary sources cited, we can also add to the above a few other references already present in the article, such as this (trivial) and this one that does go into some detail about statistics. Stony Brook babble 08:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I added text to the article (under History section) about the racial profiling incident. @ StonyBrook - thank you for the sources for that. Let's keep the article up. - Hannahthom7 ( talk ) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reasonably large police department and no rationale given for deletion in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:56, 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

Minister of Communications (India): Recommend that we Redirect to that article. - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 17:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Lists , and India . - MPGuy2824 ( talk ) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article is solely on the list of ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers who served in the Ministry which underwent various changes since 1947. While the article "Ministry of Communications (India)" is based on the structure of the ministry. I believe a separate page for the list of ministers is necessary. Such pages also exist for other ministerial lists, such as Minister of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare , Minister of Finance (India) , etc. -- Oritsu.me ( talk ) 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies WP:NLIST (eg BRICS Ministers of Communications annual meeting ; perfectly reasonable WP:OKFORK (far too much content to fit into the Ministry article itself); every single member is notable (noting also WP:LISTPURP-NAV ). Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment we need one article or the other. It looks like all the information about ministers is already included in the ministry article. This was a redirect until recently and I think the redirect should be restored. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The ministry article is about the whole ministry. This is a list of the ministers, all of whom are notable. This is a common split; see for example List of presidents of the United States . This article should probably be renamed to something along the lines of List of ministers of communication of India , à la List of ministers of defence of the Netherlands . Curbon7 ( talk ) 01:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is the article mentioning list of ministers and it should be their because other articles like Minister of Railways is having this type of article. Ankur0745 ( talk ) 07:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice: Tagged for notability since 2011 Donald D23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Discrimination , and United Kingdom . Donald D23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2 sources currently in the article (1-2 paragraphs in independent books), And also: The Times ( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wednesdays-tv-beauty-and-the-beast-ugly-face-of-prejudice-vx8zdd587p9 ), The Trinidad Guardian ( https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2.427232.4d2a20d4cf ), The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/jul/09/line-of-duty-twenty-twelve ), and The Telegraph . I say: Keep . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Mushy Yank in The Times , The Guardian , and The Daily Telegraph . There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of new sources cited here. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:38, 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

Panama Canal fence: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous ( talk • contribs ) (above text rescued from the edit summary of creation , after Allan Nonymous confirmed they intended to go through with the nomination . The seven-day countdown starts now.) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Panama and United States of America . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : the article appears well sourced and well documented, even if the importance of the fence may be not even remotely compared to the Berlin Wall (although such a comparison is understandable at the local level), I think the article as it is is fine. I don't see why the information presented here also shouldn't be added to the other articles without needing to delete this one. -- Dynamo128 ( talk ) 20:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- The sources already in the article establish notability. Central and Adams ( talk ) 21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Radix economy: This leads to the assumption that the leading digit can be 0, which is not typical for human use as the leading digit normally contains less information than the other digits, and results in the conclusion that base e (or in a simplified view, base 3, ternary) has the lowest radix economy. If this issue is corrected, the function decreases instead of having a minimum at e , and the lowest radix economy for human use instead goes to base 2, binary. Fixing this correction would require a fundamental rewrite to the article. Additionally, the article relies heavily on a single source, with 4 of the 6 citations being from the same book, and it's likely that the sources used in the article repeat the aforementioned error. Zenphia1 ( talk ) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The deletion rationale in the nomination sounds like OR — saying that the definition in the article is incorrect and so the article ought to be junked. But if the sources define the concept that way, that's the way it's defined, regardless of whether it's right or wrong for a particular application. And the question of what is "typical for human use" is beside the point if, as appears to be the case, the concept originated in electronic computers, where the leading digit has to be stored even if it is 0. That said, the term radix economy may itself be a mild case of OR. The book from 1950 uses phrases like "The economy to be gained by choice of radix", but not radix economy specifically (AFAICT). The sources that come up in Google Scholar are more recent than the creation of this article; they seem to start around 2012, when the article had been around for six years already and looked like this . XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep WP:SK3 , invalid nomination. The nomination statement makes no effort to address the notability of the topic. Nothing in our article is incorrect; as the article itself says, it is "one of various proposals that have been made to quantify the relative costs of using different radices". The nomination appears to amount to the nominator preferring a different formula. That different formula should go on a different article (and it does, Entropy (information theory) ). The preference for which formula to use is irrelevant to whether any particular formula is notable. This one is, with in-depth sourcing in the American Scientist article (which by the way includes some justification for why this formula might be a good choice in some circumstances). The ternary tree source is not so much about this specific formula but also provides a valid justification for this formula (via the fact that for certain tree operations, multiplication by the base and not its logarithm is the correct complexity analysis). More in-depth sourcing (enough to pass GNG together with the American Scientist source) can be found e.g. at Kak, Subhash C. (2021), "The base-e representation of numbers and the power law", Circuits Syst. Signal Process. , 40 (1): 490–500, doi : 10.1007/S00034-020-01480-0 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep No valid reason to delete, nomination is almost entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced, so WP:SK3 applies. The article might have to be renamed and cleaned up if the specific term isn't attested prior to the article creation, but that's a different discussion . XOR'easter ( talk ) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Addin Tyldesley: The majority of the sources are mere passing mentions or statistics tables, and the bulk of the prose is simply statistics that have been written out as sentences. The Olympedia source is the most in-depth coverage that we have, but its own sourcing is unclear and in any case it's insufficient to establish notability on its own. – dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sportspeople , and Olympics . – dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question The Olympedia piece strikes me as having enough depth to be WP:SIGCOV . Is it considered a reliable source? Cbl62 ( talk ) 15:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd say yes. It gets its information from the same place as Sports-Reference used to get their Olympian data and according to Slate editing is "restricted to about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not too concerned about Olympedia's reliability, but we do generally expect multiple SIGCOV sources to meet GNG. – dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On balance I'd say there's a strong argument to keep here, based on existing sourcing and I think it's fair to say that there will be further sources in suitable paper-based newspaper archives. The breadth of sources here is beginning to paint an in-depth picture. So on balance I think we're probably fine keeping here. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agree with Blue Square Thing. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - 20+ sources for a swimmer from the late 1800's and early 1900's is easily WP:SIGCOV . There's also this - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zuZ0CjQRauw/UG9WB1ROagI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/jdo17iJLVaM/s1600/Addin_Tyldesley.jpg from http://www.tyldesley.co.uk/2012/09/ , though it doesn't say when it was published so I didn't use it. I also do expect more to be out there given how much he was covered in the few resources we have. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a primary, non-independent wedding announcement.... JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay - No, not that. This - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zuZ0CjQRauw/UG9WB1ROagI/AAAAAAAAA2Q/jdo17iJLVaM/s1600/Addin_Tyldesley.jpg KatoKungLee ( talk ) 03:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nice article. Could be used if necessary with something like "unknown newspaper" as the credit. This firms up my suggestion of keep above but also suggests very, very strongly to me that when there's a half decent bit of biography in Olympia (a paragraph or two that go beyond sporting stuff) that there's almost certainly going to be further coverage to the extent that we can craft an article worth keeping. Blue Square Thing ( talk ) 20:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per analysis by Blue Square Thing and SIGCOV found by KatoKungLee. JoelleJay's characterization of this as non-independent and primary is unequivocally wrong. Frank Anchor 15:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Informative article Paradise Chronicle ( talk ) 06:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the references exist. The person is notable. Lightburst ( talk ) 19:33, 21 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

Dime Store Magic: No non-independent sources, with the exception of a WP:SPS review. Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . For novels like this, it's simplest to check on ISFDB. This one has been reviewed in Vector #235 and Strange Horizons (11 Oct 2004) . It was also briefly reviewed on Tor.com and analyzed in The Canadian Fantastic in Focus: New Perspectives . pburka ( talk ) 14:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources The sources found in pburka ( talk · contribs )'s excellent research. Chin, Kristin L. (2004-05-21). "Book reviews for May 20: SF/Fantasy: "The Child Goddess," Louis Marley; "Monument," Ian Graham; "'Dime Store Magic," Kelley Armstrong; "The Lion of Senet," "Eye of the Labyrinth," Jennifer Fallon" . Davis Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: "Armstrong's novel suffers from an all-too-common problem: lack of focus. The author couldn't decide on a drama or a comedy. Some lines are genuinely laugh-out-loud funny, and they're intercut with moments of sickening horror. Both work in and of themselves, but they clash in the same single narrative: two distinctly different styles, as opposed to random sentences that happen to sound a bit different from the novel's main tone. ... Had all the characters been well conceived, or had the tone leaned more toward being exclusively comic or tragic, "Dime Store Magic" would have squeaked by with a good rating. As it is, the novel is marginally below average, and therefore mostly for fans of witchcraft tales." Folsom, Robert (2004-05-16). "High-flying terror in the unfriendly skies" . The Kansas City Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: "A writer who is doing better is Kelley Armstrong. Dime Store Magic (414 pages; Bantam Spectra; $6.99 paperback) furthers Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld series. Following Bitten and Stolen, Dime Store Magic reintroduces Paige Winterbourne to readers. Paige is now eligible to succeed her mother as the leader of the American Coven of Witches, but not if her enemies can get her out of the way. Armstrong has improved at incorporating themes of magic with elements of supernatural sensuality." Lypchuk, Donna (February 2004). "Dime Store Magic" . Quill & Quire . Vol.  70, no. 2. pp. 33–34. EBSCO host 69194850 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: "Despite these well-worn themes and sometimes trite characters, Armstrong manages to forge an intimate relationship between the reader and Paige, who comes across as a likeable, contemporary gal. It might be most correct to describe Dime Store Magic as chick lit masquerading as a novel of supernatural fiction." Dutton, Renee (2004-06-20). "Fantasy has many forms and facets" . Times Colonist . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: " Dime Store Magic portrays witches with endearingly human traits. It's refreshing to come across a writer in this genre whose characters struggle with real life problems as well as magical ones, concerned with such mundanities as laundry and homework. Fans of Armstrong's previous novels, Bitten and Stolen , will likely enjoy Dime Store Magic . Although the third novel in the Women of the Otherworld series, Dime Store Magic can stand on its own. Those unfamiliar with the series would be well advised to keep Dime Store Magic in mind. It is a light, entertaining read." Freeman, Dawna (2004-02-22). "Witches, demons brew up some fun" . Edmonton Journal . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "Armstrong's novel moves at neck-breaking speed to a spellbinding conclusion as witches, sorcerers and a spiteful half-demon take this custody case into their own hands. Readers who enjoy the genre will find this a light thriller with little character development, a decent smattering of supernatural lore and plenty of dime store magic." Davidson, Don (2006-03-10). "Mystery and adventure books with a supernatural twist" . Whitehorse Daily Star . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "There are fights, car chases, romance and lots of tension of all kinds. The book was a bit of fun, for all that it did remind me a lot of an episode of Charmed ." Sasvari, Joanne (2004-03-27). "Art from the dark part of the heart" . Calgary Herald . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via Newspapers.com . The review notes: "Kelley Armstrong must have decided one day to throw every genre she could imagine — mystery, horror, supernatural thriller, romance and chick-lit — into her writerly cauldron. What she conjured up is the hilariously hip Women of the Underworld series." "Dime Store Magic" . Publishers Weekly . Vol.  255, no. 34. 2008-08-25. p. 68. EBSCO host 35371572 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The audiobook review notes: "Luckily, Laural Merlington is well versed in Armstrong’s style of writing and breathes freshness into this story. Her reading is entertaining and uncomplicated, making this otherworldly tale believable." "Dime Store Magic" . Publishers Weekly . Vol.  251, no. 13. 2004-03-29. p. 44. EBSCO host 12682604 . Archived from the original on 2023-05-28 . Retrieved 2023-05-28 . The review notes: "As in Armstrong's debut novel Bitten , this story's special strength lies in its seamless incorporation of the supernatural into the real world. A convincing small-town setting, clever contemporary dialogue, compelling characterizations and a touch of cool humor make the tale's occasional vivid violence palatable and its fantasy elements both gripping and believable." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dime Store Magic to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As per Cunard's sources found. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:50, 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

Callum Voisin: The GB3 Championship that he won is an amateur series, and as such is not professional. The F3 Championship is a semi-pro series and as such is also not fully professional. Most sources are promotional, others are passing mentions of where he placed in a given race. 2A01:36D:1200:4672:5406:9F58:AF4A:C4BC ( talk ) 14:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note : I have fixed some malformed aspects of the formatting of the nomination. No opinion or further comment at this time. WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Motorsport , Switzerland , and United Kingdom . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Appears to meet WP:GNG . The fact that the subject is a teenager and has not run in a "fully professional" series does not matter. glman ( talk ) 20:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Not seeing evidence of the WP:GNG being met. What coverage there is in independent reliable sources seems to be either WP:ROUTINE or not substantial enough to be significant (ie. this Autosport article has only a short paragraph on the subject). The subject is still only seventeen years old so WP:BLP concerns are greater than usual (what with the potential for a Wikipedia article becoming a vector for school bullying or the like). If someone can show evidence of more substantial coverage that my WP:BEFORE search has missed I may change my opinion. If the subject achieves success in FIA Formula Three then it's possible the WP:GNG may be met in the coming year. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - The sources found by User:MSport1005 show that the article's subject is more notable than I initially believed. However, I remain unconvinced that the subject is currently notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT (winning the 2023 GB3 Championship ), so my vote will remain to draftify for the time being. The subject has a lot of WP:POTENTIAL to become notable in the near future but I still believe it to be WP:TOOSOON to make an article in mainspace. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 22:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per HBP5, and as he will likely (but not certainly— WP:CRYSTALBALL ) achieve GNG in the next year, it seems the best course from a WP:NOTBURO point of view. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Firstly I'd like to note this article's 1st nomination , a year ago, resulted in keep. Sourcing within the article is poor but enough WP:SIGCOV exists online. Nominator is wrong in calling GB3 an amateur series – it's a third-tier junior single-seater series and the successor to British F3. Apart from winning this, Voisin was also recently a finalist in the prestigious Autosport BRDC Award in 2023 and is moving up to FIA F3 in 2024. While none of this ticks WP:NSPORT , coverage exists and WP:POTENTIAL is high, so I'm leaning towards keep. MSport1005 ( talk ) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify . Two sentences in a listicle with 9 other young racers is not SIGCOV. Routine transactional announcements and event recaps on Formula Scout et al are not SIGCOV either. Much of the transactional content on these sites is regurgitated by semi-anonymous/pseudonymous contributors from press releases from places like Edge Sporting Management anyway. I'm doubtful there'll be more coverage in the next six months, but I guess we can wait and see. JoelleJay ( talk ) 05:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two sentences in a listicle with 9 other young racers is not SIGCOV. Routine transactional announcements and event recaps on Formula Scout et al are not SIGCOV either. — Our job is to find sources, not to decide on the ones already listed in the article. This is categorically an improper application of the guideline. MSport1005 ( talk ) 11:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Our job is to evaluate any sources that have been found . No one has provided additional sources that contain IRS SIGCOV, and nothing beyond routine and passing mentions showed up in my own search. NSPORT requires the subject meet GNG and that a GNG-qualifying source be identified for an article to be kept. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – This article has previously been kept in such a discussion (see 1st nomination ), not to mention that Voisin's WP:POTENTIAL has increased as he won GB3 and has progressed into Formula 3 for 2024. KVYTICAL ( talk ) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] GB3 is not a professional series. A couple years back, an AFD was held for a singer who was announced to be participating in Eurovision and his page was draftified (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Cooper ). I believe that Callum Voisin's page should be draftified for now; should he perform well in Formula Three (which again is not a professional but rather a semi-pro series), he will likely be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, for now, he's just one of many teenage racing drivers. - 2A01:36D:1200:4672:44C3:46D:541B:FBBF ( talk ) 12:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - There is no reason to delete this page, considering what happened in the 1st nomination and the fact that since that, Voisin has been crowned GB3 champion (which isn't an amateur series). Article's WP:Potential is fairly high considering his recent success and F3 drive for this year. Road Atlanta Turn 5 ( talk ) 14:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Voisin is a GB3 Champion and 4 out of 5 champions go on to FIA Formula 3 , there are little to none amateur drivers so stop waffling mate. Formula 4 drivers get Wikipedia articles and Voisin has been announced for Formula 3 which is on the FIA Global Pathway . Zak O'Sullivan , the 2021 GB3 Championship winner, is a member of the Williams Driver Academy and is onto Formula 2 in 2024, Luke Browning the 2022 champion is apart of Williams Driver Academy and is a podium sitter in Formula 3 . BurningBlaze05 ] ( talk ) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - GB3 is a series that is well established within the alternate FIA pathway at around Formula Regional level. Therefore, someone calling it an amateur series is showing the whole motorsport community that they don't have the slightest idea on how the motorsport feeder series work. Therefore, its current champion who is also stepping up to FIA F3 cannot be considered as a "run of the mill" driver and is noticeable enough to be warranted inclusion in Wikipedia. Sjælefred Herm ( talk ) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the above keep ! votes have any P&G basis. It is irrelevant whether he raced amateur or pro because our notability guidelines require SIGCOV IRS sources for all sportspeople and so far none have been identified. JoelleJay ( talk ) 19:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Please remember that polling is not a substitute for consensus . There still hasn't been any demonstration of WP:GNG being met or addressing of the WP:BLP concerns around the creation of articles about dubiously noteworthy WP:MINORS . A sportsperson being a professional or an amateur has little-to-no bearing on any of this. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 01:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Voisin won't be a minor by the time he makes his F3 debut – I don't see the concern in an article that purely focuses on his racing career and not his personal life – and the GB3 title, AMABA finals appearance and F3 seat make him (at the very least) not WP:ROTM . He's certainly more notable than the likes of Kean Nakamura-Berta , René Lammers , William Macintyre , Rashid Al Dhaheri or Tiago Rodrigues , whose pages keep getting created – I had to draftify them all yesterday myself because nobody acts against them. MSport1005 ( talk ) 02:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please, kindly stick to wiki etiquette and don't try to influence the flow of the discussion by discrediting everyone (" none of the above keep !votes [...] ") who disagreed with you. The arguments go far deeper than " whether he raced amateur or pro ". As stated (both above and in last year's nomination ) a WP:BEFORE search yields enough non- routine SIGCOV – [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] to name a few. And the subject is unequivocally more notable (or bears more WP:POTENTIAL ) now than he was then. MSport1005 ( talk ) 02:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for providing those links. Search engines seem to be barely functional these days so it's really appreciated. The Autosport article counts towards WP:GNG although I'm less sure of the other examples. Formula Scout is a somewhat marginal source (I am unsure if it falls under WP:SPS ) and I lack any familiarity with the other two. Regardless, I think on ethical grounds a high bar needs to be set with articles about young people who have not attracted much in the way of mainstream media coverage. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 02:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite ( talk ) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is divided between those arguing Draftify and those who desire to Keep this a main space article. Since the dispute is over whether articles sources supply GNG and SIGCOV, a source analysis table would be useful in any one is interested in compiling one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per MSport1005 citations. I am not sure why this keeps getting relitigated when it already passed one add and the above discussion seems pretty clearly to have resulted in anothe keep. 108.41.198.35 ( talk ) 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good citations; notable athlete. Llajwa ( talk ) 15:59, 25 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

Tiffany Smith: Endrabcwizart ( talk ) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as actor has been involved in a significant number of roles and major television, film, video games productions over the past decade. Why is article marked for deletion? He-guy ( talk ) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women , and California . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep on the strength of a title role in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal , which yielded some coverage, and voicework for notable animated characters. BD2412 T 01:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Admittedly not super-notable, but seems to be enough to stick. -- Milowent • has spoken 17:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Diana Barrett: Person does not meet WP:GNG as their is a lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject significantly covering her biography. No comment on whether or not her fund is notable. – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As a quick response, to quote my WP:ES opposing the PROD: Person is highlighted as "Five Fascinating Philanthropists" by Barron's. That's a direct claim. President and founder of an organization that has ref to support its own potential notability is a direct claim, though not as strong. So *at least* either the person or org merit an article, and she seems stronger. That Barron's link has already been in the article, no idea why Muboshgu isn't accepting it as a GNG ref. DMacks ( talk ) 20:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I accept that one article in Barron's can contribute to GNG (though you didn't provide the url so I can't see how in-depth it goes), but one article alone does not establish it. This source doesn't mention the subject of the article. Nor does this . This one and this one are not independent of the subject. My WP:BEFORE found nothing else. So where's the significant coverage in multiple independent sources? – Muboshgu ( talk ) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a founder/major player in an organization can help support notability even if not itself and alone sufficient depending on the organization. Alternately, a not-quite-notable person with that role would generally be merged with the organization's article (the parent from which notability was not inherited). So please read carefully my comment about how "person and organiztation" at least seem to merit an article for one of them and why there is a key ref for the organizgation that doesn't specifically mention the person. DMacks ( talk ) 22:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Prior to your deletion-nomination, I had added a ref about an award she had won. While I did not at the time emphasize the award (I instead was using it as a ref for some bio details), it would seem that's another GNG ref you might have overlooked. DMacks ( talk ) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:BASIC . See: this 1975 profile in the Boston Globe ( "Boss woman—with few rules" ) a few paragraphs in this 1973 article, also in the Globe ( "A woman's place can be in business" ) several paragraphs of biographical information in this 1998 profile of her husband in a widely syndicated piece from the Globe ( "Deconstructing Bob Vila" ) this article about her and her fund in the Palm Beach Daily News ( Fund aims 'to connect audiences to action' ) pburka ( talk ) 21:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:BASIC per DMacks and Pburka. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw based on WP:HEY and WP:SNOW . – Muboshgu ( talk ) 02:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appears to pass WP:BIO KylieTastic ( talk ) 15:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Horace Greasley: I also think it fails on WP:V and WP:RS (I can find no reliable secondary sources confirming claims). The article is based on a memoir by an individual who claimed that he was the soldier in a specific picture with Heinrich Himmler and that he escaped 200 times from a German POW camp. These claims have been proven to be false in non-deprecated sources (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/historians-debunk-claims-of-200-escapes-in-memoir-of-pow-horace-greasley-bxr8fp7mn ). Claims proven to be false can be notable because of wider ramifications; in this case there are no such wider ramifications and so the notability claim is based solely on the existence and legitimacy of the claims. The claims have been shown to be false, and since the proof of falsity is not of itself notable to WP:GNG standards, the article fails WP:Notability (and the other policies referred to above) and should be deleted. Emmentalist ( talk ) 14:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military . CycloneYoris talk! 02:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I'm not sure if this meets notability guidelines, but I do want to note, his claims being false and that being pointed out in WP:RS may be a sign of notability and that the article needs re-writing to meet guidelines like WP:V instead of deletion. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Full obituary in a major national newspaper. We have always considered this is sufficient to meet notability requirements. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A notable fantasist. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I added a reference to The Times article questioning the autobiography. For "notable hoax", see WP:NHOAX ("for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years"). The book was a bestseller which suggests it was "believed by thousands". 68.189.242.116 ( talk ) 20:14, 17 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

Joasia Zakrzewski: Only other coverage of her seems to be [4] , but that's basically a WP:SPS , since she's clearly submitted the information for the article herself. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : Is there some list of cheating in sports (or in running sports in particular) that a WP:SUMMARY of this could be merged into? This subject doesn't seem notable enough for a stand-alone article. The coverage is about the cheating incident, not the person per se , so this seems to be a typical case of building an article about a non-notable person out of a single passing news event largely of localized or micro-topical interest (i.e., probalby fails WP:BLP1E ). The cheating event itself probably passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE , for inclusion somewhere, since it did generate some independent press, but this doesn't seems to be a stand-alone article topic, especially not a biography of a living person. I am leaning toward delete if there's not a list article to merge a concise entry into. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She has held, albeit briefly, the international record for distance run in 48 hours - see https://www.irunfar.com/history-of-the-womens-and-mens-48-hour-world-running-records and https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a43418171/camille-herron-shatters-48-hour-world-record/ . Pam D 23:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And found several more sources under "Joanna", and various records broken. Pam D 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete or redirect . WP:ONEVENT IMHO. Redirecting to a list of record holders and/or article about cheating that mentions her might be better, with the list making more sense IMHO. PS. Sidenote. Is her first name legally "Joasia"? In Polish it is a diminutive of Joanna. Some sources use that name instead [5] , [6] . If kept, this may need to be renamed to Joanna Zakrzewski , as Joasia may be her nickname, not proper first name. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article needn't be at her official name, but at the name by which she is most commonly known. But thanks for the info about the other name, as it finds more sources about her. Pam D 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there's enough here unrelated to the event that this doesn't fall under one event IMO. Garuda3 ( talk ) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability has been demonstrated well by PamD. -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep recent contributions have demonstrated notability microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 21:43, 7 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

Mayang Sari Beach Resort: Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep ( talk ) 08:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , no independent source provided. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Pulling out my ! vote because WP:HEY . I have no opinion now. Neocorelight ( Talk ) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 13:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] v t e Hotels and resorts in Bintan Nikoi Island Banyan Tree Bintan Club Med Ria Bintan Angsana Resort & Spa Loola Adventure Resort Mayang Sari Beach Resort Comfort Hotel & Resort Tanjung Pinang Hotel Sadaap Hotel Laguna Hotels portal Keep . I pumped the article up a bit. There are plenty of sources, including various books, unfortunately mostly just in snippet view. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable beach resort...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Argja Bóltfelag: Boleyn ( talk ) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , long and well-covered history, [4] and countless other sources. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , Denmark , and Islands . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Long history, indeed; and it has been a first-division club in the Faroe Islands, whether or not it is semi-pro and fully professional is immaterial, as very, very few clubs in the Faroese system are fully professional. Anwegmann ( talk ) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No Faroese teams are fully professional, KÍ had 5 full-time players last season. As you say, though, the pro status is not the deciding factor when it comes to the clubs' respective cultural relevance within their country. It is however an unfortunate trend in Wikipedia to add the moniker "professional" to players and clubs to make them seem more important. The other day, I removed "professional" from a club in the El Salvador third division. It was obviously not true, and even when it is, a club only has one or very few teams that are professional when the rest (age-specific) are not. Geschichte ( talk ) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - top-level team, clearly notable. The fact it is semi-pro is totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per @ Geschichte . Svartner ( talk ) 14:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Weinstein effect: However, a lot of the content in this article feels like it would make more sense as part of articles on #MeToo, and would improve those articles and provide context. I feel this article doesn't really have a reason to stand on it's own, especially since the "Weinstein effect" isn't really a well defined term even in this article and has had limited usage. Hence, I think it may make more sense to merge this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeToo_movement . (This is my second AfD nomination, I hope I'm doing this right). Update: I took a look at the previous AfD discussion, with over seven years since the last nomination, it seems that time has made this a case of WP: NEO . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Film , and Sexuality and gender . Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gonna be bold here: Snow close. The articles in question, Weinstein effect and MeToo movement should be edited appropriately, nothing to delete here. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Using AfD to propose a merge and redirect like this isn't particularly abnormal (the merge proposal process, which would be the alternative, is seen as largely broken). The nominator made an argument that can be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE , so I don't see a need for a snow close. Sdkb talk 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can't disagree on your view. There obviously are alternative ways of dealing with a problem like the issue at hand, I for one would rather get in touch with significant contributors and seek an opinion. However, if it's the D in Af D that's the case here, and concerning the D I do see a close (okay maybe not necessarily a snow but it felt like a snow moment at first instinct) because there's other things to consider here . -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep if not snowball , the article is about an event that is still remembered to this day by regular people and has tons of reliable sources on it. Jeanette the Porn Chat Star Martin ( aqui ) 05:53, 21 March, 2024 (UTC) Speedy keep I agree with the comments of User:JeanetteMartin above, and with the result of the first afd . While some some cleanup of the article may be in order, I can see no compelling reason for deletion or merging. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first AfD was no closed with no prejudice against a merger. And "no compelling reason" isn't a rebuttal to the argument that the OP made. That argument is about scope , so to refute it you need to show that the two pages have sufficiently different scopes that it makes sense to present them separately. As a closer, I would discount the tons of reliable sources comments, which would speak to a notability challenge not being made here. For the folks in the back: Notability is not the only reason that a page can be unsuitable . I'm disappointed with the quality of the discussion so far. Sdkb talk 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to second the argument here, this isn't a notability discussion, this is about whether the information in the article overlaps with already written content on Wikipedia. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : A well-referenced article for a concept that continues to have impact. Toughpigs ( talk ) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article describes it a Weinstein Effect as "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," then proceeds to list only one example (the #MeToo movement), it should either be completely reworked to talk about other examples that do not follow from or are adjacent to #MeToo, or it should be merged with the article about the #MeToo if it is just another name for the movement. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 23:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The term is covered in USA Today, CBS News and others. Perfectstrangerz ( talk ) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but in the context of the #MeToo movement, not really outside of it. This article frankly needs to be more clear on what it is. Is it "fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal"? Or is it "the social repercussions of movements that expose powerful people (only in cases of sexual harassment? not cases of sexual harassment?)"? Or is it just "a part of the #MeToo movement"? Frankly, some of these provide cases for keeping the article, which is fine, but in that case, we better make it very clear what the article is about. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That comment makes for a very confusing rationale for deletion. It seems like you're arguing for a merge with MeToo movement (or possibly several related pages, per your original statement), but you've also suggested that you're not sure whether it entirely overlaps with MeToo. I would suggest that an Articles for Deletion discussion is not the best format to make this determination. This is a problem that can only be solved by careful analysis and thoughtful editing, and you are apparently the person who's most invested in figuring it out. AfD participants are going to treat this like an AfD nomination. You're posing a more complex question, which is probably best explored as a bold merge attempt. Toughpigs ( talk ) 04:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest, the reason I made the request is because I felt that deleting the article (and transferring some of its content) would be the cleanest solution, (and my preferred solution). I'm not good at merge attempts, but if you think that would be a better approach, feel free to make one! I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Allan Nonymous I don't want to criticise You here, after all we're all learning as we go, but bringing the article to the deletion pages seems like you needed a forum for comment on what to do with the articles. There should be another way to seek comments on articles on WP, but I don't know if there is one. Maybe contacting relevant wikiprojects or significant contributors? @ Toughpigs my thoughts exactly. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge content into the #MeToo article and Harvey Weinstein BLP. As Allan Nonymous said, the first line of the article title, that the Weinstein Effect is "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," isn't well supported. Describing it as a global trend known by that name that persists into the present doesn't seem accurate. #MeToo captures it better.-- FeralOink ( talk ) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , more so as of today than ever. Since this was nominated, this has been in the news overnight in connection with P. Diddy's absconding from the Federal (United States) authorities. It's as if it's an ongoing event with a long legacy. Oh wait . ... See WP:BEFORE . Bearian ( talk ) 15:47, 26 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

Garett Nolan: No new sources have been added since article was tagged two years ago. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Military , Cycling , Internet , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep Coverage in the various entertainment tv shows and magazines. This is a RS [84] . This [85] . On the whole, seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for sufficient sourcing and coverage. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Although sources in the article might not be adequate, sufficient SIGCOV can be found online. It would help if the nom could add new sources instead of nominating this for deletion without doing a BEFORE . Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Michael Sarver: Seriously, look at them. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Louisiana . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The 3 (!) AfDs in 2009 all seemed to be based on WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy, and it's pretty clear now that this person isn't notable. Fails WP:BLP1E , having done not much of not after American Idol, and all of the sources fail WP:SIGCOV in one way or another. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This Person Has Significant Coverage PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : SIGCOV exists establishing this persons notability under GNG. Notability is not temporary Futile nominations where a significant amount of referenced coverage exists should be avoided. In particular the York Dispatch, USA today, and Associated Press articles grant specific attention to this subject. Please refrain from these kinds of nominations. Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Jack4576 : Rather than making pointless keep votes, could you please actually read the links and comment based on policy? The AP link doesn't work, and the other two are largely composed of interviews, which fail WP:SIGCOV . I would also request that you read some of the other comments that I have left regarding your votes. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I had already opened and read the USA Today link, and the York Dispatch link prior to my vote. The AP link I was able to retrieve at this archive. The York Dispatch article is not in any sense an interview . Did you bother to open it yourself before writing the above ? Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comment that the articles: "grant specific attention to this subject" is a topic that directly engages with policy, as it is part of the reason that I think it is fair to assess that these articles as collectively amounting to significant coverage. How could I have made myself more clear ? Jack4576 ( talk ) 06:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AP link is now working for me, and that's definitely mainly interview, and the York Dispatch source, although definitely not an interview, (not sure why I wrote that?) is quite short and promotional in tone, not saying much besides where you can listen to a song, what it's for, and a list of other people. However, I'm willing to change my vote to Keep due to the archived sources that Cunard found. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete I've looked at the sourcing, the York Dispatch is ok, rather small. USA Today seems fine-ish. I'd prefer one better source and two iffy ones. Still a delete. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Guerra, Joey (2009-12-12). "Roughneck-turned-musician releases single" . Houston Chronicle . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "The former oil-rig roughneck from Jasper finished 10th earlier this year on American Idol, good enough for a spot on the summer tour but not exactly a breeding ground for long-term careers. ... Sarver got a big leg up this week with the release of You Are. He wrote the feel-good country ballad, and it's a preview of his forthcoming debut album, set for a spring 2010 release via Dream Records/Universal. The song was issued simultaneously Tuesday with uptempo B-side Cinderella Girl. Sarver is the only contestant outside season eight's top four to currently have original music available. ... Musically, Sarver's pair of songs stick closely to the confines of modern country: soaring, sentimental and slick. Rascal Flatts with more soulful vocals. A kinder, gentler Keith Urban. And neither song would sound out of place on a Carrie Underwood album." Kragen, Pam (2009-07-20). "Idol chatter: Five American Idols open up about life on the road" . The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "Big, ebullient and courteous, Michael Sarver is a man with a lotto say. The 28-year-old Texan puts many of those thoughts into hissongs -- 902 at last count, and of those, 23 chronicle his journeysince his “American Idol” audition -- but on this afternoon hewants to talk about Lambert. Sarver’s a strong Christian (his tour costume is a white coat with large cross insignia over his heart) with conservative views and he’s taken some heat for anti-gay comments he’s made in thepast. But Sarver wants fans to know that spending the past few months rehearsing and touring with the openly gay Lambert has changed him. ... The former oil rig worker is a married father of two, and talking about his far-away family is usually too difficult for him." McGrath, Kristin (2010-03-12). "Season 8 Where Are They Now? Michael Sarver" . USA Today . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "For Michael Sarver, turning a 10th-place finish into a record deal (he signed with Dream Records/Universal Music Group in December) boils down to one thing: hard work. ... Sarver, 29, will be releasing a country album (which he is recording in L.A. and Nashville) in spring or summer. The lead single, You Are, is available on iTunes, and next single Ferris Wheel is out April 27." Peveto, Kyle (2010-07-25). "Homegrown talent - 'American Idol' finalist gives SE Texas first listen of debut" . The Beaumont Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "Sarver worked up his hometown, working man appeal throughout the free concert and autograph session Saturday afternoon. Backed by a full band with three guitarists and two backup singers, he appeared on stage wearing a plaid shirt and mesh gimme cap. His opening song from his new album, "Watch Me," is told from the perspective of a small town guy whose "dreams stretch far beyond the county line. " Born in 1981 in Sulphur La., Sarver married Southeast Texas native Tiffany Smith six years ago and settled in Jasper. Sarver's self-titled album from Dream Records comes out Tuesday, but he had 400 to sell to fans at Saturday's appearance." Moore, Sarah (2013-05-16). " 'Idol' alum Sarver confident Kree will win" . The Beaumont Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "Besides the bond Sarver has with Harrison as a former American Idol contestant - a bond he says all the contestants share - the two met years before either of their careers began, when coincidence or fate brought Sarver to Harrison's parents' Jasper-area home to lay carpet. ... Sarver put out a record under contract with Universal on the basis of his own American Idol performances and now is working on a second, independent album, with all of his own songs." Rueda, Lluvia (2009-02-20). "Sarver's secrets - 'Idol' contestant: Recession, Simon might have helped lift him into the Top 12" . The Beaumont Enterprise . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "Vocal talent, dollops of Southern charm, and an extra sliver of votes helped Michael Sarver make it into the Top 12 on "American Idol" this week. ... After two emotional, roller-coaster days this week, the 27-year-old, former oilfield worker and his two Idol colleagues, Alexis Grace and Danny Gokey, shared their concerns and hopes about their personal lives and upcoming episodes in a national conference call." Franklin, Mark (2010-11-06). "CD Spotlight: The 'Ferris Wheel' that never started spinning" . The York Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2014-03-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "During his American Idol exit interview, Michael Sarver said he had already written more than 800 songs. The 10th-place finisher from season eight serves up six on his 14-track self-titled debut CD, which was released in July.  Haven’t heard much about it? Well, it peaked at number 58 on Billboard’s country album chart. And the album’s lead-in single, “Ferris Wheel,” never got spinning." poet, j. "Michael Sarver Review by j. poet" . AllMusic . Archived from the original on 2023-05-15 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The review notes: "When Sarver slides up to falsetto on the chorus, he sounds really sexy. "Cinderella Girl" has a dark bluesy vibe, but it's a tribute to the passion between a husband and wife that the years can't extinguish. "You Are," the one tune he wrote on his own, is a solid, simmering song with a soulful vocal. The rest of the material sounds like Nashville product, a collection of clichés with serviceable but unexceptional melodies. The exceptions are ..." Franklin, Mark (2009-12-08). "Michael Sarver: From the oil rigs to iTunes" . The York Dispatch . Archived from the original on 2014-03-22 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 . The article notes: "Michael Sarver, the former oil rig worker who finished 10th on season eight of Idol, released a single today on iTunes. ... That page also features a video of Michael signing with Dream Records, a division of the Universal Music Group. ... Right now, Michael’s also involved in an “American Stars in Concert” tour, also featuring ..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mike Sarver to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 01:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Shaker Run: I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes . I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST . The Film Creator ( talk ) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions . The Film Creator ( talk ) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notable: this article in the NZ Herald calling the film a classic, and also this and this . — MY, OH, MY! ( mushy yank ) — 14:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mushy Yank. Also note that film critic Derek Malcolm said of the film in 1985 that: "Without question, though, it has the best stunts ever accomplished in a New Zealand picture, some of them quite breathtaking". [1] Paora ( talk ) 23:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above sources. I've added a couple of the above points to the article. Chocmilk03 ( talk ) 02:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I speedy withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator ( talk ) 02:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Yorkshire Men's League: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is one of the stronger, more notable regional leagues, and a couple of its clubs have recently made (ambitious) applications to join the professional ranks ( [6] , [7] ). TNT is meant as a last resort and I don't think it should apply here. J Mo 101 ( talk ) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:31, 18 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

Beate Heister: Qwv ( talk ) 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Qwv ( talk ) 00:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 01:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you looked at the German-language article? There's barely anything more there. -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] She and her brother could be merged to Karl Albrecht . — Kusma ( talk ) 16:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This of course is not a great incentive for deletion, but people have repeatedly tried to add to the article (as evidenced by the talk page and the edit history) warnings about it being used as part of a confidence scam. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no policy or procedure against this kind of usage. — OttoMäkelä ( talk ) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for suggested Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Her Bloomberg Billionaires Index entry provides reasonably substantial coverage from a strong RS. Combined with the sources in the article this seems to meet the GNG . At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:NOTINHERITED does not stand for the proposition that heirs cannot be notable as such. As to the suggested merge, merging biographies tends to be suboptimal as it mucks up things like categories. As we have enough here for a modest article, I don't think a merge is warranted. The use of the page for scammery is IMO an important concern, but maybe more of an RFPP issue. -- Visviva ( talk ) 19:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I see no consensus for any particular outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:BASIC as article has been expanded since it was first nominated and there are more sources now offering a bit of substantive information about this notoriously private individual. In a world where " fake German heiress " gets 150,000+ pageviews per month, it seems reasonable to keep the article about a real German heiress, who also happens to be the fifth richest woman in the world, who gets 10,000+ pageviews per month. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 07:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage helping to satisfy WP:BASIC (out of what I have seen so far) include: the slightly unfortunately translated CE Noticias Financieras article ("What are the five richest women in the world?"); the Manager Magazin in-depth feature article about the entire family ; and the 2021 Focus Online article which devotes four sizeable paragraphs to the two siblings. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Thanks to the kind effort of Cielquiparle and Eastmain , the article passes WP:GNG . With 10,284 pageviews in the past 30 days, our readers are clearly interested in the subject, and we should be aiming to produce the best BLP-compliant article we reasonably can. Edwardx ( talk ) 13:28, 10 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

T.O.D.A.S.: Television's Outrageously Delightful All-Star Show: All citations mention the show in passing, no indepth coverage. Could find nothing better in a search. Donald D23 talk to me 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines . Donald D23 talk to me 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – A Philippine program from the late 1980s with few citations and no corresponding wiki article. Clearly fails in WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Until three years ago, "T.O.D.A.S."... was consistently the number one comedy show in the country for ten years. To date, no comedy show on television of its kind has ever surpassed its popularity making its success phenomenal." [1] Online sources are going to be thin because it's from the 1980s, but given that quote it's reasonable to presume that it's going to have quantities of RS coverage offline (likely in Tagalog as well as English). ~ Hydronium ~ Hydroxide ~ (Talk) ~ 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final Relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Hydronium Mach61 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV per Hydronium's argument. SBKSPP ( talk ) 06:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Neha Rana: -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India , and Punjab . Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk ) 07:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: The subject is a notable actress, having played a notable role of an antagonist in her debut show and the main lead in a recent show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove ( talk • contribs ) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject is a notable actress and required citations were provided when the article was initially provided. It had been noticed that someone is keeping on deleting the citations repeatedly. Action must be taken against the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smsslove ( talk • contribs ) 09:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please don't vote multiple times. I have struck the second. It has been explained many times why the sources are removed. You need to become familiar with acceptable sourcing, which you are not. Continuing to use them and call for sanctions against others is disruptive. Star Mississippi 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am starting to understand acceptable sources and found that the sources that was removed belonged to that published by Times of India, which is considered one of the most reliable source. Smsslove ( talk ) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No idea and therefore no opinion implied about the rest of this conversation but Note about the Times of India : Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". ). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as she has one lead role in a notable series, and that is well sourced, and various roles of much lesser significance but could pass WP:NACTOR though. If judged insufficient, at the very least redirect to Junooniyatt#Main for now. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , pass in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide ( talk ) 09:52, 15 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

Kelsey Wingert: The incident with the foul ball is 6 of the references out of 15, and none of the others are substantial coverage about her. GraziePrego ( talk ) 01:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colorado . ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 04:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Baseball , Georgia (U.S. state) , Louisiana , and Texas . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More coverage here when she left Atlanta [21] , [22] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - she was struck by a foul ball twice and received coverage in reliable sources after both incidents, as well as the coverage identified by Oaktreeb above. Hatman31 ( talk ) 21:41, 24 October 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, Daniel ( talk ) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : notable per Oaktree b and Hatman31 above. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:52, 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

Impala Hotel Group: all references provided are promotional, commercial, and/or branded content. No sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper ( talk ) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . "Top Arusha hotels may go under the hammer over huge bank debts" . The Citizen . 2019-04-04. ProQuest 2202724275 . Archived from the original on 2024-02-16 . Retrieved 2024-02-16 . The article notes: "Dar es Salaam. The curtain could be falling down on the once high-flying Impala Hotel Group of Arusha as two of its hotels are up for sale over huge debts owed to banks. ... Among the properties up for sale is the 300-room luxurious Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge outside Arusha and Impala Hotel, the group’s flagship outfit within the city. Officials of the hotel chain owned by the late Meleo Mrema, who died in August 2017, could not be reached to speak on the matter. The 160-room Impala, which opened its doors in the early 1990s, was once the leading hotel in Arusha, thanks to closure of the ‘old guard’s for major rehabilitation.This was to be followed ten years later (in early 2000) by the five star Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, some 27 kilometres east of Arusha.The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional conferences, including at several East African Community (EAC) Heads of Summits." Ubwani, Zephania (2021-09-12). "Impala, Naura Springs hotels assets for sale over Sh1.2 billion debt" . The Citizen . ProQuest 2571570534 . Archived from the original on 2021-09-22 . Retrieved 2024-02-16 . The article notes: "Finally, properties belonging to an Arusha hotel chain will be sold to settle accumulated debts running into billions of shillings. ... The two hotels, once among the leading outfits in the country’s safari capital, belonged to the Impala Hotels Group owned by the now late Meleo Mrema. ... The saga over accumulated debts by Impala Hotel Group such as accumulated salaries has dragged for years, roping in banks owned billions of shillings in unpaid loans. ... Properties belonging to the late Mrema once dominated the hotel industry in Arusha and were opened to cater for the increasing number of tourists and conference delegates years ago." Nkwame, Marc (2014-07-21). "Tanzania: Arusha Is Not Burning, Hunt Down Rumour Monger" . Daily News . ProQuest 1547175618 . Archived from the original on 2024-02-16 . Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via AllAfrica . The article notes: "However, everybody in town knows that the legendary Impala Hotel is owned by one Mrema. So popular is the property that it spawned the 'Impala Group of Hotels,' a company which has 'Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge,' and 'Naura Springs Hotel,' under its portfolio. Like their owner, the three properties, despite their fame, have succeeded in staying out of the media limelight, with the exception of the 2008 incident in which Ugandan pop star Jose Chameleon fell from the third floor room at Impala hotel and broke his limbs. Opened in 2003, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, located within the former Ngurdoto Forest Coffee farm in Meru District, is arguably the biggest hotel in Tanzania with over 3,000 rooms, many being detached luxury 'huts' and while the property has been hosting many international symposiums and meetings, it hasn't made any headlines in over a decade of its existence. Then comes the 'Naura Springs Hotel' situated at the Sanawari junction along Moshi-Arusha road, which went into operation in 2007 thus becoming the newest property under Mr Mrema's property listing." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impala Hotel Group 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 ) 11:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per the article above, the hotels have been closed (and are still closed) since 2019. A part has been turned over to student accommodation. An attempt has been made to sell the hotels to settle debts, seemingly unsuccessfully. All of the issues noted above seem WP:ROTM for a privately owned hotel chain. MNewnham ( talk ) 03:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says, "A company ... is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ." The guideline does not say " Run-of-the-mill " is a reason for deletion. And it is incorrect to call Impala Hotel Group "run-of-the-mill". The Impala Hotel Group is based in the East African country of Tanzania. The company received sustained significant coverage over a period of five years (2014, 2019, and 2021). It received significant coverage in 2014 in the Daily News , a national newspaper in Tanzania. It later received significant coverage in 2019 and 2021 in The Citizen , a South African newspaper that is considered the country's newspaper of record . A South African national newspaper covering a Tanzanian company is international coverage of the company. A "run-of-the-mill" company does not get sustained and international coverage. Cunard ( talk ) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability is not temporary ; businesses being closed should have no bearing on their notability. Reading the sources indicates that, far from being routine, independent sources consider these to be particularly important hotels in the country, "Tanzania’s hospitality paradise, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, which used to draw many international visitors to the country’s northern tourist circuit", "The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional summits". Besides Cunard's sources, [45] , [46] , [47] , and substantial references in travel guides to the country. ~ A412 talk! 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above sources. Seems significant enough. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There appears to be sufficient sources that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Springdale Farms: The refs appear to be run-of-the-mill and nothing much suggests this is more notable than any other similar small business JMWt ( talk ) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and New Jersey . JMWt ( talk ) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the conclusions from the old AfD, I don't think that a news articles about a business recovery after a fire (when that's basically the only source to count towards the GNG) is good enough in 2024 JMWt ( talk ) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Travel and tourism . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets GNG, just as it did in the first AFD four years ago. Persingo ( talk ) 00:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Genovese, Peter (2005). Food Lovers' Guide to New Jersey: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants, Events, and More . Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press . p. 159. ISBN 0-7627-3079-X . ISSN 1550-8951 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Springdale Farms, 1638 South Springdale Road, Cherry Hill; (856) 424-8674; www.springdalefarms.com. The only working farm left in suburbanized Cherry Hill, hundred-acre Springdale Farms produces more than thirty kinds of vegetables. The bakery, though, is where you might want to start. Up to twenty-five kinds of pies are available, from apple, peach, and blueberry crumb to cherry vanilla, sweet potato crunch, and lemon blueberry. There are also cakes, muffins, breads, cinnamon rolls, brownies, cookies, and rolls, all made on the premises. Springdale offers pick-your-own fruits and vegetables; pick-your-own strawberries are especially popular. Biggest attraction for kids: the Maize Quest, a corn-stalk maze generally open from mid-September through early November. Each year, it's a different theme; the one in 2004 re-created the 1804 Lewis and Clark Expedition." Nichols, Rick (2008-07-31). "You say tomato, I say Ramapo - a N. J. legend returns" . The Philadelphia Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "The long, soaking rain last week was a blessing for the first-run Jersey tomatoes at Cherry Hill's singular Springdale Farms, basking at the moment in unsolicited and decidedly premature celebrity. The New York Times had featured it in an update on the guilt-driven quest to redeem the lost Jersey tomato. ... So recent customers at its market on South Springdale Road have had to content themselves with what the sign on the produce bin described as "field-grown beefsteak tomatoes," which is to say tomatoes without any particular bragging rights or heirloom-stoked cult following. ... It was Ebert's father, Alan, who started Springdale as a truck farm under contract to Campbell's in 1949. But by the '60s, it was wholesaling produce and slicing tomatoes, the tender Ramapo (circa 1968) proudly included." Walsh, Jim (2017-10-01). "Mary Ebert, Springdale Farms' matriarch, dies at 93" . Courier-Post . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "Ebert, 93, founded Springdale Farms in 1949 with her husband Alan. She has run the Springdale Road property with family members since her spouse’s death in 1988. The business is Cherry Hill’s last working farm, although the traditional crops of fruits and vegetables have been augmented by modern attractions like hayrides, an autumn corn maze and a farm store known for its pies and other baked goods." Sacharow, Fredda (1988-12-11). "A Farm Family Stubbornly Refuses to Quit Land" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "Alan and Mary Ebert, who have owned Springdale Farms since 1950, when Cherry Hill was 75 percent farmland, said their decision to keep the 100-acre farm going came just days after the Jan. 23 fire. They recently opened a market to replace the burned building. ... The fire, which razed the couple's 21-year-old store, began in the early morning hours and spread rapidly, consuming the 3,800-square-foot building. The store held cash registers, intercom systems, refrigeration units, pottery and seasonal decorations. Everything was lost. The authorities ruled the fire suspicious. An investigation is continuing." Grande, Candy (2014-08-15). "5 family-friendly farms to explore in South Jersey" . Courier-Post . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "A trip to Springdale Farms is always a great way to spend some time in the summer. The farms grows a variety of crops such as sweet corn, eight different types of tomatoes, 12 kinds of eggplants, summer squash, blackberries, cucumbers and cantaloupes. Each crop is harvested every morning and sold in the farm's produce market. ... says John Ebert, co-owner of the farm. ... Don't forget to stop by the farm's bakery department for the pie of the month, a delicious peach blueberry creation guaranteed to satisfy sweets lovers. If you prefer something different, browse through the other 35 different pies offered." Graham, Kristen A. (2002-10-06). "Farmers setting out to grow bumper crop of 'agritainment' - A harvest of 'agritainment' Farms are growing a different cash crop: Class trips and hayrides" . The Philadelphia Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "Looking out over the 100 acres that his family still works, John Ebert of Springdale Farms recalled how his parents, Alan and Mary, bought their spread in 1949, when Cherry Hill was Delaware Township and 82 farms were in operation. Originally, the family grew tomatoes and parsley for Campbell's Soup. They decided to press on as farm prices tanked about 20 years ago, after fire destroyed their market, after Alan Ebert died suddenly. ... Mary Ann Jarvis, who owns Springdale Farms along with her husband, Tom, and Ebert, her brother, describes the work as exacting but rewarding." Jennings, John Way (1988-01-24). "Fire Ruins Cherry Hill Fruit Stand" . The Philadelphia Inquirer . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "No injuries were reported when the one-story block-and-frame building in Cherry Hill that was the retail market for the 100-acre Springdale Farms, located on Springdale Road between Route 70 and Kresson Road, burned just before 2 a.m. ... The farm is owned by Alan Ebert, his sons, Thomas and John, and a daughter, Mary Ann Jarvis." Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Plunges into New Jersey . San Diego: Portable Press . 2005. ISBN 978-1-60710-602-9 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Springdale Farms is situated on 100 acres in Cherry Hill and has been a working farm for over 53 years. Throughout the year, you can find more than 30 kinds of produce and flowers there. Customers get a hands-on experience by actually picking their own fruits and vegetables right off the vine!" Lobrutto, Christina (2016-06-17). "7 'pick-your-own' farms in South Jersey" . PhillyVoice . Archived from the original on 2024-02-20 . Retrieved 2024-02-20 . The article notes: "Springdale Farms, which prides itself on being "Cherry Hill's last working farm," has been growing and selling fresh fruits and vegetables on Springdale Road for more than 60 years. While the farm is especially known for its pick-your-own strawberries, it also offers the public a variety of other pick-your-own produce, as well as attractions like a corn maze, hayrides and a plant yard. Springdale also offers a bunch of "home baked goodness" in its bakery. From fresh apple cider donuts to home-baked pies and breads, there's a little something for everyone." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Springdale Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria , which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources in the article and cited above. The article could use an editing pass for tone but is no where near bad enough to delete on that basis when sources demonstrating notability exist. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 00:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

CHCO-TV: Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada . Mvcg66b3r ( talk ) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Article does need improvement, certainly, but it is a CRTC -licensed television station that fulfills WP:BCAST criteria, and improved sourcing does exist to repair it with. Bearcat ( talk ) 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Bearcat . B3251 ( talk ) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - some references including https://www.proquest.com/docview/2428323466/C1410E9C3340ECPQ/12 , https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/chco-tv-feeling-the-impacts-of-meta-ban-on-canadian-news-content-1.6533894 , https://www.country94.ca/2023/04/19/telethon-raises-55k-for-iconic-grand-manan-lighthouse/ to support for inclusion. - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:17, 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

The Eton Boys: Mainly passing mentions. Fails GNG and WP:BAND . X ( talk ) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Missouri . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep recorded for Victor Records . Banner Records , and Perfect Records so albums weren't a thing in the 1930 so passes NMUSIC#5 in spirit. Although there is nothing super in-depth in the article, many of the sources are more than passing mention, I believe GNG is met. The article is neutral and gives far more than a dictionary definition, providing a synopsis of factual information that is useful to a reader looking for information on a musical group that headlined theatres in the 1930s, per WP:WHYN . 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions ) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per User:78.26 . Made recordings with major labels. Also there are the various films. Thanks to User:PigeonChickenFish for expanding the entry. FloridaArmy ( talk ) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Vishwananda: Many of the citations are linked to tabloid-like websites and websites that have a personal bias towards a Hindu Guru (e.g. Evangelical Church in Germany). I have been trying to edit this article by being objective, hence I have not removed the sexual allegations about "Vishwananda", but I have tried added factual events, such as him being the first person born outside of India to be initiated as a "Mahamandaleshwar" and have linked to the news article about this. The other editors, namely Hanumandas, have undone all the objective facts about this due to their own motive of attack. The tone of the article is also very questionable, specifically, those of Hanumandas. I can add more clarification if necessary and more information to state my case if needed. Shiva is Love ( talk ) 12:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am the original author of the article, I think it should not be deleted, I have given my reasons here Talk: Vishwananda#AfD Hanumandas ( talk ) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE This article appears to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Policy due to the presence of libelous statements and unsubstantiated claims about the individual discussed. In March 2022, the Hamburg District Court ruled against certain media allegations related to sexual misconduct. It's essential to highlight that someone's sexual orientation and consensual relationships should not be misrepresented or falsely equated with predatory behavior. This kind of misrepresentation is not suitable for a platform like Wikipedia, which holds significant influence on public perception. The BLP policy emphasizes that biographies of living persons should be approached with caution and respect for the individual's privacy. Potential harm from inaccurate claims can have far-reaching effects on the subject's reputation. Additionally, the article's heavy reliance on primary sources, including personal blogs and social media, is concerning. While primary sources can occasionally be relevant, their use should be judicious and clearly attribute the original source's statements. Examples of potentially biased writing in the article include: DELETE @ Hanumandas has indicated that the article is unbiased. However, here are some lines from the article that may suggest otherwise, along with revisions and editing history records: "According to other reports, he became a disciple of the controversial Sathya Sai Baba." The assertion that he became a disciple of Sathya Sai Baba lacks any concrete sources or reports. Labeling Sai Baba as controversial reflects the author's personal bias and doesn't consider that, while disputed by some, Sai Baba remains a revered figure for many. "Yet Babaji is a mythical religious figure, therefore there is no evidence of him belonging to a particular swami tradition." Babaji, as a spiritual figure, is often referred to in revered, mystical terms within the Hindu tradition. However, his association with specific spiritual lineages, such as Kriya Yoga tradition, has been documented in notable spiritual texts like Paramahansa Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi". These sources offer the needed evidence of his capacity of association with a particular tradition, like the one of vishwananda. "Like Sai Baba, he is also a 'miracle-worker'." Associating the term 'miracle-worker' solely with Sai Baba appears biased. Miracle-working has been attributed to spiritual leaders and saints across various religions and traditions, including Christian saints, Sufi Saints, Hindu saints, etc. "Critics claim that he bought the title (mahamandaleshwar) for 30,000 dollars." The referenced sources (2 and 6) do not contain any evidence to support the assertion that the title was purchased. The title is conferred by an Akhara in India, a highly respected institution. It's akin to claim a Nobel Prize was bought by the subject without any reliable references, just to understand this title belongs to a different tradition and culture and cannot be simply bought. This is clearly "self knowledge" and 100% biased statments "Vishwananda claims to be a master of kriya yoga in the tradition of Mahavatar Babaji..." Vishwananda has developed a yoga technique: Atma Kriya Yoga, citing its origins from Mahavatar Babaji. There aren't normally certificates for spiritual knowledge transmitted from guru to disciple. Lahiri Mahasaya, a revered yoga master, similarly claimed to have received Kriya Yoga techniques from Babaji, as stated in the wikipedia article about him, and without any controversial argument against that. "The movement claims to have between 30 and 50 centres or temples worldwide , some of them rather small” The terms "small" and "large" are subjective and vary across different contexts. How can you claim a "non biased" comment? Why does not say "some of them really big?" Regardless of size, each center or temple contributes with a public place of worship for thousand of followers around the world. The Bhakti Marga movement, by the end of 2022, officially reported the establishment of 76 temples, ashrams, and centers located in 37 countries spanning 5 continents. This includes 12 ashrams, of which 5 span an area greater than 20 hectares, 55 temples (comprising both Bhakti Marga public and private temples), and 22 centers. Each of these locations, irrespective of its size, serves as a significant place of worship, catering to thousands of followers globally. "On March 17, 2018, Bhakti Marga carried out a group chanting at the Buchenwald concentration camp..." "Critics accused Bhakti Marga of exploitation and relativization of the holocaust . " Bhakti Marga's "Om chanting" at various concentration camp locations was performed with due permissions from the respective authorities. According to the news articles, it was an attempt to transform negative energies and promote healing, not to exploit or trivialize the Holocaust's horrors. Critics indeed exist, but the initiative also received positive feedback, contributing to a balanced perspective. The goal was not to 'clean' the concentration camps but to spiritually contribute towards acknowledging, understanding, and healing the wounds of history. Some key messages about the OM chanting in the concentration camps from the directors of the place: “The Jewish community in Thuringia sees this as a means of fighting racism. The spokesman for the memorial, Rikolau-Gunnar Lüttgenau, explains that religious events on the Ettersberg near Weimar are not uncommon and are usually approved if they do not serve the mission and do not question the crimes of the past. He says: “ We actually have Buddhist meditations, too, alongside Catholic and Protestant services. Because: Religious references to these sites of former concentration camps are almost constitutive for their history as a memorial. Because this story, which irritates you so much, throws you back on your faith. And we take the position that we do not interfere in the beliefs of the respective group. And there has to be some form of confrontation with the place.” “Nevertheless, the group also booked a guided tour in Buchenwald and invited representatives of the Thuringian Jewish community. Its chairman, Reinhard Schramm, will come and tell about his family history, about extermination in German concentration camps.” "These are my partners" Reinhard Schramm says: " If someone consciously wants to go to a memorial site where 56,000 people were murdered and if they work to ensure that something like this shouldn't happen again, then that's enough basis for me to talk to them. These are people fighting racism and xenophobia – these are my partners! ” https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kz-gedenkstaette-buchenwald-chanting-wider-die-schuld-100.html The Article Picture, why is it in black and white? is clearly giving to the article a different tone "Vishwananda also pretended to be the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church" Unsourced - broken link The current portrayal of the article is far from neutral. Any discerning editor who reviews the content can immediately recognize the negative undertone throughout. The narrative suggests that those who have contributed might harbor biases against Vishwananda, which raises concerns about whether Wikipedia's guidelines and legal standards have been respected. This representation is detrimentally affecting both the Bhakti Marga organization and Vishwananda. Online, in social media, in youtube, hundreds can attest to the positive influence and aid they have received from Vishwananda. However, a reader of this article might be left with an unjust impression, inferring that Vishwananda's intent is malicious. I urge for a reconsideration of this content. BROKEN LINKS and non reliable sources The presence of broken links both in the Wikipedia article on Vishwananda and within the cited "reliable sources" is a significant issue, (especially the article https://www.ezw-berlin.de/publikationen/artikel/bhakti-marga-in-der-kritik/ ) These "reliable sources" appear to be primary sources, which is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines that emphasize the use of secondary or tertiary sources. And the website belongs to an organization who is publicly against the faith of vishwananda: [23] - Broken Link: https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/doku-und-reportage/just-love-sektenaussteiger-packen-aus/hr-fernsehen/Y3JpZDovL2hyLW9ubGluZS8xNjAzNDU [28] BROKEN LINK: https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/hr-doku-ueber-missbrauch-ein-us-amerikaner-wird-zum-opfer-erklaert-doch-der-sender-hat-nie-mit-ihm-gesprochen-a-880b2009-1999-430e-b190-7bfdd1d52094/ Broken link: Youtube video removed https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=4nsAdD63ZSU BROKEN LINK: http://jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/2015/03/swami-vishwanandasbhakti-marga-and.html (They removed the article) BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=SY6RSHA3lfY&t=14s BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed - https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=6ylnHGlDOHU Video unavailable BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed - https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=hw7m97DL3NA&t=29s BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed - https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mKlcMfnUpi0 BROKEN LINK: http://www.gurumindcontrol.blogspot.com/ BROKEN LINK:: https://tellthetruth123.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/hello-world Non reliable Sources, anyone can just create a blog and write against vishwananda and the author took them as reliable sources: Blog primary source: https://bhaktimargacritics.wordpress.com/ https://falsevishwananda.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/deutsche-ubersetzung-von-vishwananda/ BLOG primary source: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hindus-swami-vishwananda-criticism-and-controversy.201071 BLOG primary source http://vishwanandawarning.blogspot.com/ These broken links and primary sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing, and their use in the article undermines its credibility and neutrality. Impact and Implications: Wikipedia is a widely recognized platform, and it's crucial that any article, especially those about living persons, adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and accuracy. The potential harm to an individual’s reputation from misrepresentative information is considerable. Upon reviewing the conversation, AryKun's comment demonstrates a potential bias and emotional attachment to the subject matter. His choice of language suggests a predetermined conclusion about the subject, which calls into question his ability to approach the topic with an open mind and objectivity. Neutrality is paramount, especially on platforms like Wikipedia where accuracy and impartiality are highly valued. "SNOW Keep per above. Very misguided nom, we can't help the fact that the subject, like most other gurus, is a dirtbag and we cover him as such. AryKun ( talk ) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)" Giro 194 ( talk ) 20:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you think that the article is very biased, rewrite the biased material in a neutral manner, and we’ll revdel the offending revisions. Most of what you pointed out is reported in reliable sources, and so including the fact that he thought that chanting om in a concentration camp was a good idea is definitely within the bounds of NPOV. I have a bias regarding the whole topic area of religion and especially concerning godmen, which is why I’m not editing the article. My ! vote, however, is completely unaffected by bias: any way you look at it, this is not the kind of unambiguous attack page that can be speedy deleted. At worst, it is a somewhat impartial article about a clearly notable subject that should be improved through regular editing. AryKun ( talk ) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Giro 194 There were just 4 links broken out of 32, which I fixed. All other links, and most of the inappropriate links you mentioned, are from another website. Hanumandas ( talk ) 08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The only ones taking offense here are obviously "followers" of said subject with no history of writing or editing articles on Wikipedia. If there is a bias to be found - look no further. 3fiddy ( talk ) 23:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Religion , Hinduism , Mauritius , Germany , and Switzerland . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hanumandas ( talk ) 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] (Note: @ Shiva is Love left a message on my talk page asking me to look at this article; iirc we haven't interacted before and I'm not sure where they found me.) Keep , an article being potentially biased or disrespectful is not a reason to delete. If there are specific concerns about content those should be addressed directly, no via deletion. Plenty of sources, I haven't done a detailed analysis but it looks like reputable papers are covering at minimum his various controversies. Rusalkii ( talk ) 19:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please look here Talk:Vishwananda at the last two submissions by [[User:Hanumandas]] and myself. The reason I put in the discussion for deletion is due to the undo-ing of my additions to the article (for example, Vishwananda becoming the first Hindu born outside of India to receive the title "Mahamandaleshwar" which I cited). I have attempted to add in content that makes the article neutral and balanced, as per the Biography of living persons policy. I am not trying to delete the information about the controversies, I simply believe the article is "one-sided" and thus my hopes is that it becomes objective as it should be on Wikipedia. I have been very confused in the process of trying to get this sorted out on Wikipedia/find the proper course of action and am not sure how I found your contact. Shiva is Love ( talk ) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you've both talked about it and can't come to an agreement, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion - asking an uninvolved editor for help who is interested in moderating similar disputes. I know nothing about this area and don't have time to sort through the sources right now, so I'm not a great person to ask for help here. Rusalkii ( talk ) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He probably found you at my talk page. Hanumandas ( talk ) 12:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep per above. Very misguided nom, we can't help the fact that the subject, like most other gurus, is a dirtbag and we cover him as such. AryKun ( talk ) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Subject is clearly notable. The only reason we would delete the article is if he were not. This is a content dispute, which should not be taken to AfD for resolution. Consider dispute resolution . Skyerise ( talk ) 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This was never a great article (despite some of my attempts to improve it) but it's headed in a right direction now, especially after Skyerise 's edits. Not an attack page. — Alalch E. 15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Skyerise , @ Rusalkii Commendable effort in refining the article. However, presently, the narrative hints that Vishwananda moved from Mauritius to Europe primarily for controversy. But the facts shows also that Vishwananda's organization keeps growing rapidly, so maybe there is more to the story. Kindly review the following links for inclusion to maintain a more neutral point of view/narrative: Vishwananda belongs to the Bharadwaraj Gothra Lineage His parents belonged to the Bharadwaj-gotra, a noteworthy brahmana family lineage that dates back thousands of years from Bihar (India). https://www.apnnews.com/paramahamsa-vishwanandas-enlightenment-and-his-early-years/ Vishwananda has more than 10.000 disciples (devotees) worldwide https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms https://www.nyoooz.com/news/nashik/202688/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/ Vishwananda loved to spend time singing religious songs, which inspired his childhood friends to participate in religious worship. At the age of 14, he first experienced samadhi, a deep meditative yogic-state of total immersion. In 1994, at the age of 16, he dropped out of school and began traveling in India and Kenya https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms https://www.apnnews.com/paramahamsa-vishwanandas-enlightenment-and-his-early-years/ https://blossomingoftheheart.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/sri-swami-vishwananda/ https://www.speakingtree.in/article/we-take-simplicity-for-granted? CMP=share_btn_wa https://paramahamsavishwananda.com/biography/#early-years Interview to Vishwananda’s sister https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=D-kUQgiJe5w Interview with his father https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=lK1EPU1ZjiI According to his travel agent since 2001, Vishwananda began giving blessings (darshan), which he continues to give to this day. As of 2022, Vishwananda has conducted 331 Darshans in 46 countries and 220 cities, during which approximately 133,000 people have received his blessings. From 2020 to 2022, 385 online Darshans were held, with more than 288,000 participants https://pages.bhaktimarga.org/statistics Interview to his travel agent, Yamunashree Heike with the Frankfurt Magazine Lebens|t|räume https://www.lebens-t-raeume.de/produkt/2023-07/ (I can provide the PDF) In 2004, at the age of 26, he opened his first ashram in Germany, in the small village of Steffenshof. https://www.lifepositive.com/from-springen-to-vrindavan/ In 2014, he opened a new ashram in honor of the god Rama in Riga, Latvia, headed by Swami Sharada and he named the temple, Satchitananda Vigraha Ramachandra. https://bhaktimarga.lv/about/temple/? lang=en https://www.flickr.com/photos/bhaktimarga/48723699792 In 2015, he founded the Just Love Festival, an international festival of Hindu music and vegan food dedicated to promoting vegetarianism, worship, love and positivity in society. https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/ https://justlovefestival.org/ More about MAHAMANDAELSHWAR In 2015, Vishwananda received the title of Mahamandaleshwar during the Kumbha-Mela in Nasik. Literally, it translates as "abbott of great and/or numerous monasteries or "abbott of a religious district or province" (maha - "great", mandala - "district", Ishwara - "head", "ruler"). Nirmohi Akkhara, a spiritual governmental institution based in Ayodhya and composed of several Hindu leaders and monks, conferred this title on Vishwananda. The title is conferred on those who have shown "outstanding leadership and maintain the Hindu way of life. " https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/ https://www.nyoooz.com/news/nashik/202688/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/ On July 11 2015, Vishwananda was awarded the "Peace Pole" by The World Peace Prayer Society "for his “outstanding achievements in world peace over the past 20 years." https://www.worldpeace.org/2015/10/peace-pole-gifted-to-swami-vishwananda-at-bhakti-marga-in-frankfurt-germany/ In July 2016, Paramahamsa Vishwananda received the Bharat Gaurav Award "for outstanding achievement" from the British House of Parliament https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/ https://www.ibtimes.sg/paramahamsa-vishwananda-says-india-feels-like-home-me-69872 In December 2016, experiencing rapid growth in his mission, he traveled to India with a group of swamis and swaminis to inaugurate his new ashram, Shree Giridhar Dham in Vrindavan, India. The ashram is dedicated to Goddess Yamuna Maharani and God Krishna Giridhari https://bhaktimarga.in/shree-giridhar-dham/ https://www.lifepositive.com/from-springen-to-vrindavan/ In April 2020, Vishwananda introduced the new mula mantra of his sampradaya for his followers and devotees: "sri vitthala giridhari parabrahmane namaha". The mantra calls for protection and love. Prior to 2020, the main mantra for his followers was “om namo narayanaya”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Goai3YU6E https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/new-mantra-of-bhakti-marga-sect.238061/ From 2020 to 2023 he opened many other ashrams such as Vitthala Panduranga (Argentina, 2020), Vitthala-Kshetra (Italy, 2022), Srinivasa Ashram (UK, 2022), Vitthala Devalaaya (France, 2023), Sri Sri Radha Giridhari (Brazil, 2019), Paranitya Narasimha Ashram (USA, 2023). https://bhaktimarga.com.ar/ashram/ https://www.facebook.com/ashrambhaktimargaitalia/ https://bhaktimarga.co.uk/srinivasa-temple-essex/ https://www.facebook.com/bhaktimargafrance/? https://bhaktimarga.org.br/ashram/ https://ashram.bhaktimarga.us/ https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/top-stories/germany-based-spiritual-group-buys-former-catholic-church-in-west-elmira/ In 2022, Vishwananda was honored with Start Up India magazine's "Revolutionary Guru 2022" award, along with other prominent personalities https://www.ibtimes.sg/paramahamsa-vishwananda-says-india-feels-like-home-me-69872 https://www.timebulletin.com/bhavas-refer-to-the-spiritual-emotions-we-experience-in-our-relationship-with-god-paramahamsa-vishwananda/ There are many other books to consider: Talks 2005. - 2008. - P. 120. - ISBN 978-3940381033. Just Love: Questions & Answers (English). - 2012. - Vol. 1. - P. 230. - ISBN 978-3940381316. Just Love: Questions & Answers. - 2012. - Vol. 2. - P. 200. - ISBN 978-3963430381. Just Love: Questions & Answers. - 2012. - Vol. 3. - P. 204. - ISBN 978-3963430435. Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 1. - P. 340. - ISBN 9783940381194. Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 2. - P. 344. - ISBN 9783940381200. Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 3. - P. 416. - ISBN 9783940381224. Inspiration:Timeless Stories of Divine Love. - 2015. - Vol. 1. - ISBN 978-396343030206. Sri Guru Gita: Commentary on the great mysteries of the Guru-disciple relationship (English). - 2015. - P. 324. - ISBN 978-3940381439. Sri Gopi Gita (English). - 2016. The Essence of Shreemad Bhagavatam (English). - 2016. - ISBN 978-3940381521. Shreemad Bhagavad Gita: The Song of Love (English). - 2016. - P. 988. - ISBN 9783963430008. Giridhari: The Uplifter of Hearts (English). - 2016. - P. 112. - ISBN 978-3940381606. Divine Mother: The Way Back to Divinity (English). - 2017. - P. 172. - ISBN 978-3940381620. Guru: The Rarest Life Treasure (English). - 2017. - P. 168. - ISBN 978-3940381613. Sri Hanuman Chalisa: Commentary on the Praises to the Eternal Servant (English). - 2018. - P. 124. - ISBN 9793963430152. Maha Lakshmi: The Secret of Prosperity (English). - 2019. - ISBN 978-396343030343. Just Love: A Journey into the Heart of God (English). - 2021. - P. 424. - ISBN 978-396343030770. Mukunda-mālā-stotram: Commentary on Kulaśekhara Alvar's Offering of Love and Surrender (English). - 2021. - P. 163. Bhagavad Gita: Essentials. - 2021. - P. 308. - ISBN 978-3963430831. VarahaDas ( talk ) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not my problem. I clean up articles of this type; but I don't write them. Skyerise ( talk ) 00:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, of the sources you list, pretty much the only usable ones are Times of India and AP News. Most of the rest wouldn't be acceptable. We are not here to promote the subject. If any of his books are mentioned in those news stories, they could be added to the selection of books. That's about it. Skyerise ( talk ) 00:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Apatia: Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional ( talk ) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and Poland . InDimensional ( talk ) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't know how the nom looked for sources, but they managed to miss and ignore the source cited in the article, from Onet.pl , which meets SIGCOV and is reliable. So that's one - and it calls this band "legendary". Pl wiki lists two more sources, from a notable NGO, which calls one of its albums "cult" ( [16] ). The band is mentioned in academic works, including in English, ex [17] "most of the best Polish punk bands such as Apatia...". Other Polish sources: [18] (onet again), [19] ( Gazeta Wyborcza - Polish main newspaper of record), [20] ( Życie Warszawy ) I am not going to list more sources, but plenty exist even in English. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for terrible execution of WP:BEFORE , since finding sources does not even require speaking Polish (not that these days, with solid machine translation built into most browsers, this should be much of an excuse). PS. That said, the claim about them being mentioned in PWN I could not verify. The article needs improvement, here and on pl wiki, but this is no reason to nuke it. Sources I found here should be enough for anyone who cares to improve this article to get it to DYK level... maybe even I'll do it one day if I find the time. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Piotrus that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, preferably with at least pasting the mentioned sources into the article. Geschichte ( talk ) 15:01, 29 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

Carlisle buried baby case: Sadly such events are not uncommon and are not more notable to WP than other (alleged or proven) crimes. Facts707 ( talk ) 08:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Not sure about the claim that this is "not uncommon" or what "not more notable" is to WP. Articles are not based on other articles notability. It is still relevent today with searches that span as far away as Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and all the US National news media. There is still coverage in 2023: Oxygen: Where is Brooke Skylar Richardson Now , 48 Hours Season 33, Episode 3, Criminal podcasts, Saving Skylar: The Brooke Skylar Richardson Case. Sonia Chopra. 9781665722957. May, 11, 2022. , Inside Edition . Significant national coverage is still following this case from 2022 into 2023. This list at WP [19] (Category: Murdered American Children) supports the creation of articles not in keeping with WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4 (crimes, deaths, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena): . Maineartists ( talk ) 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . Just because something else has an article doesn't mean that this should. It might even mean that some of those other articles should be deleted as well. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fine. Disregard all other articles. This is in no way "common" as described above. Simple engine search "buried baby" and there is only one trial case that comes up in an engine search: this one. I have never in all my years editing at WP ever heard this reasoning: "subject was convicted of only one crime" to justify deleting an article. Just how many crimes does a person need to commit before they are considered "notable for inclusion"? It is clearly shown that this case does not fit the criteria of item 4 and has certainly proven lasting coverage into 2023 and around the world. The definition of "random crime" is: "lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard" ie assaults, shootings, workplace violence, and robberies. You are correct: "Random crimes generally aren't notable". This was/is in no way a "random crime". BLP burned and buried. Far from "random". I will admit the sources currently citing this article need to be updated to form a more notable article which include respectable news organizations rather than the "junk news" that accompany the content now. I would be willing to scrub and rework this article to make it up to WP standards with appropriate sources. It should not be deleted. Reworked, yes. Maineartists ( talk ) 00:29, 9 May 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 May 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 11:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Events , and Ohio . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Based on BLP issues. Subject was convicted of only one crime, tone of article is seriously prejudicial against subject, and junk news coverage≠ WP:N . Nate • ( chatter ) 15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS . Random crimes generally aren't notable. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 15:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm not being glib. I'm actually curious. What is your definition of a "random crime"? Maineartists ( talk ) 23:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Additional sources linked by Maineartists above demonstrates WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Qwaiiplayer ( talk ) 17:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME . If this case received only local coverage, that would be a good reason for deletion; however, this case has received both national and international coverage. Additionally, it was profiled on TV shows such as 48 Hours , Killer Cases , Murder Masterminds and Buried with Love . All of this exceeds routine coverage and disqualifies the article from meeting WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4. Baronet13 ( talk ) 18:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per reasons provided by Baronet13 and Qwaiiplayer Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The extent of coverage of this event, including follow-ups, clearly indicates notability. This case, no matter how "common" some editors might think such crimes are, has received sustained interest and attention from the media, from a variety of sources and at many different points in time. Most events that are documented on Wikipedia are not entirely unique. The fact that there may be other cases like this does not detract from this case's notability. The notability of one politician or actor does not detract from another's, the notability of one iteration of the FIFA World Cup does not detract from that of the previous years, etc. It is absurd to argue that this case is not notable because there have been similar cases. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 08:57, 29 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

Jordan Graham (footballer, born 1997): There is another Jordan Graham (ex Wolves/Birmingham) just to confuse matters while searching. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . Shellwood ( talk ) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Although pretty much run of the mill WP:ROUTINE coverage. I feel he has played enough and done enough for an article. There is enough to build a picture for me. Govvy ( talk ) 15:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ GiantSnowman : , Per Govvy. I found [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , and [32] , among many more sources. Player with fully pro experience and ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletiom. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] First 4 are OK, last one is from his club so not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source one is his manager being quoted about JG's cartilage injury and contains no independent coverage of Graham. Source 2 has 3 sentences of independent coverage and quotes taken from mansfieldtown.net. Source 3 has one sentence of independent coverage and source 4 has the same info on him as source 3. Stop making N:FOOTBALL arguments as well as "on going career" ones as people require to be notable now not at some time in the future. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Richard Kell (footballer): Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment To make this nom perfectly clear, I am conveying a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE . I apologize for not making that clearer when I initiated the discussion. Geoff | Who, me? 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Completely disagree with your assessment, did you bother doing a WP:BEFORE ? First result, he became a pilot. [51] , Shocking nomination, there are a number of those on a google search which easily passes WP:GNG , with some interviews. There are more sources for his footballing career. Govvy ( talk ) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - judging by the PROD comment , this should be seen as a potential WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as Richard Kell himself has requested deletion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Govvy; over 100 professional appearances with coverage out there, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Govvy, WP:BEFORE not thoroughly completed. Notable footballer. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The request for removing this BLP came from an IP and it hasn't been verified. Also the IP showed irregular editing closer to vandalism, removing some cites that could be restored etc. So can it be even trusted? So the nominator requesting a change of nomination? Have you even been in contact with Richard Kell? I don't see any evidence of that. Govvy ( talk ) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See VRTS ticket # 2024032510011024 . You can ask a VRTS member for confirmation at the VRT noticeboard . Geoff | Who, me? 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly has a career worthy of notability. I agree with Govvy in full. This is very obvious. Anwegmann ( talk ) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - obviously will be kept, with 100+ Football League appearances, but with the BLPREQUESTDELETE, I've deleted the birthdate - which doesn't seem necessary to me. Nfitz ( talk ) 19:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:ATHLETE . Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 11:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Vendry Mofu: Per this RfC , participation-based criteria for footballers are considered problematic and not usually sufficient for establishing notability. Accordingly, WP:BASIC applies, and that standard is not met by this article subject. A WP:BEFORE search found plenty of database entries, some passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable publications. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Indonesia . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. I'm sure Indonesian sources exist, but I can't see any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Seriously... @ GiantSnowman : , I found [37] , [38] , [39] , , [40] , [41] , [42] , many many more Indonesian sources. Clearly singificna tifgure in Indonesian football, 132+ appearances in the fully pro Indonesian top flight which receives hella media coverage, and 10+ appearances for national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , clearly passes GNG with significant coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 20:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Das osmnezz. Govvy ( talk ) 15:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep - The Republika and Tribun Lampung sources linked above are probably just enough to be significant coverage as they each summarize Mofu's career. Jogurney ( talk ) 02:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

A Choice of Magic: A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:NBOOK . Though they aren't as long as I hoped, it has been reviewed in The Best in Children's Books: The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1966-1972 , The Courier-Journal and The Spectator (by Isabel Quigly ). There's also a few more fairly short reviews on newspapers.com, and a few reviews hidden behind snippet views on Google Books. ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 14:06, 15 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! 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The three reviews presented by ARandomName123 are sufficient to demonstrate NBOOK/GNG. — siro χ o 03:55, 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

Henry Sullivan (composer): The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America . The big ugly alien ( talk ) 21:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 12:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Keep . He wrote the script for the Broadway show Murray Anderson's Almanac on Broadway in 1929, which was with Noel Coward . The song that he wrote I May Be Wrong (but I Think You're Wonderful) has its own Wikipedia page, which has been in existence since 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_May_Be_Wrong_(but_I_Think_You%27re_Wonderful) . It was sung by Doris Day . Starlighsky ( talk ) 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Starlightsky [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New Hampshire . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are references: Almanac... https://playbill.com/production/murray-andersons-almanac-erlangers-theatre-vault-0000004278 Starlighsky ( talk ) 03:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - I easily found, and added, music sources from the IBDB Internet Broadway Database , as well as from the American Film Institute catalog. — Maile ( talk ) 04:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:NMUSIC ThreeBootsInABucket ( talk ) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for Wikipedia:Notability (music) -- 95.233.51.253 ( talk ) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Liberales Institut: It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism , Organizations , Politics , and Switzerland . JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions . This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up. I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA 's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I looked at the sources in the French article [28] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [29] . The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weka keep : Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [30] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [31] Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay ( talk ) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay , thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:00, 15 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! 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics, , which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I respectfully disagree on both points. 1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back. 2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:JoelleJay , one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. '' Wickster12345 ( talk ) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk ) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received. Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. " The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] weak keep . The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved. 71.246.78.77 ( talk ) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool ( - Archiv (nzz.ch) ). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here . It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with JoelleJay 's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference. JFHJr ( ㊟ ) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you Wickster12345 ( talk ) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 ( talk ) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA ( talk ) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 ( talk ) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [32] , which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries). Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader , I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [33] [34] [35] [36] , the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [37] [38] , and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [39] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum ( talk ) 13:26, 27 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

Rugg v Ryan: Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is). Information on the page is also outdated. The interlocutory application has already been determined and if the article was updated to reflect the outcome of that application, the article would only be a few sentences long. This page should be deleted until the trial is completed and if the outcome of the trial has significance, (for eg. if it sets new precedents on what is reasonable hours of work, or has an impact on the allocation of political staffers) then it should be recreated. At the moment this article includes: Outdated information Accusations that have already been dealt with A biased summary of the case (contains no negative claims against Rugg, but the author of the article was happy to include the claim that Ryan defrauded the Commonwealth, despite that claim (from her political opponents) being disproven. ) Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants it's own article. Simba1409 ( talk ) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' show an overwhelming number of sources that establish the articles notability. Controversial information is in quotes and is attributed to the party that said it + has ben given WP:DUEWEIGHT in accordance to media attention of the matter. And to this point– Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants its own article. –in most cases it does. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there is a difference between something that receives a lot of media coverage over a short period of time, and something with ongoing coverage in the media . It seems this case made a big impact in March 2023, then almost nothing in April. Although some of the bias arguments are a bit confusing, Simba1409 makes a good point about impact - it could end up settling, or being decided on un-groundbreaking terms. Speedy keep doesn't seem to apply at all. I'm almost at delete or even draftify but will see if other editors have input first. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: For the reasons you provided I struck out speedy keep. Media coverage started in January and ended in March. From what I gather, the reason for the lack of coverage in April is because there hasn't been any new development as the case is sub judice . As it is now, I believe the article meets wiki guidelines, but it is almost guaranteed to receive further large coverage in future as it will go to trial in June/July (which will receive large media attention), is not currently undergoing mediation, and has a big potential to set a legal precedent (which will mean papers, citations, etc.) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree this could escalate, but it seems to be too soon for an article. That's why I mentioned draftify, basically wait-and-see without dumping the article. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree that it could escalate. If the case is ruled in Rugg's favour, this will certainly set a new precedent in terms of work hours (and perhaps political staffer allocation) and warrant a quite extensive article. Until there is a judgement though, this article should not exist. I wouldn't oppose draftify but it should be noted, in its current form, the article is not up to date and it would certainly be very out of date at the end of the trial. Simba1409 ( talk ) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And tonight Rugg has drastically changed her overall claim, directly naming the Prime Minister. In the interest of Wikipedia presenting factual information to the public, it is best that an article on this case wait until there is a judgement. Otherwise, it will have to be rewritten and changed 100s of times. At this point, with the Prime Minister being named a settlement also seems more than likely as the Govt was previously the only barrier to doing so and if that were to occur, this case would likely have zero notability. Simba1409 ( talk ) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per my comment above this is a moving target right now, unclear if it will prove to be notable. Per GMH Melbourne the trial is likely to start (if it doesn't settle) in a matter of months, which will likely generate the kind of sustained coverage which supports WP:GNG Oblivy ( talk ) 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument makes wikipedia less useful to readers. It suggests that the article stays as a draft all the case is in the news, when readers might want to look it up. Newystats ( talk ) 23:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The topic received further media coverage today ( [30] [31] ), displaying continued coverage . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Yes, because Rugg has changed her claim again. This further supports the reasoning that this article should be deleted or put as a draft until AFTER the trial, for the reasons I already stated above last night. Simba1409 ( talk ) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Plenty of coverage - and the case raises questions about reasonable workload in parliament, with potential for longevity of interest. Newystats ( talk ) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This court case is definitely notable, so I have rewritten and expanded the article's content with a variety of sources. I am also willing to commit to updating the article during the court case. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Even with your additions, the article is still out of date. Outside of potential precedents that this case may or may not set and noting that media coverage doesn't on its own make it notable, why do you believe this article meets notability criteria JML1148 ? I'd like to understand your argument. Thanks. Simba1409 ( talk ) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why are you excluding the possible precedents? Newystats ( talk ) 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not Newystats . My arguments above against this article are because it isn't notable as no precedents have been set. You can't argue notability in terms of precedents before they actually occur. The case can very easily settle (particularly now that the PM is named in Rugg's altered claim) or have a ruling that changes nothing. Simba1409 ( talk ) 23:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if we do exclude precedents, from the source assessment table below, the article is definitely notable under WP:GNG . I would encourage you to answer the questions that Oblivy has asked you on your talk page . From your edit war at Monique Ryan , to your actions on your talk page, to your comments here, it would be in your best interest to answer the questions honestly. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I'm here, I want to make it clear that I am also okay with a Draftify result, until the article is over. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your comments, User:JML1148 and basically agree with everything that's being said here - nobody can seriously disagree this has the requisite independent coverage, but for other reasons it could be a close call. I'd ask everyone to consider two things: what will this article look like if the case settles (or is otherwise discontinued before trial) on less-than precedent-setting terms? would it be acceptable to have this information maintained on Monique Ryan and then added back into the article later? Oblivy ( talk ) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, the article's contents could be condensed and merged into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg , with more emphasis on each of their perspectives in their respective articles in the case that the case is settled. I'm not exactly decided on the latter question, so I'll leave that to other editors. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was never engaged in an edit war JML1148 . I've also stated that I am happy for this article to exist should the case set precedents, which should clear up any conflict of interest concerns that GMH MELBOURNE 's projection may have caused. I missed the question on my talk page but I have now responded, thankyou. Media coverage doesn't in all cases = notability, so I'd appreciate JML1148 if you could explain in your view how this legal case is notable outside of media coverage and precedents that are yet to be and may not be set? My view as stated - if the case is settled or judgement is given that doesn't set a precedent or impact staffer allocations, then the case doesn't have any significance and therefore shouldn't exist. Simba1409 ( talk ) 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for your direct response on your talk page regarding conflict of interest. These

keep

She Is the Darkness: Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . Sungodtemple ( talk • contribs ) 16:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources MacLaurin, Wayne (October 1997). "She Is The Darkness: A Novel of the Black Company" . SF Site . Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database . The review notes: "I invite you to journey with Croaker, The Lady, One-Eye, Soulcatcher and Longshadow and the rest of the most bizarre collection of mercenaries and villains ever conceived. If you've read the others, She Is The Darkness is a great ride. If you want to experience what the Black Company is, I strongly recommend you start at the beginning. Like all great, complex stories, this one is just too confusing to jump in mid-way." Bird, Colin (March–April 1998). "She Is The Darkness" (PDF) . Vector . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review is listed here by the Internet Speculative Fiction Database . The review notes: "It's difficult, as always, to review the second volume in a fantasy sequence when one is unfamiliar with the backstory, but in this case Cook's She Is the Darkness is anything but a plot-choked middle volume. Cook is no prose stylist and the scatalogical modern dialogue is a bracing change from the normal off-the-shelf archaic dialects that so many fantasy writers use without thinking." "She Is the Darkness" . Kirkus Reviews . 1997-07-15. p. 1074. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review is listed here . The review notes: "... whose evil plots unfold against a landscape so bleak and blasted by war and magic that readers can't help but wonder where, for instance, the Company's food comes from, or who can afford to pay them. Fascinating, no doubt, for the fans; all but impenetrable to outsiders." "She Is the Darkness" . Publishers Weekly . 1997-09-22. p. 74. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The review is listed here . The review notes: "The distinctively non-Western flavor of much of the mythology is also welcome. Large parts of the book read like a collaboration between Michael Moorcock and the late John Masters, dean of historical novels of the British Raj. Indeed, the book offers virtually anything a fantasy reader could ask for, except a coherent narrative that stands on its own." White, Bill (April 1998). "She Is the Darkness review from Voice of Youth Advocates". Voice of Youth Advocates . p. 53. The review is mentioned in an advertisement here and in an Encyclopedia.com article here . The review notes: "[Cook] describes the villany of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power ... fans of the Black Company will relish this novel." "Cook, Glen 1944–" . Encyclopedia.com . Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The article notes: "Volume two of the "Glittering Stone" series, She Is the Darkness , once again takes up the tale of the Company as the group moves closer toward discovery of its mystical origins when it reaches the city of Khatovar. It becomes a race against time once the Company's demonic enemies begin to kill off members as a way of preventing those origins from being revealed. Bill White, in Voice of Youth Advocates praised the novel's "complex and sophisticated story," and noted that the author "describes the villainy of the Company's antagonists with extraordinary power. " Roland Green in Booklist called She Is the Darkness "wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters. "" Green, Roland (1997-09-15). "She Is the Darkness" . Booklist . Vol. 94, no. 2. p. 216. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 – via Gale . The review notes: "Wrenchingly realistic in both the details of war and the emotions of the characters and drawing eclectically but intelligently on dozens of different elements, the book still doesn't constitute a smooth narrative, simply because there are, after six preceding Black Company yarns, so many characters and elements that only devout followers of the saga possess the knowledge to make full sense of it. But those followers are numerous. " " "She Is the Darkness" comes to Iranian bookstores" . Tehran Times . 2019-08-13. Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The article notes: " She Is the Darkness , the 7th novel in the The Black Company dark fantasy series written by American author Glen Cook, has recently been published in Persian by Tandis Publications in Tehran. " Non-independent coverage: Flory, Graeme (2013-09-16). "The Black Company Reread: She is the Darkness" . Tor.com . Archived from the original on 2023-05-18 . Retrieved 2023-05-18 . The book was published by Tor Books , which is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers , which owns Tor.com , so this magazine article is not independent. The review notes: "Having made it through She is the Darkness , I’d say that things are kind of back on the right track (in more ways than one). If Bleak Seasons was Crossroads of Twilight (trying to draw stuff together but not a lot actually happening) then She is the Darkness is Knife of Dreams (an unwieldy cast is prodded into moving towards a conclusion); there’s good stuff happening but it is slow work getting there… ... She is the Darkness is one hell of a slog to get through, for me anyway, as Cook really captures that long drawn out feeling of a siege that is going nowhere fast. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow She Is the Darkness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources listed by Cunard. Article does need improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Resonant Dis tor tion 21:33, 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

List of serial killers by number of victims: I feel similar arguments are raised there, so this might be worth deleting as well. The list inclusion criteria provided make this list OR (what inherently makes a serial killer from pre-1900 different and worth including in a different list? Why are medical killers treated as something else entirely? Why are entries included if they have no known perpetrator? What defines a serial killer, and which definition does this page use - multiple jurisdictions have changed their terminology). Also, as was raised in that discussion, the list is "grotesque". PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Lists . PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a source of public fascination, perhaps more so than any other category of criminal activity. BD2412 T 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Lists of serial killers shows just how many list we have for them. List of serial killers before 1900 does exist for those not on this list, with a column for the number of victims you click on and have it show you the order, who had the most. The information here is spread out in many other articles, based on nation the murders happened in, and lists how many victims they had there. Are people fascinated by how many victims a serial killer in a nation different than theirs has? Clicking the link at the top of the AFD to see how many views this article has had, in the past 90 days its had 606,851. So a lot of people are interested in this information. The media does cover this notable aspect of the criminals. D r e a m Focus 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SNOW Keep : Not very good nomination rationale (especially on the latter point, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED ). The points about any potential OR would not hold weight because it is not bad enough for a WP:TNT . Selection criteria can be hashed out on the talk page, although, as with anything, if multiple sources call someone a serial killer, they probably are. (It is unlike the familicide page where the selection criteria are largely arbitrary. This is just ordering the total kills of a serial killer.) The problem with separating pre-1900s and medical professional serial killers also has nothing to do with deletion. Those are separate issues. Lastly, while not necessarily a valid point, this is one of Wikipedia's most popular pages. It clearly has interested readers. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 03:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC) ] [ reply ] Keep : You can't delete something just because it's "grotesque". Might as well delete every serial killer's page if that's the case. As others have pointed out there is clearly significant public interest in this page, so it's clearly notable as well. Issues with the selection criteria are an issue for the talk page, not for deletion. -- Tulzscha ( talk ) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable subject. I would have voted for "delete" for List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) though. Azuredivay ( talk ) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't really see any substantial difference between the list of mass killers by death toll and the lists of serial killers by death toll, in terms of deletion rationale? Both have arbitrary criterions for list inclusion and both are "grotesque". Doesn't make sense for one list to be deleted but keep the other. Just because it gets a lot of views is not a reason to keep it. Serial killers are a notable topic, but is ranking them by death toll notable? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate set of information. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While I appreciate the issues raised such as medical personnel being listed separately, I don't think there is a sufficient rationale to delete here. Alextejthompson ( Ping me or leave a message on my talk page ) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This appears to be a popular page, and it's not fair to delete something just because it's "grotesque." I think it could be better organized, yes, but I don't think it calls for deletion. 2603:6080:D141:A700:900A:4D54:D1C7:853E ( talk ) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to appropriate entries in Lists of serial killers . Something that appears not to have been mentioned here, but is quite relevant -- most "keep" votes simply say that the idea of a list of serial killers is notable, and should not be deleted -- we already have twelve of them . List of serial killers by country List of serial killers in Chile List of serial killers in Colombia List of Czech serial killers List of French serial killers List of German serial killers List of Russian serial killers List of serial killers in South Africa List of serial killers in the United Kingdom List of serial killers in the United States List of serial killers before 1900 List of serial killers active in the 2020s Here, the issue is not whether we should have a list of serial killers at all: it's whether we should have a separate, additional list devoted to ranking them by high score. I don't think this is necessary. jp × g 🗯️ 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are many reliable sources that discuss or list some of the deadliest serial killers. That fact alone allows it to meet WP:NLIST . Why? I Ask ( talk ) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Google news search for "sexiest" reveals some hundreds of potential list articles, like List of hotels by sexiness , Sexiest volleyball players , List of sexiest songs , etc -- not sure if these really meet the bar for inclusion. jp × g 🗯️ 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The difference being that "sexiness" is a completely arbitrary metric while the number of victims is a fact of general encyclopedic interest. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 12:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] By what metric -- the existence of news headlines about it? Did you see the link I posted? O'Hare, Maureen (January 13, 2024). "Inside the world's best, and sexiest, hotels for 2024" . CNN . "Sexiest NFL players: Wide receivers for Houston Texans, Dallas Cowboys make top 10 list" . khou.com . January 19, 2024. Truffaut-Wong, Olivia (January 19, 2024). "40 Sexiest Netflix Shows You'll Want to Watch with the Lights Off" . Cosmopolitan . Are these not sufficient "facts of general encyclopedic interest"? Surely sexiness is more interesting than murder -- after all, the number of times I've had sex is much higher than the number of times I've committed murder. jp × g 🗯️ 00:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether or not something is "sexy" is entirely a matter of personal taste, whereas number of victims is an objective fact, hence why one is a fact of encyclopaedic interest and one is not.-- Tulzscha ( talk ) 09:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] An objective fact is not an encyclopedic fact. Should we have another separate list of serial killers ordered by height, because height is a fact? jp × g 🗯️ 20:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Serial killers aren't known for their height. They are known for killing. Similarly, basketball stars are known for their height which is why List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history exists. Your arguments are not very convincing. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, maybe I should ask a more illustrative question: given that there is already a series of articles that lists serial killers by country, how many duplicate lists, containing the same information, should there be? jp × g 🗯️ 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the amount of pageviews it gets indicate it is an important and useful list. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Highly useful list. Carrite ( talk ) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree that the list perhaps should be merged with some others, also inclusion criteria have to be tweaked: I hardly understand what people with 3 possible victims are doing in a list of serial killers. But unfortunately notoriety is a thing, and it is within the scope of an encyclopaedia to provide the information like this. -- Base ( talk ) 21:21, 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

Consort Chen Farong: Not seeing useful refs but they may exist in other languages. At present there are various claims on the page which should be removed per WP:V JMWt ( talk ) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China . JMWt ( talk ) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Having written this a long time ago, I agree that it could and should be sourced better. However, as the mother of an emperor of a large state, she is inherently notable. -- Nlu ( talk ) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nlu , any chance you remember what sources you used to write it? -- asilvering ( talk ) 04:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete reluctantly. I don't see the sources. There's a paragraph in the Southern History [23] that discusses her. But secondary sources in English seem to be absent, and those in Chinese appear (I'm skimming here) to mainly be from Chinese Wikipedia or Baidu Baike or scrapes of those articles, or to be brief mentions in articles on her son. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Redacted) 223.204.68.123 ( talk ) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've redacted the comment. Thank you for your research on the sources below and for improving the article. These sources were difficult to find since it required four searches (the subject's two Chinese names and in the traditional and simplified Chinese representations of those names). It is not surprising that editors did not find sources. Oblivy does lots of good searches for sources for AfDs and is one of AfD's more thoughtful participants. Cunard ( talk ) 09:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject . If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources Chen, Huaxin 陈华新 (1992). 中国历代后妃大观 [ A Grand View of Chinese Concubines Through the Ages ] (in Chinese). Shenzhen: Shenzhen Publishing House [ zh ] . p. 168. ISBN 9787805424675 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books . The book notes: "陈法容发生性关系,于 469 年(宋明帝泰始五年)生了皇三子刘准(后来的宋顺帝) , 471 年封刘准为安成王,晋陈法容为昭华。 472 年明帝死,陈昭华为安成王太妃。 477 年刘准即位为宋顺帝,陈氏为皇太妃。 479 年顺帝禅位,萧道成称帝,建立齐朝,宋亡。陈法容被废去皇太妃称号。她大概死于齐朝初年。" From Google Translate: "Chen Farong had sexual relations and gave birth to the third son of the emperor Liu Zhun (later Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty) in 469 (the fifth year of Taishi reign of Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty). In 471, Liu Zhun was granted the title of King Ancheng, and Chen Farong of the Jin Dynasty was granted the title of Zhaohua. When Emperor Ming died in 472, Chen Zhaohua became Princess Ancheng. In 477, Liu Zhun ascended the throne as Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty, and Chen became the imperial concubine. In 479, Emperor Shun ascended the throne, Xiao Daocheng proclaimed himself emperor, established the Qi Dynasty, and the Song Dynasty fell. Chen Farong was deprived of the title of Crown Princess. She probably died in the early years of the Qi Dynasty." 皇后妃嫔传 [ The Queen's Concubines ] (in Chinese). Hainan: Hainan Publishing House [ zh ] . 1994. pp. 126–127. ISBN 9787805907451 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books . The book notes on page 126: "陈法容,生卒年不详,宋明帝的昭华。... 明帝的陈昭华名叫法容。" From Google Translate: "Chen Farong, whose birth and death dates are unknown, was born in Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. ... Emperor Ming's Chen Zhaohua was named Farong." The book notes on page 127: "顺帝就是桂阳王刘休范的儿子,以陈昭华为母亲。明帝去世后,陈昭华被拜为安成王太妃。顺帝即位,进封陈昭华为皇太妃。顺帝将皇帝位禅让后,陈昭华被取消了皇太妃的称号。(赵元译)【原文】明帝陈昭华讳法容,丹阳建康人也。" From Google Translate: "Emperor Shun was the son of King Liu Xiufan of Guiyang, and his mother was Chen Zhaohua. After the death of Emperor Ming, Chen Zhaohua was worshiped as Princess Ancheng. Emperor Shun ascended the throne and granted Chen Zhaohua the title of Crown Princess. After Emperor Shun abdicated the throne, Chen Zhaohua was revoked from the title of Crown Princess. (Translated by Zhao Yuan) [Original text] Chen Zhaohua, Emperor Ming, was a native of Jiankang in Danyang." Dan, Bo 淡泊 (2006). 中华万姓谱 [ Genealogy of Chinese Surnames ] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Archives Publishing House [ zh ] . p. 1438. ISBN 9787801666819 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books . The book notes: "陈法容( ? ~ ? ) ,女,南朝宋丹阳建康人。宋明帝昭华。宋顺帝即为陈法容所抚养。宋顺帝即位,进为皇太妃。" From Google Translate: "Chen Farong (? ~ ?), female, was born in Jiankang, Danyang, Southern Song Dynasty. Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty was raised by Chen Farong. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty ascended the throne and became the imperial concubine." Tang, Xiejun 唐燮军 (2007). 六朝吴兴沈氏及其宗族文化探究 [ Research on the Shen Family and Their Clan Culture in Wuxing During the Six Dynasties ] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press . p. 371. ISBN 9787500465034 . Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books . The book notes: "考中華書局點校本《宋書·后妃·明帝陳昭華傳》云" From Google Translate: "According to the "Book of Song·Concubine·Ming Emperor Chen Zhaohua Biography" compiled by Zhonghua Book Company, it says" There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Farong ( simplified Chinese : 陈法容 ; traditional Chinese : 陳法容 ), also known as Chen Zaohua ( Chinese : 陈昭华 ), to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria , which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Cunard ( talk ) 08:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wow! What an amazing, unsearched AFD! Thanks, Cunard, for finding sources. I'm working on it, but you did it quicker than me. LOL. The consort is a king's mother, and when her son Emperor Shun ascended the throne, she was promoted to be the 'Consort Dowager' (皇太妃) and mother of a kingdom. She has a full enough article in the Great View of Imperial Consorts Throughout Chinese History and Biography of the Empress and Concubines . That is more than enough to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Thanks 223.204.68.123 ( talk ) 08:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Keep happy to see this article kept, and it's justified based on the discussion in Southern History, the Chen Huaxin article and the lesser treatment in 皇后妃嫔传. Per WP:NBASIC we can combine multiple sources with less substantial treatment for biographical articles. Oblivy ( talk ) 09:39, 29 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

Calade: A search doesn't reveal much at all. Seawolf35 T -- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions . Seawolf35 T -- C 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not always "harmonious", Anglais! The sources in fr:Calade are fairly convincing, and the le Bec en l'air book seems fairly in-depth too. Looking around I find books on pierre sèche that also cover this subject, and the odd archaeological reference on Persée , that indicate that even the French Wikipedia has not exhausted the sourcing on this subject yet. So this is a totally unreferenced (and somewhat misleading) stub, but with, since the French Wikipedia article has done, clear scope for expansion on the subject. Uncle G ( talk ) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 21:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I added a tag to let French speakers know that they can expand the English page with the information of the French Wikipedia's page on the subject. I honestly don't know why it wasn't there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbie ( talk • contribs ) 22:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, already exists on Wiktionary . Owen× ☎ 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : DICDEF, fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 16:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone willing to review the French sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify , as the sources on the French page look convincing and show notability. I also checked and the Italian version of the page also sources too. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 01:48, 31 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

Marnia Lazreg: Yes there are a couple of obituaries here but it appears that only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries. They may be notable one day but right now it's WP:TOOSOON 𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I made this stub rather quickly after reading her obituary. She meets notability minimum as an author. There are more than enough reviews out there to satisfy that. Thriley ( talk ) 12:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , and Algeria . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , sadly. She seems like a very cool woman but I'm simply not seeing the evidence for WP:NACADEMIC . — Moriwen ( talk ) 14:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Very vague nom - her first book was published in 1976, so WP:TOOSOON is unlikely to apply; it's now or never. Obits in the NYT & Washington Post, and one book has had a WP article since 2015. To say "only one of her books was notable" is silly - few academic books get articles, far fewer than those that would pass AFD. Johnbod ( talk ) 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not just silly, it's incorrect. I found four or more published reviews for three of her books, Eloquence of silence , Torture and the Twilight of Empire , and Questioning the Veil . I think they all meet our standard for notability, regardless of whether anyone takes the effort to create articles on them. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : She has obituaries in the NY Times [17] and the Washington Post [18] , calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [19] . I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment : She has obituaries in the NY Times [20] and the Washington Post [21] , calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [22] . I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't know what happened there. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Seriously? I rarely if ever come to AfD because it is so contentious. In this case, the alert stream on WIR brought me here. What kind of before could have been possibly done to give the impression that it was too soon to evaluate her and her work in independent RS? Just pressing on the JSTOR tab produces over 300 links about her and her work. Just a tiny fraction of the reviews of her work from internet scholar archive indicate that she is clearly seen as an expert and her work has been discussed over time by other scholars in multiple languages. Ditto with google scholar . If Princeton University calls her "a preeminent authority in Middle East women's studies", I don't think it is remotely likely that they would be damaging their reputation to make a false claim or that WP editors opinions on her notability are sufficient to counter the statement. She clearly meets Anybio, Academic and Author. SusunW ( talk ) 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just linking to WP:BEFORE as the nominator is a reasonably new editor and may not be aware of it. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 23:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . People who get published obituaries (not paid death notices) in the New York Times are almost always notable. This article illustrates why. Beyond the obituary we have plenty of published reviews for WP:AUTHOR notability. Bad nomination. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - In fairness, the article has expanded x 10 since it was nominated, no doubt mainly because it was nominated, which is a good result. Johnbod ( talk ) 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, AFD is not cleanup. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Please use Google Scholar before nominating academics next time. Many reviews of her books, meeting AUTHOR. Innisfree987 ( talk ) 20:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as a clearly notable academic - and the two national newspaper obits are a good starting point for notability for anyone - and wonder where "only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries" comes from when several of her authored books are in Worldcat and in the JISC Library Hub . Pam D 08:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I didn't see the earlier version of the article but after updates there are clearly more than enough sources and coverage to show notability. Editing84 ( talk ) 10:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Notability is clear, as mentioned above, most of the time we forget to search for information about personalities in Arabic, where there are many sources. Regards. Riad Salih ( talk ) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Riad Salih could you add some Arabic sources? Finding and evaluating Arabic sources is difficult if you don't speak the language. TSventon ( talk ) 20:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : There's a clear establishment of WP:NACADEMIC here, even BEFORE says it all. NACADEMIC can be a little bit tricky at time and that is understandable. Vanderwaalforces ( talk ) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per above, and numerous reviews of her work throughout her life, obituaries everywhere is certainly a sign of notability. TLA tlak 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Improvement Association: No evidence of GNG type coverage which is probably inherent to it being a 5 episode podcast that occurred during 2021. Coverage is review of it and that it was nominated for an award which it apparently did not receive. North8000 ( talk ) 21:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the cited sources are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST . There are full reviews in multiple independent sources listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable. TipsyElephant ( talk ) 23:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I did some searching and found more sources in CNET , The Guardian , The Atlantic , Vulture , Indy Week March 2021 , Indy Week April 2021 , The Olympian , Oprah Daily , Paste Magazine April 2021 , Paste Magazine December 2021 , and Sheer Luxe . The News Observer covered each individual episode: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . TipsyElephant ( talk ) 03:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and North Carolina . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Vulture, the Financial Times and Deadline are all RS. Article could be expanded. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Zhang Weida: UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and China . UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 21:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have expanded the article with what information I can find at the moment. There is enough on his playing and coaching career on Google Books to lead me to believe that he passes GNG. Cobblet ( talk ) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 16:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, seems to have sufficient notability and referencing coverage. - Indefensible ( talk ) 02:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Whatever (Kygo & Ava Max song): I believe it also could also potentially violate WP:NOTBLOG & WP:NOTNEWS . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 01:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Three of the four sources here are no good regarding notability (Kygo's TikTok is primary, Genius lyrics pages and Forbes Contributor articles are unreliable), but the EDM.com article and this one from Exclaim! are both reliable and sufficiently in depth. It's not much, but with those two I think this article meets GNG. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 04:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did some cleanup earlier to clear out the unreliables, and now I've even replaced the TikTok source with a secondary. I think this article turned around nicely. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There are some relevant sources, such as Billboard and VG , however, the title of the article should be " Whatever (Kygo and Ava Max song) ". I also fixed the format so the article follows Wikipedia's format guidelines and added more references and relevant information. Jvaspad ( talk ) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . VG now covers its initial performance in streaming charts. The same newspaper and another also did capsule reviews . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep looks like this was just created too soon before achieved any success on the charts and before any sources came to light. DanTheMusicMan2 ( talk ) 22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

King & Maxwell: Agusmagni ( talk | contributions ) 22:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , and United States of America . Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 22:03, 27 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 28 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , this is the fourth time in a row the nominator has sent clearly notable TV series with plenty of significant coverage to AfD. Helpful Raccoon ( talk ) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , completely frivolous nomination. The fact that the nominator tried to prod it twice shows unfamiliarity with how things are done here, so grab the opportunity to learn more! Geschichte ( talk ) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I have no opinion on this TV series and trust the regular commentators to evaluate it more knowledgeably than I would. But I wanted to note that, when I reverted the second prod on procedural grounds, my edit summary explicitly told the nominator that, if they were to take it to an AfD, they should provide "a proper justification of what you tried to do to determine its notability" rather than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE rationale. They have obviously not done what I suggested. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we should delete Agusmagni ( talk ) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You're missing the point. You need to provide a rationale that explains why you think this article might not meet the specific Wikipedia notability guidelines that would be relevant for it. We're not here to count how many people are for and how many are against, which is the only information I get from your comment. We're here to build an understanding of how this topic does or does not fit into the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Comments that do not do that are likely to be discounted when the discussion is closed. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced. We don't base the judgment call about whether to keep an article about a TV show on whether that show sounds forgettable, but instead, on whether reliable sources exist for it. Here, they do. XOR'easter ( talk ) 21:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to TNT (American TV network) because most of TNT's shows are not notable. Agusmagni ( talk ) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can't just assert that. Again, you need to provide a rationale for why it might be true, a rationale grounded in what the word notable means on Wikipedia . XOR'easter ( talk ) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The show has non-notable people behind it and only has news released before the show. Agusmagni ( talk ) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is never inherited , so you are still not providing a valid rationale. Honestly, someone should just close all of the AfDs as speedy keep. Rusty4321 talk contribs 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Disney Channel logos logos Agusmagni ( talk ) 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article for notable show. The nominator has posted " Let's start an edit war " on this page (and then replaced it with nonsense). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE . Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per above. The user is basically just here to start edit wars and tag articles for deletion. kpgamingz ( rant me ) 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per others, and to the nom, please don't nominate another article for deletion until you have read the guidelines and policies Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Nomination lacks proper justification and seems based on personal opinion. Waqar 💬 20:22, 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

Fish market (Nouakchott): The potential for substantial expansion beyond a rudimentary description is minimal. Mooonswimmer 04:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Shopping malls , Travel and tourism , and Africa . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Hudson, Peter (1990). "The fish market". Travels in Mauritania . London: Virgin Books . ISBN 978-1-85227-127-5 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 . Chapter 5 of the book begins on page 57 and is called "The fish market". The Google Snippet view of the book notes: "The fish market. I had been in the habit now and again of going to the fish market on the beach outside Nouakchott. I would take one of the shared taxis out there, small green Renaults seemingly held together more by the determination of their drivers than by anything else. ... Immediately a fierce wind would hit the side of the taxi, veering it across the road to just miss a pick-up truck returning from the fish market with twenty-five people standing hugged together in the back, which fortunately had been on a westward lurch itself at the same moment, and accordingly we did not crash. ..." Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, H. ; Dartige, Ali Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2020). "Empirical analysis of halieutic products marketing system in Nouakchott" . Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Studies . Vol.  1, no. 1. Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University . pp. 37–52. ISSN 2605-7565 . Archived from the original on 2024-05-14 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 . The article is also available here . The abstract notes: "This paper examines the marketing system for fish products at the Nouakchott fish market." The journal article notes: "The Nouakchott fish market is the largest market for halieutic products and one of the focal points for fishermen landing on the west coast of the capital. ... The choice of the Nouakchott fish market as a study area has been adopted one by its geographical position which is located near the center of the capital, and other by, the seat of the majority and the largest factories of processing of fishing products (wholesalers). ... There is at market level an external facility consisting of bench dedicated to retailers and people responsible for scaling fish, and a building (headquarters of semi-wholesalers) consisting of storage rooms products in large enough quantity. In the same zone, there are 12 wholesalers (private fish processing factories), these factories are private establishments that process, package and store halieutic products before exporting them. ... Table 1 describe the different species inventoried by the survey and marketed in Nouakchott fish market (during the investigationthe species names were presented in French, mostly in Wolof language because it’s most known between merchants cause of the dominance of this ethnic group between fisher)." "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale se rend au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott" [A delegation from the World Bank went to the Nouakchott fish market] (in French). Mauritanian News Agency . 2020-02-24. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 . The article notes: "Une délégation de la Banque Mondiale, présidée par Mme Deborah L. Wetzel, directrice de l’intégration régionale pour l’Afrique, le Moyen-Orient et l’Afrique du Nord, s’est rendue lundi, au marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, où elle s’est rendue dans les hangars d’étal des produits et à la plage de débarquement des pirogues de pêche traditionnelle. ... Dans le cadre du soutien des infrastructures du secteur de la pêche, une enceinte d’une longueur de 3,5 km et composée d’une grande entrée et de 5 voies de sortie a été réalisée autour de l’aire maritime du marché de poissons de Nouakchott. ... Le programme a également financé la consolidation de l’énergie électrique du marché, au moyen de l’installation de 5 stations et d’un réseau d’éclairage public, un réseau d’adduction en eau et la construction de 300 habitations pour les habitants résidant au marché et qui sont au nombre de 8.000 personnes." From Google Translate: "A delegation from the World Bank, chaired by Ms. Deborah L. Wetzel, director of regional integration for Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, visited the Nouakchott fish market on Monday, where she visited the product stalls and the landing beach for traditional fishing canoes. ... As part of supporting infrastructure for the fishing sector, a 3.5 km long enclosure consisting of a large entrance and 5 exit routes was built around the maritime area of the fish market. from Nouakchott. The program also financed the consolidation of the market's electrical energy, through the installation of 5 stations and a public lighting network, a water supply network and the construction of 300 homes for residents. residing at the market and numbering 8,000 people." "Mauritanie: la pénurie de poisson s'aggrave à Nouakchott" [Mauritania: fish shortage worsens in Nouakchott] (in French). Radio France Internationale . 2019-08-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-22 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 . The article notes: "Le principal marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, généralement très animé, est affecté par la baisse de ses activités de pêche. Des centaines de pirogues sont immobilisées sur le rivage depuis la Tabaski, qui a occasionné le départ massif des pécheurs mauritaniens et sénégalais, partis dans leurs familles pour la fête de l’Aïd el-Kébir. En nombre réduit, les pécheurs restés en activité ne peuvent pas assurer l’approvisionnement régulier du marché." From Google Translate: "The main fish market in Nouakchott, usually very lively, is affected by the decline in its fishing activities. Hundreds of canoes have been immobilized on the shore since Tabaski, which caused the massive departure of Mauritanian and Senegalese fishermen, who left to return to their families for the Eid el-Kébir celebration. In reduced numbers, the fishermen who remain active cannot ensure regular supplies to the market." Mills, Greg; Herbst, Jeffrey; Obasanjo, Olusegun; Davis, Dickie (2017). Making Africa Work: A Handbook for Economic Success . London: Hurst & Company . p. 246. ISBN 978-1-84904-873-6 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Google Books . The book notes: "Nouakchott's fish market at the Plage des Pêcheurs (the fishermen's beach) is a place of great energy. Teams of men, some in oilskins, most barefoot, heave colourfully decorated pirogues up the beach. Others store away outboard engines and pack handmade nets. Boys and girls sell drinks and food, and donkey carts lug bags and boxes of fish. The concrete tables in the marketplace are piled with fish, the floor littered with discarded heads and entrails, while traders seal cooler boxes for the refrigerated trucks parked outside." Pitcher, Gemma (2007) [1977]. Lonely Planet Africa (11 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet . p. 424. ISBN 978-1-74104-482-9 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Don't ever think of leaving the city without a visit to the extremely colourful fish market (Port de Pêche), about 5km from the centre. You'll see hundreds of teams of men dragging in heavy hand-knotted fishing nets on the beach and small boys hurrying back and forth with trays of fish. The best time is between 4pm and 6pm, when the fishing boats return - unforgettable!" Ham, Anthony (2013). West Africa (8 ed.). Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet . p. 239. ISBN 978-1-74179-797-8 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Although it's not a highlight of the country, Nouakchott is sleepily idiosyncratic and you could do worse than spend an afternoon at the gloriously frantic fish market (one of the busiest in West Africa), ..." Phillips, Matt (2007). The Africa Book: A Journey Through Every Country in the Continent . Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet . pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-1-74104-602-1 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . The book notes on page 50: "Nouakchott, the capital, is a discombobulating city that reflects the geographical duality of the country. Though it's only five kilometres inland from the Atlantic, it's more a city of the interior than of the coast — yet it boasts the most active fish market in West Africa." The book notes on page 51: "Nouakchott's fish market is the most colourful in West Africa." Ould Ahmed Salem, Zekeria (2009). "Les écueils du "partenariat": l'Union européenne et les accords de pêche avec l'Afrique" [The pitfalls of "partnership": The European Union and the fisheries agreements with Africa]. Politique Africaine N-116 : Gouverner la mer. Etats, pirates, sociétés [ African Policy N-116: Governing the Sea. States, Pirates, Companies ] (in French). Éditions Karthala . p. 40 . ISBN 978-2-8111-0327-9 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 . The book notes: "Du reste, certaines des réalisations visées ont déjà été accomplies: le marché aux poissons de Nouakchott, par exemple, a été construit par le Japon il y a plusieurs années et fonctionne normalement." From Google Translate: "Moreover, some of the targeted achievements have already been accomplished: the Nouakchott fish market, for example, was built by Japan several years ago and is functioning normally." Learoussy, Hana Youssef; Tfeil, Hasni; Dartige, Aly Yahya; Aarab, Lotfi (2022). "Histamine content in fresh and frozen pelagic species from the Mauritanian Atlantic Coast" . Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture . doi : 10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i8.2920 . ProQuest 2731816705 . The article notes: "Hundred and eight frozen and fresh pelagic of scombroid and non-scombroid species were collected from the Nouakchott fish market (Mauritanian Atlantic coast) in different period of 2020 and 2021. ... No significant variation in histamine levels between scombroid and non-scombroid fish species was obtained; thereby, the study showed that fish product commercialized at the Nouakchott fish market have a good quality and safe for human consumption. ... Samples were purchased from the Nouakchott fish market, which is the landing site of artisanal fishing practitioners (18°05'35'N; 16°01'34'W)." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the fish market in Nouakchott to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cunard's research. Obviously a very notable fish market. A frivolous nomination. Aymatth2 ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep , clearly very notable. Apart from the English-language sources (97 results, some probably similar/equal to those listed above), there are several reliable academic sources in French. There's enough here for for a full article to be written on the topic if anyone has the time. Anyone fluent in Mauritanian/Hassaniya Arabic will probably be able to find more sources. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk ) 20:34, 15 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

Blue MC: A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little. LibStar ( talk ) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , and Australia . LibStar ( talk ) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep artist has won an APRA Award for her song writing. I've added content and references. Passes WP:MUSICBIO. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk ) 23:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, in light of improvement I will withdraw nomination. LibStar ( talk ) 00:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Robert Glen: Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage . Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Football , and Scotland . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus ( talk ) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. Giant Snowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 ( talk ) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 ( talk ) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 ( talk ) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 ( talk ) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good to know that a few sentences in a few books is now significant coverage. "Left back Bobby Glen from Renton had several international honours. Strong and clever, he was a favourite of the supporters and was recently at the top of his form." If that is sigcov then GNG should be scrapped. Dougal18 ( talk ) 12:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman 's and User:Jmorrison230582 's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc ( talk ) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes WP:GNG . Govvy ( talk ) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for WP:GNG . Svartner ( talk ) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG , also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah ( talk ) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the Heymann criterion was to provide significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Isobell Shyrie: Not seeing GNG met, nor NBIO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Magic , and Scotland . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment there appears to be some variation in spelling for her name. Found some sources for Isobel (single L) Shyrie - [4] [5] [6] . Also some for "Issobell Syrie" (gaelic?) [7] . Makes for a weak-ish case for WP:GNG. Maybe better to merge/redirect to Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1661–62 . - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : have added refs which show her as one of Guthrie's alleged colleagues. Pam D 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep She comes under WP:VICTIM and given the amount of scholarly work going on at present about Scottish witchcraft, it would be premature to delete. MsJoat ( talk ) 19:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the sources are reliable 1 , 2 , 3 Charsaddian ( talk ) 19:54, 26 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

Deshawon Nembhard: Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 00:06, 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 ) 00:06, 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 ] Keep - clearly no search for sources, given that the first page of Google News brings up 1 , 2 , 3 . Giant Snowman 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG. No BEFORE was done. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 23:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has enough sources. -- Mvqr ( talk ) 10:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails GNG. 8/9 sources currently in his article aren't independent of Nembhard. amandala.com.bz source is a mention in a squad list. 1 is a match report where the Nembhard specific coverage is "man plays football match" and "has three caps", 2 has a paragraph on Nembhard, takes large quotes from a Football Federation of Belize press release and this article which is a copy and paste of this . 3 contains slightly more on him but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Dougal18 ( talk ) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per GiantSnowman, Ortiesp, and Mvqr. Internatiojallt capped player withn ongoing career and already has good sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 16:29, 16 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

Pavlo Borysenko: Joeykai ( talk ) 14:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : appears to have significant third-party coverage: Interview with Ukrainian sports outlet iSport Interview with Latvian news website Interview on the official website of the Ukrainian Hockey Super League Coverage on Ukrainian sports website XSport: interview , news story , there are many others Interview on Ukrainian hockey fansite Coverage on Ukrainian news website LBua As Borysenko is now a naturalised Romanian citizen, I suspect there will also be significant coverage on the Romanian internet, but I haven't checked, as I don't speak Romanian. At the very least, it would be unacceptable to delete this article without asking for the input of a Romanian speaker. All the best, Akakievich ( talk ) 10:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; based on the sources listed above I feel comfortable affirming that GNG has been met. I cannot say with any certainty how reliable those sources are though and I welcome discussion on that. 18abruce ( talk ) 21:58, 19 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

DWPM: Inadequately sourced, and a search finds nothing better. Would have been happy to drafify this as possibly WP:TOOSOON , however it was previously draftified and moved back into main space past AfC, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT / WP:NRADIO . -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 12:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Business , and Philippines . DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 12:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dratify AGAIN per nom. Restore it back for now via draft because days from now this station will officially launch and sources regarding this may be publish. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not 'per nom', I'm advocating delete, not drafify; the latter is no longer an option. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 12:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak redirect to Baycomms Broadcasting Corporation#AM stations , the owner of the stations frequency. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed my vote from redirect to weak redirect since the station is currently under test broadcast. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Unless there are additional cite sources found, the issue must be settled whether the article has sufficiently enough to be eligible. Ekis2020 ( talk ) 13:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. It's too early to say if an article on this AM radio station (now test broadcasting) should exist. For now, redirect may be the best option unless its notability be established. Circumstances (being Metro Manila-based; involvement of networks) may not be enough at this moment . — Raider000 ( talk ) 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [Revised] Additional comment. I can't suggest on wherever this article be redirected (if that will be the case), it should be addressed first. Yes, Baycomms Broadcasting Corporation is currently the frequency owner (provisional authority); Prime Media Holdings & ABS-CBN are the operators (joint venture) yet the latter now can't operate it alone given that its franchise had expired . (The first two are the best choices.)— Raider000 ( talk ) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ABS-CBN cannot own a station or frequency since it doesn't have a franchise anymore, but can operate one via LMA. Therefore, operating a station is beyond NTC regulations. ASTIG 😎 🙃 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's noted. I thought, I might misunderstood these. — Raider000 ( talk ) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : @ DoubleGrazing : I added 1 source about the test broadcast of DWPM which is from The Manila Times. Is the notability okay or still not? ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 08:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's debatable whether that source provides significant coverage, or is just routine business reporting, but even if we give it the benefit of the doubt, one such source is not enough; per WP:GNG we need to see multiple sources. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 09:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's definitely WP:SIGCOV , but we need more than that. ASTIG 😎 🙃 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Possible redirect(?) to DZMM . The background is this: DWPM is the new radio station that bought the 630 kHz frequency that DZMM lost as a result of the latter's loss of congressional francise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao ( talk • contribs ) I'm changing my vote to keep . --- Tito Pao ( talk ) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'll neither vote to keep or redirect the article. Since the station was launched today, alongside the relaunch of TeleRadyo Serbisyo , I don't think this is WP:TOOSOON anymore. So, I'll expect more coverage for the following days. ASTIG 😎 🙃 00:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Overtime, the station as gained enough WP:SIGCOV , along with reliable sources added to the article and the comments below. That said, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG . ASTIG 😎 🙃 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Station already officiated. Let's just wait for more details regards to this developing station. Hamham31 Heke! KushKush! 04:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the concern is the coverage, the possibility of this article being redirected (as what i've said in my earlier comment) may decrease over time, given that cited sources are being added. Deletion is less likely. Should the notability be established at least in the soonest, it's possible that this article should be kept . — Raider000 ( talk ) 08:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GENERAL ADVICE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: there have been plenty of comments, which is great, but some of them don't make clear whether you are only commenting or also ! voting, because of the way the way the comments are rendered. If you wish to argue for, say, redirection, please make this clear in your ! vote; don't start the bullet point with 'comment' and then half way down the paragraph say 'redirect' – start with 'redirect'. Especially in a long discussion thread, it can otherwise be difficult to ascertain community consensus. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 08:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, DoubleGrazing , you are so right. As a closer, I consider all of the comments but having bolded "votes" also gives me a general sense of where consensus may lie. Some editors leave quite a lot of comments but never say, in brief, what they want to happen with an article. L iz Read! Talk! 05:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as article passes the general notability guideline since Manila Times and Rappler are generally reliable secondary sources (my personal viewpoints on those outlets notwithstanding) and that their coverage of the station so far is significant, which may change if other reliable media outlets also report on the station. Also meets the notability guideline on broadcast radio stations since it was given the green light by the national broadcasting authority to operate in some form and that the said station has its set of original programs, although many were carried over from its previous incarnation. - Ian Lopez @ 10:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep already passes notability guidelines per Ian Lopez statement. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per others above. I'm not opposed on keeping this article. VictorTorres2002 ( talk ) 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - WP:GNG , WP:NRADIO , and WP:ORGCRIT Generally passed. Abrilando232 ( talk ) 01:26, 3 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

Audrey Fildes: Unsourced bio. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG . UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , Women , England , and Canada . UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I've found a Beaton portrait in the National Portrait Gallery, and there's an intriguing Central Office of Information documentary Designing Women (1947 film) , starring her with Joyce Grenfell - see BFI and the note on her talk page (and the nonRS IMDb ). It does look as if much of the content of the article was added by likely COI editor User:SonsPaulandNicholas and SPA User:Jmcmurrah , but it all seems reasonable and most of it likely to be verifiable (well, perhaps not the family story about "My Portia"!) Pinging @ PatGallacher : who created the article,in case it's no longer on their watchlist. Pam D 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I've fallen down today's Wikipedia rabbit-hole and the 1947 film is no longer a red link. Pam D 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: nothing in the Globe and Mail 's archive . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 09:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A basic internet search helps define WP:Notability . This actress has pages of search results for her acting work. I added her television work in the UK as well, one broadcast was from a live performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky ( talk • contribs ) 2 August 2023 (UTC) 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!* 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete . Of the sources provided only one is usable for notability [1] . The others are simple mentions without commentary or databases. The level of work seen in her IMDb profile (nor the theatre work mentioned there) is not enough to presume notability in the absence of multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in more detail than the ones we have. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:22, 15 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! 18:08, 15 August 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, D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hoo boy. So, I found a lot of mentions of her. I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions. The stage performances (none listed in the article) that I've found so far: Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment ; The Rivals ; Ring Round the Moon ; Noel Coward's Point Valaine ; He Who Gets Slapped ; Hamlet (1945); The Return of the Prodigal ; A Trip to the Sourdough ; The Relapse . Mentions in Theatre Arts magazine in reviews of productions she was in: -January 1945 (v 29, # 1, p 61) "Chanticleer Theatre" by Raymond Leader . Noted as part of Greta Douglas' troupe with Margaret Gordon, Peter Noble, Robert Marsden and Alan Adair. Also noted she was invited (whole troupe, actually) to play on Shaftesbury Ave. -January 1946 (v 30, # 1, p 23) "English Spotlight: The Rivals" by Leslie Stokes . Mentioned as new actress. -October 1946 (v 30, # 10, p 594) "Crime and Punishment" . Mentioned as one of the "other actors in the large cast" of production of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment . -November 1946 (v 30, # 11, p 640) "Gieglud as Raskolnikoff" by James Reynolds . Mentioned as performance being ineffectual. In Drama magazine: -Summer 1950 (v 1, # 17, p 11) photograph for "Ring Round the Moon" with Paul Scofield. In Variety : - September 3, 1947 (v 167, # 13, p 117) Production of Noel Coward's "Point 'Valaine" at the Embassy theatre . - October 1, 1947 (v 168, # 4, p 182) review of While I Live (misspelled as "While I Love") - June 1, 1949 (v 74, # 12, p 259) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets . In Films in Review : - September 1950 (v 1, # 6, p 32) review with cast list of Kind Hearts and Coronets . In Punch : - July 10, 1946 (v 211, # 5506, p 37) review with cast list of stageplay of Crime and Punishment . In Saturday Review : - July 15, 1950 (v 33, # 28, p 30) review with cast list for Kind Hearts and Coronets . In Ciné Revue - August 26, 1976 (v 56, # 35, p 20) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets . (in French) Playbills / cast lists: - the listing of players in the 1946 London production of Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment . - United Artists pressbook for Kind Hearts and Coronets . (already listed in article as film) -- Also in Photoplay from Jul-Dec 1950, p 199 ; The Film Daily from 1951, p 190 ; a copy of the screenplay with cast list from the production - Showman's Trade Review of While I Live (already listed in article as film) - listed as playing Consuela in "He Who Gets Slapped" in 1947, with plot description on page 199; a review on pages 219, 315-6; and a picture on page 281. - a review of "The Relapse" (and the cast list ). -- a second on this production, and cast list , with a photograph - in Claire Bloom's autobiography: 1 , 2 productions (I'm not logged in on IA, atm, so I don't have the play names, sorry). - cast listing for "Ring Round the Moon" -- Also in the Christopher Fry Album -- A copy of the stageplay with the cast list from the production . - cast list for The Rivals and for Ring Round the Moon . -- Also a picture for The Rivals , and notes on the September 25, 1945 production. - as Ophelia in Hamlet . - photograph with John Gielgud in The Return of the Prodigal ; review of A Trip to the Sourdough . - cast list for Coward's Point Valaine . - - - - - This isn't even close to everything that came up in the search, just what I've looked at. - - - - - I also found a one line mention about a " Four Seasons Ltd ", which was apparently a theatre troupe she was part of at the Duchess Theatre in London. Getty Images OIM20 ( talk ) 03:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions. WP:NACTOR #1 says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis mine). I agree she has had multiple roles. How many were significant roles in notable productions? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Characters she played on stage from the cast lists linked above: Hamlet : Ophelia. Crime and Punishment : Sonya. Character analysis: Cliffs Notes ; Spark Notes The Relapse : Amanda. Wikipedia article on the play lists it as one of the three main roles. The Rivals : Lydia Languish. Lincoln Center Theatre shows it as one of the main roles in the play. Ring Round the Moon : Diana Messerschmann. Oxford Reference and New York Magazine have it as a main role. Point Valaine : Elise Berling. Wikipedia article on the play - this was the premiere London performance . Again, it is one of the main roles in the play. OIM20 ( talk ) 13:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure, but was it a notable production? Just because the play itself is notable doesn't mean every production of it is notable? Your high school could put on a production of the same play and that (very likely) is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well Point Valaine obviously is a notable production (the London premiere), but are you actually suggesting that performing on London's West End is equivalent to a high school production? I'm not being facetious; I'm new to AfD and I thought providing a response on a relisted discussion would be more helpful than one that others are more likely paying attention to. So I'm actually asking. How notable does it need to be for it to be relevant? From what I've read, the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to prove significance, so if I'm to do that, I need to know what the determining factors are. Also, should I be providing a detailed analysis of each link? I thought a summary would be fine b/c that's how I noticed it was done elsewhere. Is the burden higher on relisted discussions? OIM20 ( talk ) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You should check out WP:NFILM for notability for films, etc. Actors gonna act... that doesn't mean they are notable. This is why we have WP:NACTOR . Start with that and NFILM to start gaining an understanding. As for relisted discussions, that just means no conclusion has yet been reached, and the closer doesn't see a need for an immediate ending; no additional burden is levied. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks! Can I assume that "film" can be replaced with "stageplay" for most of that, or is there something separate for stage performances? _________________ @ Dusti , @ Liz - Since I need to prove that the performances themselves were significant despite the fact she played on London's West End , can I have a couple of days to go through the rest of the 260 returns on Internet Archive to determine how many are movie reviews, how many are play reviews, and then where, when, and how significant each stage performance was? I don't know that I can finish that by the 30th when this is set to close. If the above is any indication, there's a good mix, and a lot of the references will be for the same performances. (And I do know that at least one is actually a film that's on IA's servers. So there may be others that are similar content and not useful for showing she should remain due to Wikipedia:NACTOR .) OIM20 ( talk ) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OIM20 , please stop. AFDs are a forum for presenting arguments for a particular outcome for an article, typically based in Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources that suport claims of notability. It's not the location for presenting article content so do not list every role this actor ever had. It will not convince other editors to suport your position which is usually how deletion discussions are determined. L iz Read! Talk! 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh. Okay. OIM20 ( talk ) 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry - inadvertently left out He Who Gets Slapped : Consuelo. Wikipedia page on the play - main role. It's in the fifth paragraph of this section that one of her performances of the play is discussed, but not the one in 1947 I linked to information on above. OIM20 ( talk ) 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it is now. It was a long time ago, but notable. Johnbod ( talk ) 03:45, 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

I Heart Movies: Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD ? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GMA Network (company)#I Heart Movies : per nom. ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Keep Founded sources for the article: [70] [71] . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 12:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sources presented by SeanJ. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to GMA Network . Both the existing sources and the articles listed above read quite like promotional pieces, especially with links to the channel itself at the end of the reportings. Other news articles that I found are pretty similar in tones as the ones above. Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 19:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NTV with reliable sources indicated by ThisIsSeanJ , as well as the ones in the article. ASTIG 😎 🙃 01:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] — Note : An editor has expressed a concern that Superastig ( talk • contribs ) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff ) JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as it's sourced well and deletion isn't being asked for. Nate • ( chatter ) 04:26, 16 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

Trump v. United States (2024): Trump was indicted for election obstruction and filed motions to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, now to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is already covered at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute . My redirect to that article was reverted on the incorrect claim that "the cases are different", and I don't see the need for a separate article at this point. Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . Reywas92 Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — United States v. Trump has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, only the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision, thus making Trump v. United States a separate case. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution, United States v. Trump will continue to play out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Nearly all SCOTUS cases are standalone notable, and while the details so far of this case are part of the Federal prosecution article, the question of presidential immunity is a self-contained aspect of that, so it is reasonable to have a separate page to cover the SCOTUS case. This should be done by moving the existing content into the SCOTUS page case (along with appropriate attribution), and leaving a summary in place. Alternatively, when the case is ultimately decided, and can be summarized briefly on the prosecution page, then the details can go into the SCOTUS page. Either way, there will eventually be a separate page for the case so deletion makes no sense. -- M asem ( t ) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why was this AFD started just a few hours after this article was created? Is there some kind of urgency about it? Quick AFD nomination just seems to happen a lot with article based on news and politics. L iz Read! Talk! 05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The nominator is opposed to most, if not all page splits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This wasn't a page split, it was a single sentence. Was there really some kind of urgency to get this still-mostly-empty page started? You could have at least done what Masem recommends, but instead this page provides no further information. Reywas92 Talk 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was noting your position on page creations, not that I disagree. I typically write articles from the ground up but publish them early in order to avoid any conflicts, furthered by the existence of Trump v. United States , the special master case. Nominating stubs without giving due time is WP:TOOSOON , and I wasn't going to let this article remain a stub. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As Masem said, this is a notable case in the Supreme Court and its widespread precedent on Wikipedia to have standalone articles for cases like this. Timetorockknowlege ( talk ) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Already seems to pass WP:GNG . Don't really understand the nomination. SportingFlyer T · C 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The only good argument for deletion/draftification I could see here is WP:TOOSOON , but I don't think it's too soon to start this article, given that cert has been granted and there's already significant coverage of the case. Regarding the nominator's point that this is part of the election obstruction case, while true, Supreme Court cases take on a life of their own beyond the individual case, and this article would eventually need to be split from the election obstruction article, so I don't see a point of merging it now. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: it's a high-profile pending Supreme Court case. CarpCharacin ( talk ) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It is a notable topic. 103.65.140.93 ( talk ) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 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

Big Smoke Burger: It doesn't stand out like other burger chains like Five Guys. It is not a large chain and there is not much media coverage about it. I do not think it is notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. 747pilot ( talk ) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink , Companies , and Canada . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs ) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Smoke Burger (2nd nomination) : “ Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources . Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. These are all bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources (with the exception of the QSR Magazine and The Canadian Business Journal sources, which are still reliable and independent). These sources are not advertorials ; I find it very difficult to believe that these media companies were paid by Big Smoke Burger to publish these articles. North America 1000 11:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] References Financial Post The Globe and Mail Toronto Star The Canadian Business Journal Manhattan Digest New York Village Voice Gulf News QSR Magazine ” Cunard ( talk ) 07:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Cunard. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 16:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

2024 Lochem bridge collapse: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive ( reasoning ) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . An event being in the news does not make it notable. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move and repurpose to Nettelhorster Bridge . The bridge itself and its plans to be may be notable, and the collapse can be integrated into that article. DarmaniLink ( talk ) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for now or rename into Nettelhorsterbrug and don’t hurry to delete. It’s a recurring topic in all the Dutch national news sources. It’s highly likely the event will have a long aftermath. As its seem as a main disaster in the Netherlands, it’s likely to fulfill WP:EVENT. 82.174.61.58 ( talk ) 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and/or potentially integrate into article about the bridge. Nom cites WP:LASTING which actually states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." AusLondonder ( talk ) 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as likely LASTING and rename/rework through a separate procedure. This nomination is focused on the references instead of on the sources in defiance of NEXIST. gidonb ( talk ) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING . waddie96 ★ ( talk ) 11:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Astral Rejection: DarklitShadow ( talk ) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . DarklitShadow ( talk ) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has reviews from AllMusic , Alternative Press , and SLUG . Those three should be plenty enough. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 17:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the provided reviews. I chucked out a badly sourced section. Some of the article in its current state is still questionable. Geschichte ( talk ) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources provided above. A Newspapers.com search shows up a few more sources as well. I think it's safe to call this a GNG pass now. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 10:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment and @ User:Geschichte : questionable is okay in light of documentation found, no reason to put an article through AfD but rather through the 'Edit' button. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:33, 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

Winged Waltz: I don't know that Metal Storm is a reliable source, let alone notable itself. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Sweden . Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For what it's worth, Metal Storm is listed on WP:RSMUSIC with a discussion from 2011, and this review is marked as staff. However, the article doesn't have much going for it beyond that and I couldn't find anything additional, so I think redirecting to October Tide would be more appropriate. QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 23:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Keep page with two reliable sources. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged into October Tide . -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 11:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see this and this , which covers the significance of the subject and also a review , all from reliable sources, of which I believe it's enough to keep the article afloat. And yes, " Metal Storm " is a reliable source until proven otherwise, nominator should see WP:RSMUSIC . dxneo ( talk ) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : 2 reliable sources is enough to establish notability. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - reliable and good sources. WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk ) 22:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Your Face Sounds Familiar (Slovenian TV series): Tagged for notability since 2016 Donald D23 talk to me 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music , Television , and Slovenia . Donald D23 talk to me 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The show meets GNG : it was widely reported on in Slovenia and is discussed in-depth in reliable secondary sources. [26] [27] [28] [29] -- TadejM my talk 00:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - there are dozens of sources to be found, which points to NO prior BEFORE was done. Please do read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . -- Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 10:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Sources in the article and BEFORE show all promo, interviews, etc. Nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV. As for the sources above are reflective of the types of sources in the article: [30] : Redirecting to home search results page. [31] : promo. [32] : Promo. [33] : promo. Lots of promo, but nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 05:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [34] is a list of in-depth articles and does not redirect to home page. As to the rest, please elaborate why you call in-depth articles 'promo'. I would not assess them as promo. These are explanatory articles published in reliable sources. Do you even understand the content? -- TadejM my talk 07:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I understand content and notability, you snide little comments are not needed, see WP:CIVIL . I changed "home" to "search" above. As for the content on the search results page, its 47 pages of generic search results most of which have nothing to do with the subject, none of which has SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was a reasonable question. If anything here violates WP:CIVIL , it's your words: 'you snide little comments'. Given that you claim most of the results have nothing to do with the show, I seriously doubt that you understand the content (or you are simply reporting misinformation to be civil). Please also note that the page does not 'redirect to search results page' but rather is a list of search results. -- TadejM my talk 08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was commenting on your comment, not your person; your comment was about an editor. You need to stop directing personal comments at other editors. It is a clear Wikipedia civility guide to comment on content, not contributors. I suggest you read WP:ADMINCOND . // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A kettle calling the pot black. It was a reasonable question in the context of whether you can properly assess the notability as you do not have Slovene listed on your page as one of the languages that you understand. Please also note that it was you who used the word you when saying 'you snide little comments'. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH yourself. -- TadejM my talk 08:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note that this was the most watched show in Slovenia for many seasons. [For example, in 2016: "The most-watched show of the spring reigned supreme for 12 Sundays and yesterday produced a spectacular finale, which achieved a remarkable 18.9% rating and 62% share on POP TV ( Source: AGB Nielsen Media research, 18-54 year olds, share of total live TV viewers, 29.5.2016)."] [35] -- TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is even a diploma thesis analysing the show. -- TadejM my talk 08:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A diploma thesis is not IS RS, see WP:RS , "theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" Popularity is not a substitute for N. See WP:N , IS RS sources with SIGCOV are required, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below ." // Timothy :: talk 08:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, and these two sources have been provided subsequently to further support the argument that the subject meets the notability criterion. The required in-depth articles have already been provided above. -- TadejM my talk 08:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] comment type "Znan obraz ima svoj glas" to any Slovenian newspaper and see what you get. For example [36] and the first one I found was [37] . Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 10:33, 8 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! 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- coming into this late, it sort of seems like we're arguing in circles here, but I think given the sheer volume of sources, trying to argue that it's just "routine" coverage seems a little disingenuous. If something is getting "routine" coverage at this volume, that basically suggests its notable, logically, for me, and the volume of things pretty clearly indicates NEXIST. I think for some others, the issue seems to be that there are not specific URLs that can be pointed to that are more in-depth. @ Pelmeen10 or @ TadejM , if there are specific articles that you think would provide the best sourcing, as opposed to showing the volume of the coverage, that might assuage some other's concerns - and then they could be added as in-line citations to the article. While I can try to Google Translate things to get the jist of them, it can be quite difficult to do that at volume. matt91486 ( talk ) 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't speak Slovenian either. The Slovenian Wiki mostly uses 24ur.com as sources and they have done articles for all six seasons. 1083 results with the search term is quite a lot. Hopefully TadejM as a native speaker can help here. Pelmeen10 ( talk ) 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have already provided the requested in-depth articles above. -- TadejM my talk 17:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source evaluation : For all the talk above its worth noting that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article and it remains unreferences. Here is the source eval of the refs the Keeps didn't bother to add: Clearly promo stories https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ More promo https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles Still more promo https://www.koroskenovice.si/oznaka/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ Nostalgia promo https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328 Promo recap of an episode https://www.had.si/blog/2016/05/30/tilen-artac-zmagovalec-oddaje-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ A diploma thesis. A throw everything and the kitchen sink style spam ref http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dela/vuckovic-jelena.PDF Promo articles, interviews, episode recaps, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV https://www.times.si/iskanje/? q=Znan%20obraz%20ima%20svoj%20glas Promo recap of an episode https://www.metropolitan.si/scena/glasba/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ Much of the above Keep comments are based on the show being popular, and using promo resources to try and show notability. WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" Fame may result in notability, but in this case it has not. Promo refs and popularity do not equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's important to remember that simply labeling something as a "promo story" doesn't make it so. A quick review of the news articles cited above reveals a range of coverage that is critical, informative, and often quite insightful. For instance, the set of articles from Delo.si ( https://www.delo.si/tag/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas/ ) offers a series of interviews and reports that give readers a behind-the-scenes look at the show's personalities and performances. The first article is an interview with a personality from the show, the second article presents another personality from the show, and the third article includes a report on what was going on in the show. Zurnal24.si ( https://www.zurnal24.si/kljucne-besede/znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-76565/articles ) features a range of articles that tackle the show's controversies head-on: The first article is a critical report on the behavior of the show's jury, clearly not a promotional piece. The second and third articles provide a report on two performances, while the fourth article covers a change in the show and critical commentaries of its audience, again clearly not a promo. The fifth article discusses why the former leader left, highlighting that it may be too low an honorary, and is as such also clearly not a promotional piece. Finally, Večer.com ( https://vecer.com/film-in-tv/limonada-kaj-za-vraga-so-naredili-s-sovom-znan-obraz-ima-svoj-glas-10274328 ) offers a critical take on the show's recent changes, including the departure of its former leader and the impact it has had on the show's overall tone and style. Taken together, these in-depth articles published in reliable sources present a comprehensive and complex portrayal of the show. The articles avoid simple promotional language and instead offer insightful analysis and commentary. it is clear from the breadth and depth of coverage that the show satisfies the notability criteria of Wikipedia. -- TadejM my talk 13:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now added citations to the article's lead section, including an article in Primorske novice that was not mentioned earlier. -- TadejM my talk 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NEXIST, for the record, does not require sources to be added to the article, merely identified, Timothy, so "that the above editors don't even bother adding their citations to the article" is not relevant for the AfD. matt91486 ( talk ) 10:41, 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

Lutz Heinemann: There are one or two interviews, but these also do not count towards notability. The WP:GNG is not met, and I do not think any criteria from WP:NPROF apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep >30,000 citations according to Google Scholar suggests that criterion 1 of WP:PROF has been met. Uhooep ( talk ) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Medicine , and Germany . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep : per Uhooep, although I could be convinced either way. Queen of Hearts ( talk ) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Looking at the most cited papers on GS, they are also highly coauthored. Middle author (in a field where that matters) on a highly coauthored paper does not convince me of so much. However, I am seeing enough highly cited papers as first or last author that I think this is a pass of NPROF. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Week keep , for the same reasons as Russ. Like experimental physics, clinical medicine is extremely highly-cited and flooded with consortium findings and recommendations with hundreds of coauthors, which really should not count at all towards any author's citation record. Even so, within Heinemann's top 10 articles on Scopus I count 5 research pieces that have fewer than 15 coauthors (including two as first-author), totaling over 2200 citations. My ! vote is "weak" only because it is hard to tell whether that is typical among diabetes clinical researchers and I'm not particularly inclined to write a script analyzing the low-author-number scholarly output of his 1000+ coauthors. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Jono Pandolfi: No widespread sources in WP:RS . A search of sources doesn't find much beyond Paddofi's personal websites. The article was created by a WP:SPA . GuardianH ( talk ) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . @ GuardianH , thanks for keeping an eye out for articles that may have been spammed! That said, if the subject turns out to be notable, we keep the article and fix it. I have to remind myself that we "don't want to cut off our own nose to spite our face" since it can seem like the spammer wins. But our goal is building content, not punishing spammers. When looking at an article for potential deletion, use the search tools listed at the top of the page to check for sources. Some people refer to this as " WP:BEFORE ". Anyway, I used some of those links and quickly found a ton of stuff: DePalma, Nancy (14 March 2023). "Meet the Ceramicist to the MICHELIN Stars" . Michelin Guide . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . "Studio Visit: Jono Pandolfi, Union City, New Jersey" . Ceramics Monthly . Summer 2021 . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Lengthy technical interview - doesn't count for notability but very good for building the article. Dunn, Elizabeth G. (7 March 2022). "The Not-So-Precious Business Behind Bespoke Tableware" . Edible Brooklyn . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Kuperinsky, Amy (29 June 2023). "TV's 'The Bear' craved N.J. designer's dishy plates. His answer: Yes, Chef" . NJ.com . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . (Paywalled) Fabricant, Florence (18 July 2022). "The Art of the Serving Set" . The New York Times . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . Also 7 more articles ] in New York Times that mention Pandolfi (restaurant reviews, gift guides, etc.) Bernard, Sarah (23 February 2007). "Coming to Your Kitchen Table - Birdbaths, Cookie Jars, and More By Jono Pandolfi" . New York Magazine . Retrieved 30 July 2023 . There's still more out there as a Google News search shows. Anyway, thanks for your work and i hope this helps with your next AfD. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment WP:BEFORE all looks like native advertising and articles in lifestyle magazines or sections (specifically NYT). I think the subject fails WP:ARTIST . I am not finding RS for DoB. I find an interview where he states he attended Skidmore https://ceramicartsnetwork.org/ceramics-monthly/ceramics-monthly-article/Studio-Visit-Jono-Pandolfi-Union-City-New-Jersey-267546# , but I am unable to get the "Daily Candy" page to load, which is used as a source for education. Perhaps this should be reworked as an article about a business person rather than an artist. The articles mentioned above do not fulfill the requirement of "significant critical attention" for an artist. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability . First to push back on WomenArtistUpdate's claim that this fails WP:ARTIST . Per WP:NBIO , " People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:ARTIST in our case]. " In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:ARTIST, the policy also states, " Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. " Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:ARTIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? New York Magazine ( https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/ ) Story is written by a journalist at New York Magazine based on several interviews and original reporting. New York Magazine follows established journalistic standards. The entire magazine article is devoted to Jono Pandolfi. ✔ Yes New York Times ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/dining/jono-pandolfi-ceramics.html ) The reporter is not affiliated with the subject. The New York Times is an highly reliable source. While brief, an entire article is dedicate to this man. This should cut it per logic of WP:100WORDS . ✔ Yes 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 }} . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

CESRA: All current references are to CESRA or directory to conference proceedings linked to CESRA; I have not attempted to assess notability on my own. This doesn't mean that CESRA fails notability since WP:NEXIST , but deprodder Headbomb ( talk · contribs ) committed the WP:OLDSUBJECT fallacy: not a reason to delete, this is a 50+ y.o. professional associaton, obviously notable . About 90% of this page was authored by page creator Sjyu1988 ( talk · contribs ), and the majority of edits by that user are to this article, with most of the rest being creations of redirects to towns and all remaining edits related to CESRA, including a deleted draft on the same topic, some non-free files, and these edits that got reverted. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Astronomy , and Europe . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Major and well-established astronomy organization and sponsor of multiple high profile conferences, proceedings, etc. This is a big time failure of WP:BEFORE . Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Headbomb : Please provide secondary sources that support notability. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 16:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Isn't this a recurring phenomenon on Wikipedia, where well-established modest groups just aren't treated in RS, so are not amenable to encyclopedic treatment? Bon courage ( talk ) 16:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Bon courage , WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS . Not our problem. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well indeed. Are there any independent "Histories of CESRA" or similar squirreled away somewhere? Bon courage ( talk ) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . "Show me secondary sources!" is not a valid argument for deleting a page for a clearly notable organization. If you can't be bothered to do the work, at least don't waste editors' time with pointless PRODs. Let's close this AfD, and work together on improving sources. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it is you who needs to prove notability. None of the current sources do. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 02:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whom exactly are you referring to, when you say "you"? Is there a separate class of editors here who are tasked with supplying evidence, while the other class are sitting back, passively waiting for this evidence to materialize? This isn't Arbcom, and you are not heading a tribunal here. This is a joint effort by editors to improve the project. If you don't feel up to participating, at least respect the time and effort of those who do. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "You" are the people who wish for this article not to be deleted. The onus is on them. Cortador ( talk ) 12:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Err, if it's 'clearly notable' it would be easy to produce sources showing that. But the problem is - the lack of them, right? Bon courage ( talk ) 03:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep a major organization - secondary sources almost always exists for such type of organizations. Meets WP:NORG . 64.135.238.133 ( talk ) 19:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then produce them. – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 18:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One "keep" argument appears to be more like a personal attack , another is lacking in substance. More discussion is required. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . While CESRA no doubt is an established body that has facilitated a lot of academic and research activity, the organisation itself has attracted no significant coverage in independent sources that I can find (not even basic information, like how it was founded). It would be helpful if those saying this is clearly notable could show their working, because then I would be happy to change my ! vote. Bon courage ( talk ) 12:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The research of scientists associated with CESRA is clearly notable, as proven by a high number of publications. However, that doesn't make CESRA itself notable. I did a search for articles about CESRA, and virtually nothing came up. I'm happy to change my vote if porven wrong, but as of now, the discussion is textbook But there must be sources! Maybe the CESRA article should be kept nevertheless, but that would require a major revision of Wikipedia's notability criteria, and this discussion isn't the place for that. Cortador ( talk ) 12:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do in fact think there would be a case for considering distinct notability standards for professional, academic and standards organisations. But this is another discussion. Bon courage ( talk ) 12:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment See this [20] as a brief description. More to come. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep See page 930 [21] , and this, how they were an off-shoot of the other astronomy group and became official [22] . I think with that description and the literally hundreds of mentions and conference abstracts published over the last 50 yrs, notability can be established. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cool, I think that's enough (just) for notability, even if the mentions in conference abstracts aren't. Bon courage ( talk ) 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed - this is just enough to justify the article. I changed my vote accordingly. The 1972 one is authored by Fokker. Uncle G ( talk ) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This gives further context: https://eas.unige.ch/newsletter/eas_newsletter-6.pdf Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can find the basic information that tells me that it was formed in 1970 and held a joint meeting with JOSO in 1974 ( Brandt & Mattig , p. 139) harv error: no target: CITEREFBrandtMattig ( help ) , and not in sources by Kontar or Fokker. Unsurprisingly, it was in a book on astronomy organizations. Perhaps that's the sort of place to look. Zwaan 1974 , p. 930 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFZwaan1974 ( help ) does flesh that out a bit, and this gets us to 1974, at least. Uncle G ( talk ) 15:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] references Brandt, Peter; Mattig, Wolfgang (2012). "The history of the Joint Organization for Solar Observations (JOSO)". In Heck, Andre (ed.). Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy . Vol.  3. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 135–152. ISBN 9789401006064 . Zwaan, Cornelis (May 1974). "Cooperation in solar Astronomy in Europe". Memorie della Società Astronomia Italiana . 45 : 929–933. Bibcode : 1974MmSAI. .45..929Z . The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Singerband: Cannot find any mention of the village in any of the Indian 2011 census tables nor any other information on google demonstrating WP:GNG . Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Census for 2011 gives 5 different parts of the village titled "Singerbond" or "Singer Bond" with total population of 11,293 thus meeting WP:GEOLAND . §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ { Talk / Edits } 07:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your investigation. I somehow missed this and therefore retract my nomination. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 07:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I will close this, then, but I will also quote a very poetic sentence here for posterity: "During the monsoon season the condition of roads are pathetic". Geschichte ( talk ) 17:45, 6 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

Mrs. Bectors Food: Charlie ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India . Charlie ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment May I ask whether you did WP:BEFORE searches on this article subject before bringing an AfD? A quick search on Google Scholar for (Bector AND Cremica) yielded a number of results with lengthy coverage, e.g., [46] , [47] , [48] . Did you see these and reject them for some reason? Should the rule that the existence of sources determines notability, regardless of the current state of the article apply to this nomination? Oblivy ( talk ) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oblivy The journals you provided as sources aren't listed in Scopus, EBSCO, HeinOnline, or any other bibliographic index listed with Wikipedia Library . If these academic citations are accepted, they would be more fitting for enhancing Rajni Bector 's page than this company's page. However, you are invited to do the needful so that it passes WP:HEY . Charlie ( talk ) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address my question. It's expected editors will do searching for sources before bringing an AfD for non-notability.Were you aware of the existence of sources describing the article subject and rejected them? I just chose the first few substantial non-paywalled sources I could find, there are others - did you see those? Note that per WP:NEXISTS the existence of sources is most relevant, not the state of the sourcing in the article itself. Oblivy ( talk ) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The academic sources you mentioned mainly talk about Rajni Bector , not so much about the company. Kindly take a look at what those sources say. Look... I acknowledge the importance of having relevant sources, but it's crucial to examine the content and context as well. If we take your perspective into account, I am also open to the idea of merging this company page with Rajni Bector's. But, for now, be bold and make changes to the page so that it passes WP:HEY . Charlie ( talk ) 06:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per Oblivy . I also found citations from the following: Business Standard , Tribune India , etc. The article is in need of expansion, but clear notability has been demonstrated. KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Oblivy , are you arguing to Keep this article or do you advocate some other resolution? You've done some research so I assume it brought you to some conclusion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a multinational, woman-founded company that is listed on the Indian stock exchanges. It's a well known brand-name in India. It has relationships with most major fast food chains. It made national news when it got raided by tax authorities.... I've added cites which provide significant coverage. A lot of press came out around the time of its IPO and those articles provide enough factual content to support all or most of the article (I noted the founding date is all over the map, probably 1978, but also 1977 and 1985, so I left it alone). There is a lot more coverage of this company, although admittedly quite a bit of it falls into earned media rather than independent gumshoe journalism. I don't think that's disqualifying, but I know some people do. My point above stands - I don't understand the rationale for bringing this to AfD, and certainly don't agree with the suggestion a nominator can fail to show that WP:BEFORE was met and then say, hey (pun intended), you can edit the article to try to save it. This should have been an obvious keep but someone had to do the work. Oblivy ( talk ) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:CORP also per comments by Oblivy . — Maile ( talk ) 14:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I don't see how it does not meet CORP, and the peacock tag can be removed. I don't see any peacock terms in the article. Rajni Bector could be a possible merge candidate into the company page (but also a candidate for expansion). Geschichte ( talk ) 18:00, 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

Paul Christiano (researcher): There are two RSes, one of which is an interview with a personal friend and the other is from a single press tour in July which supplied almost all the RS coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE . Neither is a biographical piece. The article has many other references, but they're all primary. Request for better sourcing to address the issue on the talk page for two weeks, no response; PROD removed without addressing the sourcing deficiencies. What are the three best independent third-party RSes supplying significant biographical coverage to the requirements of WP:BLP ? - David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America . David Gerard ( talk ) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , California , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hi David, I didn't see the message you put up on the talk page. I think Paul Christiano meets the following criterion from WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He's first author of "Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences" and co-author many other RLHF-related papers, which are extremely highly cited and a core technique used in training large language models like ChatGPT. See his Google Scholar here . Additionally, he is featured in an article in Time's list of 100 most influential people in AI . Enervation ( talk ) 08:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GNG as evidenced by recognition on cover of TIME magazine (one of 28 faces) and feature article in corresponding issue about the TIME 100 Most Influential People in AI (TIME 100/AI), as well as the Fortune magazine article which nominator agreed counted toward notability on the article Talk page. In addition, the 2017 New York Times article "Teaching AI systems to behave themselves" did feature Christiano alongside another colleague at OpenAI. These have all been added to the article now. Cielquiparle ( talk ) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Definitely now meets GNG with the additional material added during the afd. Thriley ( talk ) 20:31, 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

George Griffith: No showing of SIGCOV. More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Science fiction and fantasy , and England . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , but yes, rewrite. Certainly a notable author, see e.g. the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and likewise in Don D'Ammassa 's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction . I'll see if I can find the time to fix the article while the AfD discussion is open. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about DRAFTIFY as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merits entries in The Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction (1997) and The Oxford Companion to English Literature (2009). DuncanHill ( talk ) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep discussed as a subject in academic literature: Mollmann, Steven. “Air-Ships and the Technological Revolution: Detached Violence in George Griffith and H.G. Wells.” Science Fiction Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2015): 20–41. doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.42.1.0020. Stoil, Michael J. 2007. “Globalization by Gaslight: Literary Anticipation of Technology’s Effect on State Sovereignty, 1871-1918.” Conference Papers -- International Studies Association, 1–20 WOOD, HARRY. “Competing Prophets: H. G. Wells, George Griffith, and Visions of Future War, 1893-1914.” Wellsian, no. 38 (January 2015): 5–23. Jclemens ( talk ) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: At this point, I'm willing to withdraw the nom, but before I do, I'd like some assurance that those who've voted so far are in turn willing to start work on overhauling this article. I don't want to close the discussion and have everyone go their separate ways, ignoring the work that needs to be done here. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ... And why should we do it, rather than you? You assume some privileged position to nominate stuff for deletion, and then when other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea, turn around and demand they do the rest of the work? Do read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY , please, and when you've done so, please decide whether you want to fix this article, or leave it unenhanced and move on to critique some other article without expending any effort to fix this article, which your efforts have correctly identified as not living up to its potential. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything? You've already found two good sources, so why not use them? I suppose I could have just stubified this article to remove all the unsourced material, but I'd rather try and motivate people to get something done. Or perhaps we should just let it sit dormant for another decade while everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you intend to motivate people by threatening articles with deletion just because they could be improved but haven't been, I have a real problem with that approach. It's not limited to you, but it is inappropriate wherever it shows up. If you want to improve articles, or simply don't know how to tell if something is notable or not, come to my talk page with a question and I'll teach you how to source things. Others can teach you how to edit problematic articles appropriately, so that they are improved, but still have a roadmap for further improvement. Much more productive and collegial. Jclemens ( talk ) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Appreciate the offer. I'll consider that in the future. For now, TompaDompa's doing a great job overhauling this article without your help. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 04:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Jclemens , that was needlessly antagonistic. Just Another Cringy Username nominated this for deletion on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, an observation that is correct , and offered the compromise solution of turning it into a draft which is a fairly reasonable suggestion considering that the article was in a terrible state and most of the sources are not exactly easily accessible ( The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notwithstanding). I don't think it's fair to characterize that as assuming a privileged position, nor do I think it's accurate to say that "other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea". When the objection is that the article is in need of a complete rewrite, as in this case, it's reasonable to want to make sure that that will actually happen rather than just establish that it would be possible before withdrawing one's objection. At any rate, I've started rewriting this and requested a few sources from WP:RX for that purpose. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion, and neither is "everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows". Any editor who makes a habit of nominating articles for deletion because they think they need rewrites is very likely to find themselves topic banned from AfD. If an editor think an article needs a rewrite then they can do it themself, ask on the article talk page, find a relevant wikiproject and ask there, or just move on and accept that the world is not perfect. What they must not do is abuse AfD to get it. DuncanHill ( talk ) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Beat me to it, thank you. "Needs a rewrite" is a good argument for... wait for it... a rewrite. Not a deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Needing a complete rewrite actually can be grounds for deletion, canonically, under WP:DELREASON#14 : Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia . But of course a rewrite is preferable in such instances, and that is currently underway. You are both very welcome to join the effort. TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having looked over two of the sources added to the article, most of the content pre-nomination was justifiable and what it wanted was sourcing more than a re-write. The specifics of Deletion reason 14 don't look to apply in this case GraemeLeggett ( talk ) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TompaDompa , Once again you're demonstrating a skewed and inaccurate view of deletion policy. Which part of WP:NOT says "badly written articles should be deleted"? It doesn't. "Not suitable" in deletion reason 14 is a reference to WP:NOT and nothing else : if it isn't in NOT, it's not covered by deletion reason 14. Do you acknowledge your error here? Jclemens ( talk ) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The nomination says More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. That's covered by WP:NOT ( WP:NOTESSAY ), and that's what I was referring to. I could have been clearer about that, I suppose. TompaDompa ( talk ) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Extremely notable early science fiction author. And with regards to fixing the article, it's not currently in horrible shape (although yes, it needs work). But that said, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very clear that notability is established by the subject of the article, not the content or the condition of the article itself. Also worth noting that the same Wikipedia notability guideline states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."-- SouthernNights ( talk ) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notability is shown in the reliable sources about the subject. The article needs cleaning up, but that does not justify deleting it. Passes WP:GNG and BASIC . - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 23:17, 11 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

Leopold Z. Goldstein: UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to be a notable academic from the pre-Internet era. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep Has about 10 papers in Pubmed, using the sourcing given in the article. Would appear notable, but wow it needs a TNT or at least a rewrite. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per Oaktree b and Eastmain. I think there might just be enough for WP:PROF here. JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hanoi University of Pharmacy: Perhaps merge into Hanoi . Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Vietnam . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] this is the same place as Hanoi Medical University . PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It seems okay now. Hanoi Medical University is not the same. The two institutions were split many years ago. The article could be expanded by adding text from the corresponding article in the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Trường Đại học Dược Hà Nội . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] we make it one article and provide the inital history & cover the splitting PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We generally keep state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per Necrothesp 's comment. Wikipedialuva ( talk ) 08:41, 4 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

Midlands Rugby League Premier Division: Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 ( talk ) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England . Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update after 1 week : Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and rename Midlands Rugby League . Mn1548 ( talk ) 16:44, 18 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

Chrysanthemums for a Bunch of Swine: None of these contribute to notability. My BEFORE check just found more wikis and databases, and Google Scholar only had one result. The articles on other Wikipedias also do not seem to have any helpful sources. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy . QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I’ll improve the page today when I have more time. Added a few things that in my view show it's notable enough for a standalone page. The nominator’s rationale clearly shows that AT LEAST a redirect to Sergio Pastore was warranted anyway. Strongly opposed to deletion . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not sure what the nom's search was, but searching a few film texts turns up a number of sources. It's a spaghetti Western, so it is not surprisingly found in books about that topic. I see that additional sources have been added since the nom. I'm sure there are others (what I found already indicates that's the case). The article needs to be expanded, but that's not a reason to delete. Butler Blog ( talk ) 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw I clearly missed some things when performing my search. The sources now in the article seem to be sufficient, and I withdraw this nomination. QuicoleJR ( talk ) 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

You Are in Love: The track is not subject of significant coverage, and the current information leaves something to be desired. Suggest redirecting it back to 1989 (album) as a standalone article does not look promising for inclusion atp. Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect No significant coverage in sources other than album reviews . We have to start becoming stricter (or at least enforcing the guidelines more harshly) on the notability of album tracks. ‍  PSA 🏕️ ( talk ) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think album reviews are fine as long as it satisfies GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") So imo it's really a case by case thing, and in this case the encyclopedic content extracted from the existing sources is subpar for a standalone article. Ippantekina ( talk ) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are sources that do have significant coverage of the song, other than album reviews. [1] [2] [3] These are the three sources that best demonstrate its notability. Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even so, the encyclopedic content of this article is of merger quality and there is no need for a standalone article when such content could be integrated into the article 1989 (album) . Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How so? Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per Branchy0008 . Even the charting satisfies notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NSONG charting suggests that "a song or single may be notable enough" but it is not a guarantee. Ippantekina ( talk ) 03:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most articles about recordings and musicians are notable because of charting especially from Billboard charts. Some articles only rely on chart history sources to establish significant coverage. May or not, as long as it is a criteria for notability, it is what it is! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lol ok Ippantekina ( talk ) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 1989 (album) per PSA . BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions ) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – received significant independent coverage in American Songwriter , Billboard , etc. There's also an extensive paragraph in Perone 2017. Combined with other album reviews I don't see why this can't be a great article. Heartfox ( talk ) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the song charting as well as the sources shown in this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli ( talk • contribs ) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral @ Brachy0008 , @ TheChineseGroundnut , @ Heartfox and @ Elli : If we let this article stand, with doubts about minimum compliance with standards, what will happen is that it will stand, but it would not meet the GA criteria. If the GA criteria are not met, then the 1989 topic will be at risk and will be forced to be removed as a featured topic . What a shame to say (because I know a lot of effort has gone into this article), but the existing articles about the album are better done than this one. Also, you can't do the same thing as with the songs from Midnights (you can notice that all the songs in its standard edition have an article and they are all GA), because the ones from 1989 don't have the same coverage. However, I'll not vote for or against its removal so as not to harm anyone. Santi ( talk ) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it can be GA. Topic demotion grace period is three months. If by that time it is clear it can't meet GA I would vote to redirect, but right now there are still many sources that aren't used and this article is not near its final state. Heartfox ( talk ) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Heartfox : Ok, and how which ones? I haven't been able to sit down to review it yet because I have a super tight schedule that I suppose will be light on May 3. Santi ( talk ) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Words and Music of Taylor Swift has a paragraph about the song, for example. Heartfox ( talk ) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. But it would then be more complicated because, in my case, I cannot go around buying information books that I will not use later, because I have several old encyclopedias in the library. I don't know about Brachy in this case. Santi ( talk ) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven’t got much books pertaining this article (or TayTay in general). However, my country has a lot of libraries (one of them having a book about Taylor Swift for children). Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Brachy 08 (Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ...and I can’t access TWAMOTC Brachy 08 (Talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You can make a request at WP:RX . Heartfox ( talk ) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It clearly meets WP:NSONG #1 because it charted in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, and even earned Gold certification in Australia. Cleo Cooper ( talk ) 01:06, 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

Minecraft server: While there are a small number of notable Minecraft servers, such as Mineplex and Hypixel , there's no indication that Minecraft servers in general are notable as a distinct topic from the game that runs on them. The server is just a component of the game; what notable features of multiplayer Minecraft are included here could easily be described in the main article without making it too long , and other things like the "Management" section are descriptions of aspects of running any popular multi-user server which are certainly not unique to this game. Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet . Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 19:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move to List of Minecraft servers and orient the article around that. Some of the listed servers are independently notable, so it seems to serve a valid navigational purpose . The concept seems at least somewhat notable . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in addition to everything already on the page, USA Today covers this in general as a distinct topic. 2601:204:C901:B740:5D4F:EE1B:4A41:2B4A ( talk ) 19:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Blablubbs ( talk ) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a notable topic passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. I don't see how this fails either INDISCRIMINATE or NOTINHERITED. The main article is already way too long, let alone if this content was there. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per replies. Panamitsu ( talk ) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article provides encyclopedic content, and very much not indiscriminate in what it includes. Neither is the topic inherited solely because Hypixel and Mineplex have been reported on a lot while the subject of servers has less of it. In fact, there is enough written on the subject , which has historical , legal, and financial differences from traditional game servers that make it unique. Though the 'Notable servers' section takes up a chunk of the article, there's substantial prose independent of it. (Worth mentioning that the list's selection criteria, unwritten, is high and that people keep trying to add their server onto the list . Making it a pure list is going in the opposite direction of the raised nomination statement.) Merging it with the Minecraft article is a bad idea because it's bloated and unfocused already. SWinxy ( talk ) 23:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SIGCOV , but agree with ZX on moving the page. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per hellknowz, oppose move / listification. I do not understand how this fails WP:SIGCOV or how it's WP:IINFO . I see more than enough sources that are clearly specifically about Minecraft multiplayer servers and not WP:INHERITED from Minecraft. Leijurv ( talk ) 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I don't believe this article is indiscriminate. However, I do think there is an argument that there is a significant overlap with game server , hence the listification in order to emphasize what parts about it are worthy of separate mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , separate standalone topic per the replies, and the Minecraft article is also hell when it comes to length, merging a servers list into the main article could possibly fall under game guide territory. No opinion on moving to List of Minecraft servers or to keep it here, I just think it's worth keeping in some form. NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 01:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an overwhelming consensus that at least some of the 67 references in this article provide SIGCOV to this subject and the article should be Kept...in the future, it would be helpful to other participants and the closer if you identified at least 3 that were particularly crucial in establishing notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the WP:THREE , probably: Blocks with friends: How to run your own Minecraft server , The Future Of Minecraft's Biggest Servers , and Minecraft Realms hopes to make an increasingly complex game more family-friendly . SWinxy ( talk ) 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, SWinxy , I usually don't get an immediate response like that to a relisting comment. L iz Read! Talk! 01:14, 19 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

Five Mile House (Illinois): Not listed on the NRHP [21] . Sourcing is all primary. Appears PROMO for a tourist attraction. Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Consdering the AfD posting was the third-ever edit to this new page, and the page is only sourced to primary sources, a good WP:BEFORE search is necessary and it's crystal clear this house comes up often in multiple local news sources (newspaper and television), and has been referenced in several books. There's a chance the coverage as a whole doesn't add up to GNG, but there's definitely coverage out there, and I haven't even searched old newspapers yet. SportingFlyer T · C 14:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Historical buildings don't have to be on the NRHP to be notable, and this one has plenty of coverage in non-primary sources: see [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] . It's included in the Illinois Historic Sites Survey Inventory , though their database is under construction so finding info is a bit of a pain right now. It's also been referenced in books, as SportingFlyer mentioned. The article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 17:06, 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

Supermium: Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter ( talk ) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) - Pmffl ( talk ) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things -Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter) -Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure -A functional sandbox for enhanced security -Google Sync -On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content -GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags -Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags -Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs -Many flags from ungoogled-chromium -Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 ( talk ) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify. -- 2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC ( talk ) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is importan t. 71.11.225.163 ( talk ) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is [26] . Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles ( talk ) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. ! votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD ( talk ) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD ( talk ) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp × g 🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Proven, Liam (2024-03-06). "Supermium drags Google Chrome back in time to Windows XP, Vista, and 7" . The Register . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons." Václavík, Lukáš (2024-03-09). "Supermium je moderní prohlížeč pro Windows XP a jiné vykopávky. Stačí mu i 20 let starý hardware" [Supermium is a modern browser for Windows XP and other digs. Even 20-year-old hardware is enough for him]. Živě. cz [ pl ] (in Czech). Czech News Center . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser." Zamfir, Roberto (2024-02-08). "Supermium" . Softpedia . Archived from the original on 2024-05-28 . Retrieved 2024-05-28 . The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě. cz [ pl ] . I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard ( talk ) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline even says so explicitly. jp × g 🗯️ 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 21:13, 29 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

Brooke Barrettsmith: Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Television , and Illinois . Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jpcase . WhichUser AmI 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : Does not fail WP:NSINGER . Her album charted on Billboard . -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It peaked at No. 36. That meets the criteria for notability? I'm genuinely asking. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely. Any placement on Billboard should generally be considered enough to establish notability. WP:NSINGER simply says that notability is shown if an artist "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." It doesn't say that the single or album has to reach an especially high point on the chart. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And even those Billboard subcharts qualify? I read through WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS , but all of the different iterations of Billboard charts were confusing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I'm not aware of any Billboard chart that wouldn't be considered a major chart for notability purposes. Barrettsmith's album charted on the Top Christian Albums chart, which certainly qualifies. It apparently also charted on the Heatseekers chart, (though her Billboard page doesn't seem to be online anymore, and unfortunately, it seems that the Way Back Machine only archived the page showing her placement on the Christian chart). -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi all, Brooke here! I meet several criteria. Here they are by number: Criterion 1 a) My self-titled album release on Essential/Provident/Sony BMG in 2008 - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006P8JUU2/ref=sr_1_1? crid=3T96CHX2AB1K3&keywords=brooke+barrettsmith&qid=1684802487&sprefix=%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1 b) Several notable print publications. I can find more if you'd like me to dive deeper into my storage space - https://bbarrettsmith.wixsite.com/bb-photos Criterion 2 a) Billboard's Top Christian Album chart b) Billboard's Heatseekers Albums chart (Maybe call Provident for a backdated resource. My former A&R rep is still there and he can confirm.) Criterion 4 a) Opening act on Pillar 's national tour "For the Love of the Game" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/01/28.PILLAR%20ANNOUNCES%20FOR%20THE%20LOVE%20OF%20THE%20GAME%20TOUR%20DATES.asp b) Opening act on BarlowGirl 's national tour "Million Voices Tour" in 2008. Many resources online covered this tour. Here's one - https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2008/09/03.BarlowGirl%20To%20Release%20First%20Holiday%20Project%20Home%20For%20Christmas.asp Criterion 11 a) I was in rotation on several Christian radio stations in 2008-2010 across the country. 90.1 WMBI, K-Love stations, The Fish stations, etc. (Most cities we toured through played my music on rotation, if only for that season. Please call them or Provident for a backlog.) Positivelynonegatives ( talk ) 00:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart link. I peaked at number 40: https://books.google.com/books? id=EhQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA49&dq=billboard+barrettsmith&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl1fiFoor_AhXakYkEHYwOBPYQ6AF6BAgKEAI#v=onepage&q=billboard%20barrettsmith&f=false Positivelynonegatives ( talk ) 01:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 08:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Charted on Billboard , so WP:NSINGER is fulfilled. 23:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Keep : In addition to the above, she has been profiled by the Arlington Heights Daily Herald ("Faith leads Spring Grove woman into limelight") and had her album reviewed by the Great Falls Tribune ("Barrettsmith's new album offers clean, but forgettable, tunes"); there is also a capsule (editorial, not user-generated) review in All Music Guide . Being on a reality show does not automatically fail WP:NSINGER or override WP:GNG . Gnomingstuff ( talk ) 13:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as charted on a Billboard chart and also has christian music reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Robin (TV series): Tagged for notability since January 2023 Citations on other language pages do not appear to support notability either. Donald D23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Comics and animation , Sweden , Canada , and United States of America . Donald D23 talk to me 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Television series for national television. AlexandraAVX had already added a good secondary source. I've added a couple of other Swedish articles, and I think this lives up to our requirements. / Julle ( talk ) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Julle's reasoning. The Dagens Nyheter source looks solid: a national newspaper with an article called " Robin hopes to become hip in the whole world". The Expressen article is called "Prized friends got drunk. But now Magnus figures are child-friendly" — this is referring to Carlsson's next series for children, comparing it to the adult-oriented Robin . This series got national attention. Toughpigs ( talk ) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there's now three sources in Swedish national newspapers that discuss the subject, it definitely seems to meet GNG to me at this point. AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per improvements made since nom. BabbaQ ( talk ) 19:02, 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

Jack Meltzer: Boleyn ( talk ) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Social science , Illinois , Michigan , Texas , and Washington, D.C. . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Does seem to have been a notable academic and planner. Full length obituary in the Chicago Tribune : [9] . The University of Texas at Dallas issues their own obituary: [10] . (It's not independent, but WP:NACADEMIC does not require independent sources.) Often mentioned or discussed in scholarship about urban planning in Chicago, e.g. [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] . His book Metropolis to Metroplex received several scholarly reviews: [15] , [16] , [17] . He and his firm are discussed extensively in this doctoral dissertation: [18] . Jfire ( talk ) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. He appears to be a person of significance and finding references from 1950s-1960s is probably not easy given that those were pre-digital media times. BulgarianCat ( talk ) 07:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Subject is clearly notable per sources already in the article in addition to Explicit 's argument. The real problem is that great swaths of the article are copyvio from the cited Hyde Park Journal obit. Central and Adams ( talk ) 17:39, 20 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