Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty

/

wide_analysis

like 0

Ma Hunkel: 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation . 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 ( 🔔 ) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The nominator doesn't account for the existing reliable sources cited in the article: Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre by Peter Coogan (2006), American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1944 by Kurt Mitchell and Roy Thomas (2019), and American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969 by John Wells (2014). These published sources demonstrate notability for the character. Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep. Sources abound. This character has a notable place in history as DC's first costumed superhero even if she was a parody. When the nominator "couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE" [I assume the missing word was "find"], where exactly did the nominator look? The article includes some excellent sources already. For example, many scholars treat Peter Coogan 's book as the definitive work on exactly what a superhero is. Did the nominator search for Red Tornado? (I realize it can be difficult to distinguish references to her from mentions of the modern android version of the Red Tornado.) Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Season of the Sakura: Fails the general and game-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Video games , Computing , and Japan . UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete It's likely that the vast majority of any coverage is in paper sources, given the game's age. But, the article creator never included any and the WP:BURDEN is on the maker of an article to prove notability. In English, there is very little to be found, with Mobygames only listing a single contemporaneous review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment. I was able to find is a >200 word review in dead tree magazine, Animeco #9 Winter 1998, page 31-32. Magazine has an editor-in-chief/masthead. — siro χ o 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment BugBug , a Japanese adult gaming magazine, appears to have a spread's worth of coverage (a lot of it NSFW images) in its June 1996 issue, pages 56-57. Dunno about its reliability, but from Google searches it's claimed to be one of Japan's longest-running gaming magazines. -- Laukku TheGreit ( Talk • Contribs ) 09:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to the two sources Laukku found above, I found additional coverage in the Spanish print magazine Loading Extra #3, pg. 24-27. Honestgamers published a review of the game (note: outlet seems to be marked as "situational" at WP:VG/S , not sure how this would affect a game review where subjectivity is expected). This game was bundled as part of the JAST USA Memorial Collection, where slightly more coverage of it can be found. Season of the Sakura also appears to have been one of the subjects in The Impact of Telepresence on Cultural Transmission through Bishoujo Games. , a 2005 paper published on behalf of Temple University. It seems to me that there are sources out there, they just need to be integrated into the article. FlotillaFlotsam ( talk ) 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in addition to the above theree's an article on Vice here . -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets WP:GNG — siro χ o 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cups (suit): They should be merged if they have anything new. Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge all 4 (as nom) using the old names, including moving Suit of goblets back to Suit of cups , where it was before Bermicourt made a disambig to distinguish his new from the old; they should really be one. Dicklyon ( talk ) 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This copied-and-pasted rationale is visibly faulty. Cups (suit) is not a duplicate of Suit of cups . The latter is a disambiguation between Cups (suit) and Suit of goblets . And those two are not duplicates on their faces, either. Cups (suit) is (it says) about playing cards and Suit of goblets is (it says) about Tarot cards. Uncle G ( talk ) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but do not merge . These are two distinct topics. Although occultists based their suits on those of the Italian pattern of playing cards, they broke away over 200 years ago to produce their own packs purely for cartomantic purposes. So the article on the suit of cups is specifically about the playing cards, whereas the one on the suit of goblets is purely about cartomantic cards. They have different designs and uses with almost no crossover. The same is true of batons and wands, coins and pentacles, etc. We have been slowly untangling the mess caused by combining them, but there is more to do. They could all be named Foo (suit) or we could make it clear by calling them e.g. Foo (playing card suit) and Foo (cartomantic suit). HTH. Bermicourt ( talk ) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I relent and sorry I didn't find how best to do all 4 at once. Feel free to close 'em. Dicklyon ( talk ) 04:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep of all four articles, per withdrawal by nominator, above. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 08:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Michael Habeck: Fails the general and actor-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Actors and filmmakers , and Germany . UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep ; and rather expand with the German Wikipedia page, whose filmo as a start, for example, allows to verify he does meet WP:NACTOR for his multiple significant roles in notable films/series.I am not saying his notability comes from having other WP pages but from some of his numerous roles, some being significant. Which roles? for example, in international productions, Feppo in Lexx and Berengar in the Name of the Rose . But also lead roles in Robert Sigl 's School's Out, and Der Templer , to name just a few. Coverage exists (or here for example. Also notable as voice actor. FWIW, willing to add those sources and expand the page when I have more time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update . I started improving the page. See for yourself. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] .... it’s in the page but he received a Grimme-Preis ......- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notability has been established via the improvements Mushy Yank has made. Jfire ( talk ) 00:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , is now acceptable. Geschichte ( talk ) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Arun Goel: No sources used in the article, none found either. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India . Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I suppose there was an issue with the WP:BEFORE search, because sources covering this individual were easily found through a Google search. I think the sources I added to the article very clearly establish the notability of Goel as an article subject; I'd suggest withdrawing the nom ( WP:CLOSEAFD ) to save some valuable AfD resources. Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging @ Oaktree b :) Actualcpscm ( talk ) 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has changed since it was nominated, perhaps the electoral commissioner is notable, but I'm not sure. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are now 8 sources from 6 different publications in the article, all of which provide detailed coverage of Goel's appointment and the subsequent Supreme Court case. On what basis is this individual not notable? Actualcpscm ( talk ) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I don't think the electoral commissioners meet WP:NPOL on its face, but I do think it highly likely that the 3 Election Commissioners of India are notable. There are only 3 of them and they appear to oversee elections in one of the most populous democracies. That being said, someone does need to expand and improve this article. The current sourcing may meet WP:GNG , but there isn't much actually written with the sources in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, referencing looks sufficient. - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per nom. It passes the WP:GNG as all the presented references in this article seems to be reliable and independent to the subject. Fade258 ( talk ) 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clear failure of before . Okoslavia ( talk ) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Arun Goel holds the position of the Election Commissioner of India, which is a significant public office in the world's largest democracy. This makes him notable in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians and government officials. Bash7oven ( talk ) 15:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bhalgaon: Terrickisaiah555 [T] / [C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Terrickisaiah555 [T] / [C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Listed as a village on the 2011 Indian Census, as the reference in the article says. So passes WP:GEOLAND . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete per WP:GEOLAND is a bad guideline and this needs some WP:TNT so someone who knows something can create a decent article . This is likely a real place, but a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article. The only geographic claim is vague, unsourced, and as best I could check fails verification. GNS is very sketchy and I don't know what other source we would use to reliably source the location. I assume all these issues are going to be ignored and the article we be kept as-is, but really we need to stop keeping junk permastub articles just to satisfy a guideline which people complain about constantly. Mangoe ( talk ) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whether you think it's a "bad guideline" or not is irrelevant. It is one. Some people complain about it. Many people support it. A few of the usual suspects complaining about it every time it's mentioned doesn't mean it should be scrapped. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:13, 15 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! 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: "a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article" . Actually, one line for a village in one of the Indian Census's spreadsheets carries a lot of information. Hundreds of columns. No prose but a lot of stats. You could get a pretty good 1-2 paragraph stub out of that one line. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:21, 17 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! 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . But More work needs to be done! Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Expansion is desirable but not strictly necessary. Real villages with census entries get articles per WP:GEOLAND a guideline which is correct in this case. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 05:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the WP:GEOLAND . Bhalgaon (भाल्गओं) has 3,119 inhabitants, as of 2011. It has the Postal Index Number code of 344706 and a government office, which grants it legal recognition. Site https://localbodydata.com/gram-panchayat-bhalgaon-35028 indicates key people like the sarpanch which proves inhabited. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney: Notability is entirely based on family. Lots of mentions, nothing with SIGCOV. No objection to a consensus redirect to Óláfr Guðrøðarson . I am also nominating the following related geneology bio page: Ragnhildis Olafsdottir ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) // Timothy :: talk 02:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its notable enough to be its own article it just needs more sources which i will have to scavenge for cant we just move it to the draft space so it can be worked on and finalized? AvailableViking ( talk ) 03:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153) . LibStar ( talk ) 04:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Royalty and nobility , and Scotland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems that the subject was also known as "Ingibjörg Hákonardóttir" (not to be confused with Ingeborg of Norway ), as documented here . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 11:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Both articles are well sourced and present details about the lives of two women who played an important historical role in the 12th century. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 06:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even the articles both state, "Not much is known about her life other than her descent from noble blood and marrying Óláfr Guðrøðarson". // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yea I did that as a general thing because I was lacking information. I was waiting for people with more knowledge on the subject to fill it in also because I personally didn’t know what to put because I didn’t know the intimate details of their life. I still think the articles should be kept because articles generally tend to be improved over time. AvailableViking ( talk ) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I find it confusing that two separate proposals for deletion seem to be on the same proposal. I think they should be separate as each biography would benefit from separate consideration Lajmmoore ( talk ) 07:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Ipigott. Not much being known about a person is not a criteria for deletion. Insufficiency of sourcing is. These articles do not suffer from an insufficiency of sources. -- Tagishsimon ( talk ) 15:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . TJMSmith ( talk ) 18:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . What SIGCOV is available on this person? If everything is in the context of her genealogy then a redirect would be more appropriate than a standalone. JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JoelleJay just to note the AfD is proposed for two people Ingibjorg AND Ragnhildis Olafsdottir , so I think there's two separate discussions to be had. Lajmmoore ( talk ) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not convinced on Ragnhildis. The Moore source has a passing mention in one clause of one sentence on her; Ellis just says she was the daughter of Olaf of Man and wife of Somerled with no other details on her; Williams says basically the same thing while also mentioning a claim that she was daughter of Ingibjorg. I can't access McDonald, but if it's also just repeating genealogy without any coverage of her then my ! vote would be to redirect both articles. JoelleJay ( talk ) 17:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JoelleJay , Lajmmoore , McDonald is available through the Cambridge University Press section of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library . TSventon ( talk ) 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for Ragnhildis Olafsdottir - I think there's sufficient evidence from sources Moore, Ellis, Williams and Macdonald to show that she is significant in the wider historiography. This article may also be helpful to support this, but I do not have access. (Note: I've not looked in detail at Ingibjörg's article yet.) Lajmmoore ( talk ) 07:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nothing much in that linked article, I'm afraid. It's basically this sort of thing: "Somerled himself married Ragnhild, a daughter of King Olaf of Man, and through this marriage was the founder of a vigorous family of Hebridean sea-kings." -- asilvering ( talk ) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect for Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney (although I'm not anti- keep ) - the issue for me is that although the article is well-sourced, the majority of those are primary sources, and secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability. This mentions Ingibjörg in more detail, but in the absence of wider research (a problem with Viking Studies in general) it's difficult to make a more substantive case. I empathise @ AvailableViking : as I remember clearly how it feels when you're making your first contributions and things don't work out. Thanks so much for your hard work on these Lajmmoore ( talk ) 08:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect (or merge) somewhere. There is nothing in this article but genealogical information, with which I see no issue over the truth of the content, but she was not separately notable. My preferred target is her husband Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153) , but any of the other suggested targets would do. Peterkingiron ( talk ) 14:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is two articles on this talk page AvailableViking ( talk ) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Ingibjörg to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153) ; the material may be well sourced, but what's in there is nothing but genealogy, easily incorporated into other articles. We do not address systemic bias in any way by keeping a bare-bones stub; the subject's significance is better presented as part of an article that would gain more views. Keep Ragnhild; while only marginally better, there is a genuinely independent claim to notability there (which could honestly be explained somewhat better), and content that does not easily fit into any of the more clearly notable articles linked. Vanamonde ( Talk ) 20:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru ( talk ) 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER ; just because the passage of time has erased much of their RS, doesn't mean we should not preserve them. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft keep Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney, Keep Ragnhildis Olafsdottir: If I read both the pages correctly, they were both Queen consorts (which may be notable) and there is sourcing to verify that. I think these articles need improvements, but are good enough that they don't need deletion. I also think Ragnhildis's sourcing and article probably meet WP:GNG . TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 04:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (both). Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER (and my comments earlier), they were important people in their times. Ragnhildis probably meets GNG on its own; and also Ingibjörg would have been notable in her time. Aszx5000 ( talk ) 21:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of the references available for this subject, and why they do or do not constitute significant coverage by reliable and independent sources, would be much more helpful than a back and forth of "Yes it's notable" and "No it's not". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - in addition to the longstanding community consensus that subjects who would have had an article in their time should have one now, both articles have sufficient sources from in depth works and papers that establish notability from a historic standpoint. @ Death Editor 2 , it's not just a "single dead blog." - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 21:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I made a mistake, I have nothing to do with this with discussion. Death Editor 2 ( talk ) 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Whoops, my bad. - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "subjects who would have had an article in their time should have one now" Maybe so, but sadly they don't get one until we can find reliable sources to build them one. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : There's enough verifiable sources for that article, it just needs expansion. Rager7 ( talk ) 22:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Can someone ! voting to keep please link the best three pieces of SIGCOV for each? Notability is not inherent or inherited, so it is irrelevant what subnational "noble status" someone had. There is also no consensus anywhere that allows editors to decide an ancient subject "would have had an article in their time" (how does that make any sense!) or even that coverage would have existed. The requirement for an article is the current existence of SIGCOV in IRS, which does not include mentions in genealogies or other coverage exclusively in the context of relatives. I have not seen a single in-depth source here; everything has been trivial mentions or, at best, a few sentences describing a lineage that leads back to the subject(s)--nothing that actually discusses the subject's life . JoelleJay ( talk ) 01:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , @ Tagishsimon and @ Knightoftheswords281 make good arguments which I second. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO! ( talk or whatever ) 03:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Ragnhildis Olafsdottir , Keep Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney First, these are those articles that take a lot of research to start - well done, AvailableViking . Someone could write 1000 words of Pokemon stuff in the time it takes to carefully research and write one paragraph of medieval Kingdom of the Isles history. Personally, I prefer the history. This is material that comes from books, not articles; it's worth considering what "passing mention" means in that context. So many of our articles are referenced using dedicated one or two page modern news articles. A one page news article that mentions a person in passing does not establish notability. Just one page of text in a 500 page history might technically be a passing reference (given its percentage of the book's content) but it's plenty to establish notability and build an article. So @ AvailableViking can you tell us about how much those sources at the bottom of the two articles say about each subject? Ingibjörg's article lists 9 sources , Ragnhildis's lists 6 sources . Since Ragnhildis Olafsdottir as the wife of Somerled was the "cause of the collapse of the entire kingdom of the Isles" as one historian said, I'd say she was a big deal. The Kingdom of the Isles lasted several centuries and consisted of every island off the coast of Scotland from Man to the Shetlands. See the section about the Somerled era in our Kingdom of the Isles article. Precedent: about a third our articles on Scandinavian Scottish nobles are as terse as our Ingibjörg article and most do not list 6 or 9 sources at the bottom of the article. Here are some examples; I encourage taking a quick look: Sumarlidi Sigurdsson , Paul Haakonsson , David Haraldsson , Magnus II, Earl of Orkney , Jón Magnússon, Earl of Orkney , Magnús Jónsson, Earl of Orkney , Máel Muire ingen Amlaíb , Ásbjǫrn skerjablesi , Neit All are important even if we don't know much interesting detail about their lives. The same is true of Ingibjörg and Ragnhildis. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looking around some more, I see our article about Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153) has interesting material about Ingibjörg that could be added to our Ingibjorg article. See Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153)#Alliances . Óláfr had two wives; Affraic was his second. These marriages were closely associated with regional power politics and scheming. Ragnhildis gets a mention, too. This material is well-referenced and foot-noted. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 01:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes i have noticed there was information from Olaf the reds article about this someone just need to transfer the sources, references and information to help add on to Ingibjörg's article. AvailableViking ( talk ) 02:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Going back to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153)#Alliances at the bottom of that section about the marriage not being official and it coming before Olafs other marriage, that could be added as a section to Ingibjörg's article which would definitely add some more content to the article. AvailableViking ( talk ) 03:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your enthusiasm about this. Most of the sources only marginally refrence the character or have very little information about them you really have to scrap the bucket to get information about them dispite how influential and important they were for their time AvailableViking ( talk ) 02:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While the information about Ragnhildis and Ingibjörg is sparse, they were undeniably important figures in their time, with a significant impact on society they ruled. Hence WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER . Aszx5000 ( talk ) 08:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

MinIO: The article is primarily written based on GitHub's readme description and MinIO's documentation page. -- Wiki Linuz ( talk ) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Citations added. Flurrious ( talk ) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It seems notable to me, but perhaps I'm too close to the technical niche MinIO targets. The coverage given to it by TechCrunch, Forbes, Blocks & Files, Diamanti, and The Register (all cited in the article -- maybe Flurrious just added those?) seem like significant coverage in some depth to me. I'm going to nab a copy of the article in case you decide to delete it, but I hope you decide to keep it. TTK ( talk ) 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Source by source (of the ones not clearly non-independent), the TechCrunch piece is an interview with one of the founders of the company (and therefore not independent), the Forbes article is written by a non-staff 'contributor' and therefore not considered reliable per WP:FORBESCON , the Diamanti piece is essentially just a how-to article that happens to use MinIO (and so not significant coverage), and The Register only mentions MinIO in passing as an example of open-source object storage (and so not significant coverage). The Blocks and Files article looks OK to me, but we need more than one source to meet WP:NCORP . Tollens ( talk ) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks Tollens for the feedback on sources. Added another reference from Computer Weekly. Flurrious ( talk ) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, didn't see that one when I did my search. Looks good to me – since there are two sources appearing to meet WP:SIRS , changing to keep . Tollens ( talk ) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . More than enough coverage to support notability. Owen× ☎ 09:42, 8 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

Right-wing terrorism: Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS talk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Terrorism . AlanS talk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not a fork of political terrorism. As pointed out in Terrorism#Types , it is one type of political terrorism. The article is referenced to reliable sources that define the topic, and it is used as a category by reliable sources such as the Brookings Institute, [24] the Council on Foreign Relations, [25] the Guardian, [26] and many other sources. Right wing terrorism is distinguished from other types of political terrorism not only by its objectives, but also the its organization, types of targets chosen and other factors. While the original article was deleted in 2006, it was a stub article that was original research. TFD ( talk ) 09:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hear what you're saying, but the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective, a point of view. For example if you're in the United States most of the population might refer to the Republicans as "right-wing" and the Democrats as "left-wing", whereas a lot of the rest of the world (the other 7.5 billion of us) would probably say that both US parties are very definitely hard-right. It's all a matter of perspective. So when you start calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing", whether you like it or not you're taking a perspective. There is no objective position on this. AlanS talk 15:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems like a fine WP:SPINOFF given content length of related articles, does not appear to be a POVFORK. If you do notice NPOV issues like UNDUE weight, it's worth bringing them up in the article talk page. Note previous AFD is more than 15 years old. — siro χ o 10:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for reasons elaborated above. I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining NPOV given the level of controversy both around xxx-wing and "terrorism," but the controversies should be discussed in the article rather than glossed over. Leifern ( talk ) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets all criteria for a separate article. Addressing the AFD rationale, this is a "sub article" (rather than a POV fork) on a topic that is so huge that it needs sub-articles. North8000 ( talk ) 14:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Given the difficulty in pinning down the specific meaning of "right wing" or "left wing" it is easy to misidentify the motivations, goals, or even actors. I am aware that this article is regarded to be well-developed, but I am also supporting the destruction of the Left Wing Terrorism article for the same reasons (though that article does not seem to be held in the same regard). It seems to me that deleting left wing without deleting right wing would harmfully bias the project of creating an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. commie ( talk ) 14:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Defining left or right wing is not an issue for these articles because the books and articles that discuss these topics define what they mean as part of their definitions. It's like wanting to delete Southern American English because southern can mean different things to different people. But it's not an issue because books about Southern or American English define what they mean by Southern American. TFD ( talk ) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i also have major reservations about identifying any particular act as terrorism , since, as the main article states, it's a charged term . commie ( talk ) commie ( talk ) 15:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Left-wing terrorism also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion . Delete - Let's take this for example, which is one of the items listed - 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers . I don't see how an incident stemming from an argument over a dog urinating in a house has political ramifications. There's also no sources listed for either of these on the list: Murder committed by John Ditullio, Murder of homeless man by Aryan Soldiers, Tri-state killing spree by white supremacists David Pedersen and Holly Grigsby, Murder of MeShon Cooper-Williams, Murders of Danny and Deanna Lorenzo and Black man burned by White supremacist. KatoKungLee ( talk ) 14:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Having checked the first three of those cases, all are included in the cited source . They're all listed in the chart under the header "Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology". It's possible to dispute whether that source's assessment that those people are terrorists with far-right ideology is precisely the same as being a far-right terrorist, but that seems like the sort of thing which should be solved through our normal mechanisms. At any rate, the fact that it's possible to dispute whether some entries on the list really should be included is not really a compelling argument that the article as a whole needs deletion. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk ) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete along with Left-wing terrorism , merge both into Political terrorism . If the latter needs to be split, do it by geography, not left-right, which removes context. I've made my case at greater length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism (2nd nomination) , but the case is essentially identical here. - Jmabel | Talk 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this is a widely discussed concept, and the article could and should include discussion of how the term is used - what acts are described as right-wing terrorism, and by whom? We shouldn't be shy of having articles on controversial or contested concepts, so long as there is appropriate context. Warofdreams talk 20:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As long as this is focused on the broader aspect of the term with a few well-agreed on examples from academic sources, this is a reasonable article. Google scholar gives tons of hits so it is a clearly notable term. Now, whether this should be merged into Political terrorism is another story, which is a fair option, but that should be discussed separately. -- M asem ( t ) 13:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There can be no doubt that the subject is notable. I don't see any point in merging it as it's a notable subject in its own right. I agree with those suggesting it should not be used as a list but just include a few notable examples. It needs to be sourced on multiple clearly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep Some topics are complex and have many subtopics, so you need different articles about related things. It wouldn't make any sense to marge this into political terrorism. BuySomeApples ( talk ) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , It is well cited and for reasons stated above it seems to be an insightful article that maintains a general NPOV. To force the mountains of context and citations for left and right wing terrorism into one space, "political terrorism", could lead to more disputes about prominence, pecking order and so forth. Not to mention it would be a pain to read if you are only looking for one or the other. DN ( talk ) 21:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Valid spin-off of larger topic, complete with ample sources describing the sub-topic in detail. Binksternet ( talk ) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SPINOFF . Does not appear to be a POVFORK. The argument that you can't define left- and right-wing would mean TNTing a huge swatch of articles because, like it or not, that split is ubiquitous in modern sources and has been for roughly two centuries. Most of the other valid arguments are opportunities to improve this article, Political terrorism , or Terrorism itself, not for deleting the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not see any policy based reasons for deletion for the two articles on left and right wing terrorism. The topics' notability is established by the academic sourcing. Some of the delete voters seem to think that the articles' content is based on what editors consider to be left or right wing. But the sources say the perpetrators' objective must be establishing a socialist/communist state or a fascist/rw authoritarian state respectively. The literature explains how ideology determines the types of participants, their choice of targets and other features. While the terms left, right and terrorism may be ambiguous, it is an etymological fallacy to assume that means terms using those words must also be ambiguous. TFD ( talk ) 21:32, 4 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

Magdalena Hinterdobler: Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence. As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria ( WP:BASIC / WP:MUSICBIO ) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Music , Theatre , and Germany . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep. 4meter4 ( talk ) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES . 4meter4 ( talk ) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG " Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. " Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy. 4meter4 ( talk ) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT , WP:VERIFIABILITY , WP:BLP , and WP:OR . One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG . Best. 4meter4 ( talk ) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs. 4meter4 ( talk ) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger , in Online Merker , includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length: "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!) —we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain) —we don't mention this role a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance) —we don't mention this role either. There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva) ; "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles) —this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir ( talk ) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC . Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER . Lightburst ( talk ) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC . The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. D r e a m Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus . I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER . That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons . 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst ( talk ) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer . Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/? detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos D r e a m Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel ( talk ) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat ( talk ) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Oper Frankfurt : Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT . A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season ( Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV . I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 ( talk ) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more. -- Ipigott ( talk ) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton ( talk ) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not. I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.) My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing , Der Traumgörge . I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far). I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity. In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion . -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Responses: @ Yngvadottir , thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ ( Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht" . FAZ (in German) . Retrieved 5 March 2024 . ) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 4meter4 , I added the Clements review of Die Loreley . I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money." Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used? "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season ..." (cut 14 June, read in source) Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful. 4meter4 ( talk ) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Michael Bednarek , thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk ) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS . If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers ( talk ) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk ) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability . While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988 .). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay ( talk ) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Dragan D. Mihailovic: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A notable scientist and academic that certainly satisfies not one but a number of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC . This is the content that is currently missing in the English Wikipedia: No. 1: In the field of VTS, he published a large number of papers with Nobel Prize winner K. A. Müller between 1994 and 2002. With Viktor Kabanov, he published the fundamental theory of high-temperature superconductivity, which is cited as key in the introductory article by Nobel Prize winners J. R. Schrieffer (editor) and K. A. Müller (author)[1]. He has also published high-profile work in the field of nanotechnology, particularly ferromagnetism in fullerene compounds, where he has determined the mechanism for ferromagnetism and has been involved in the discovery and characterisation of nanowires based on molybdenum, sulphur and iodine. By 2016, he had published more than 280 publications in SCI-indexed journals, including 10 in Science (4) and Nature (6). No. 2: In 2021, he was elected as an Extraordinary Member of the SAZU . No. 4: He introduced a number of new experimental areas in Slovenia: physics and chemistry of fullerenes, molecular electronics and physics of high-temperature superconductors. At the Jožef Stefan Institute, he set up new laboratories for short-time spectroscopy, nanoelectronics and time-resolved multiprobe low-temperature ultrafast STM (multiprobe low-temperature ultrafast STM) microscopy. Since 1985 he has been working at the "Jožef Stefan" Institute as a Scientific Adviser. No. 6: He was the President of the Scientific Council of the "Jožef Stefan" Institute from 2010 to 2020, and of the Association of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers of Slovenia (DMFA) from 2016 to 2020. In 2002, he founded the Department of Complex Materials, which he is heading for his fourth term of office. He is the Director of the CO Nanocentre; Centre of Excellence for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies, which he founded in 2004. Can you please take just 10 minutes to do WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion? Reference: Dragan Mihailović . -- TadejM my talk 09:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The citation record is not entirely convincing by itself (the numbers are high but this is a high-citation field with many coauthors). But member of two national academies appears to be a double pass of WP:PROF#C3 . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 16:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . as David Epstein said — Preceding unsigned comment added by MICHAEL 942006 ( talk • contribs ) 09:22, 31 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

Crow Village Sam: Nice little story, but this guy lived in a tiny town and didn't really do anything notable and its largely unsourced. Rusf10 ( talk ) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Crow Village, Alaska I found the one source that is listed in the article and the guy has an interesting life but he doesn't pass WP:GNG . He does give a lot of history of the area and it is recorded in the source, not enough for an article but enough to move some of the content over to the Crow Village, Alaska article. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska . Rusf10 ( talk ) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . I've added more info but being a major ethnographic informant for Yup'ik culture and founding a community are both extremely notable. Yuchitown ( talk ) 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Yuchitown [ reply ] Strong keep . per Yuchi Indigenous girl ( talk ) 17:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep per changes by Yuchitown. oncamera (talk page) 02:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now that the article has been expanded, and more relevant content was recently added by Yuchitown. Seems decent enough for keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 4 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 organisms named after works of fiction: Sadly, this seems more like WP:NOTTVTROPES content than encyclopedic. But perhaps someone can save this and find sources to add to the lead that show such a list exists outside Wikipedia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Biology , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Even though this is a complex categorization of sorts, I confirmed it still meets the full criteria of WP:NLIST . A non-exhaustive Google-websearch-only search brings up enough coverage. I didn't check ProQuest, Google Books, or the internet archive. Smithsonian Magazine [38] Natural History Museum (London) [39] Gizmodo [40] CNET (pre-2020, so reliable) [41] The Science Times with a focus on Sauron [42] Comicbook.com , focuses on Star Wars , which is a sublist of this list [43] I also note that the list is exceedingly well referenced to reliable sources. For what it's worth, there's even more coverage for List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) — siro χ o 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Siroxo Thank you. Can you add those sources to tha article's lead? I'll withdraw this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This list is completely arbitrary, and therefore falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE as unfit for Wikipedia. The organisms within have no unifying factor beyond having a name that resembles a work of fiction or character therein. It would be just as arbitrary as a list like "List of cars with chrome hubcaps" or "List of cities with spherical buildings". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I wrote this article because I was inspired by List of organisms named after the Harry Potter series and List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works . As far as I know, those articles haven't been nominated for deletion since they were made in 2018 and 2016; why would this article be any different? If we need a "unifying factor", perhaps the article could be split into multiple articles: List of organisms named after works of literature , List of organisms named after films , etc.? LegoK9 ( talk ) 12:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I also think this list is kind of cool, and am happy to see that there are sources which show that there is interest beyond Wikipedia editors on this topic, allowing to write a referenced lead and fullfill WP:LISTN . Also related to this is this paper, " Taxonomic punchlines: metadata in biology ". It shows academic interest in the parent topic, organisms with "whimsical names", even though I personally find that harder to delineate than "named after works of fiction". Another source is Die Kunst der Bennenung , where unfortunately the relevant pages are only partially available. What is visible is a three-quarters-of-a-page treatment of organisms named after elements from Lord of the Rings as part of a larger discussion. An especially good source on the topic is this Polish paper, Inspiracje i osobliwości naukowego nazewnictwa zoologicznego : Especially pages 47-49 talk about our topic here, and in an almost list-like manner, too. Daranios ( talk ) 15:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the sources and comments of other commenters. May be willing to change votes depending on how discussion goes, but for now it seems to be an alright article. Pokelego999 ( talk ) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While I understand hesitation towards "fun" Wikipedia articles (I agree Wikipedia should not put "entertainment" as a high priority), this list is also useful and does serve a purpose, as there's no shortage of legitimate academic studies (and simple layperson interest) regarding how we as people interact with pop culture, including in things like science and public policy. List of unusual deaths is another example of a "fun" list that also serves a legitimate purpose in... listing unusual deaths in one location. Both lists also have the privilege of being well-made and well sourced. A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This clearly meets WP:LISTN , as a subject discussed in reliable sources in itself. Also, very well-referenced. BD2412 T 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , though I think this would be a lot better as a WP:List of lists of independently-notable sublists and a prose introduction explaining the overarching topic. The current approach runs the risk of becoming (arguably, already is) WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this is indeed a very common practice. TompaDompa ( talk ) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . Sources found by Siroxo show that NLIST is met. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Minhazuddin Ahmed Sagar: Coverage is non-existent. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bangladesh . Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Delete No sources found. Reference section is blank. Failed WP:N . Ontor22 ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This article does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria . Pawnkingthree ( talk ) 13:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He is twice chess champion of Bangladesh which is no small achievement. Wikipedia's RS rules are a kind of an institutionalized form of discrimination. Plenty of weaker players with lesser achievements than him have wikipedia artices, but his notability is being called into question because he comes from a poor country which doesn't get a lot of coverage in either mainstream or specialist chess publications. I'm not saying sources will be easy to find but I'm certainly leaning towards keep. MaxBrowne2 ( talk ) 14:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The article indeed provides no sources. I expect that there should be a couple of English-language articles out there about him winning the Bangladeshi championship in 2010 and 2015, but I have not yet found them. I have found articles about other guys winning other Bangladeshi championships, however, so I am still at it. The Bangladeshi wiki article likewise provides no sources, and indeed, it may be that our article is copied from theirs. The Russian wiki article provides a fairly substantial tournament record, perhaps gleaned from chessresults.com, but it does not provide the kind of sources that English wiki would expect. The article uses several different variations on his name (Minhaz vs. Minhaj, Sagar or not Sagar, order of names, etc.). One version is used in his FIDE card, and one version is used in Bangladeshi Chess Championship , etc. If this article survives, we should do something about using one version uniformly in the article and mentioning other versions in the first paragraph. Bruce leverett ( talk ) 19:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Something seems to be going wrong. Here is strongly entangled. Perhaps some ignorant editor was involved. The news was found in the Daily Star [ 1 ], where the name Minhazuddin Ahmed Sagar is found. He is said to be Mohammad Minhaj Uddin in Jugantor. [ 2 ]. The gap between the two news is about 14 years, same person or two different persons (confused). Available at Wikidata. [ 3 ] The previously used image was also of the wrong person which has been removed by আফতাবুজ্জামান . Strong Investigate required. Ontor22 ( talk ) 07:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination withdrawn - Based on the comments and additional sources being added to the article. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 11:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mastering engineer: Slatersteven ( talk ) 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Engineering . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - Mastering engineer seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for a person who professionally masters audio. I would advise the nominator to read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP . Mastering engineers are, for instance, one type of recipient eligible to receive a Grammy award - Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical . Plenty of good quality sources are available on Google if you search for mastering engineer, happy to provide some if anyone seriously doubts that. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Mastering (audio) into this article. Currently, we have articles on both the profession of mastering engineers and the field of mastering, even though Audio engineer and Audio engineering point to the same place. To match that article, we should turn Mastering (audio) into a redirect to this article after information and citations have been merged. Mach61 18:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Keep per Liz comment below. Mach61 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a vote on the mastering engineer article, you can't vote to do things to other articles as part of this AfD - this is just a keep vote. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrigadierG WP:AFDFORMAT explicitly states If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. Mach61 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, exactly. You do not think the page Mastering engineer should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, so you would not vote for disambiguation, redirection, merge, or delete. You would vote keep. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrigadierG Fair. The reason I put "merge" as my bolded vote is that the mastering article was of higher quality and detail, so most of the content in a combined article would be from there. Mach61 18:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is fair enough BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge seems fair. Slatersteven ( talk ) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Keep per Liz's comment and Mach61's analogy with Audio engineer and Audio engineering . NicolausPrime ( talk ) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This AFD is about what happens with Mastering engineer not an another article you want to Merge into this one. BrigadierG is correct, unless you want Mastering engineer Merged into the other article (which I don't think is what you want, you need to vote Keep here and then nominate the other article for a Merge to this one or just be bold and do it yourself. But this is not a discussion on Mastering (audio) . Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ NicolausPrime @ Mach61 would you be willing to amend your vote per Liz's reasoning above? BrigadierG ( talk ) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Done. Sorry for not taking your comment into account earlier. NicolausPrime ( talk ) 14:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrigadierG @ NicolausPrime I discussed this on Liz's talk page, would wait for response over there. Mach61 15:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete is a valid option, see below. Slatersteven ( talk ) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Response given over there, changing vote to Keep. Slatersteven as there is unanimous agreement from everyone but you to keep, you can withdraw this AFD and end it early. Mach61 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MERGEDELETE . Slatersteven ( talk ) 12:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This doesn't apply here. Nobody wants to delete or merge Mastering Engineer into another article. BrigadierG ( talk ) 18:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Talisman City: Article has been tagged for notabilty for 3 years. Article was created in 2003 so nobody is working to fix it up Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Well, reviews from Games International and Shadis are noted, for starters. There may be more. BOZ ( talk ) 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I started this article, so it would make me sad to see it deleted. But whatever's better for Wikipedia is best. There is a new expansion for the latest version of Talisman that could be added to the article, but of course, that's all moot if the article's deleted. The article is just about the version for the Second Edition of the game, but Talisman is now on the Fourth Edition. The editions has significant differences, as do the expansions, such as City . — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment if the expansion cannot stand alone as an article then it's probably better to merge cited info back to Talisman (board game) . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I think the above reviews plus http://www.boardgame.de/reviews/talcity.htm (which is niche but looks reliable) probably gets us over the WP:N bar. Editorially it might make sense to merge it back to the main game--I'm not sure we need a separate article for this expansion. I'm 95% sure I played the original back in the day... But keep and discuss merge on the talk page is where I'm at. Hobit ( talk ) 03:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP I have added relevant comments from the Shadis review and from a review in an Italian magazine, which when combined with the review from Games International , I believe firmly establishes notability. Guinness323 ( talk ) 07:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ ( talk ) 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , in the end, somebody was working to fix it up. Geschichte ( talk ) 09:14, 18 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

Anthony Apodaca: Not notable. DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . DemonDays64 ( talk • contribs ) 06:06, 14 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! 06:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He has a lot of patents [20] , not sure what to do with that. He has been nominated for multiple Visual Effects Society awards including but not limited to winning an award in 2013 [21] for Outstanding Visual Effects in a Special Venue Project and a nomination 2018 [22] and I think there are more. More importantly(?), he has been awarded an Academy Award (in 1993, for science and engineering). [Here https://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2009/Volume-32-Issue-2-Feb-2009-/Everything-You-Ever-Saw.aspx ] is one source that mentions the Academy Award. There are a number of book references as well. I see a lot of sources that call him Tony or AA instead of Anthony. Anyway, there's a lot more there and I think an Academy Award is hard to overlook. I'm not familiar with the SNGs for movie productions and graphics software development, but I think this should be sufficient. Jacona ( talk ) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's not insignificant as an author, see gScholar. [23] . — Jacona ( talk ) 20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 06:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:ANYBIO for verifiably winning an Academy Award, the most well-known and significant motion picture awards in the United States. — siro χ o 06:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo and the Academy Award. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Andy Lloyd (rugby union): Primefac ( talk ) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Rugby union , England , and Wales . Primefac ( talk ) 11:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep There is some coverage out there, although searching is difficult given the common name he has. I'm surprised that there's not more coverage here as he's a Welsh international, and scored on his only appearance. Perhaps @ RodneyParadeWanderer : or @ PeeJay : will be able to dig up more. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there’s enough info on him to make a more complete bio, between his time with Bath, Ospreys, and in management. I can work on it shortly. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 13:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have made significant updates to the profile using sources available online and webarchive. I feel there is enough content to verify notability. RodneyParadeWanderer ( talk ) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The coverage seems sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG . The guy played more than a half-century of matches for the Ospreys, quite a few for Bath, and is even a Welsh international. He's notable. – Pee Jay 20:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Mable Lu Miao: Amigao ( talk ) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Business , Education , and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are twelve books listed; what has the nominator done to check that they lack reviews, especially not in English? Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - thus far I have found three books with reviews, one of them with multiple reviews in academic journals. As I suspect there are more, I will keep working on this one. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been unable to find additional reviews. She appears in the Chinese media, but beyond Google translate I don't have the ability to evaluate those or find new sources. DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . The multiple reviews for multiple books now added to the article are enough for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR for me but it's only weak because the number is still low and most of them are for an edited volume rather than an authored work. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ David Eppstein : I am a bit unclear how edited volumes should count towards WP:NAUTHOR since that clearly doesnt seem to be the spirit of the guidelines. In most fields I am aware of, the editor of a book (and I have seen this process from the inside) selects multiple people to contribute and usually contributes a single chapter to the book themselves, which is generally as long as a single journal article. Therefore editing a book is very different from writing a book since editing one basically involves the conceptual work of identifying a theme but letting people express their own thoughts (usually there is very little editorial input on the text itself and the main contribution is selecting the contribution and contributing author to cover a topic in breadth and depth). Still, I would argue that the contribution for an edited volume is a bit more than a journal article but nowhere near comparable to a original book. I am therefore somewhat skeptical in "bending" the NAUTHOR rules to apply to editors of books. Yes, being asked to edit a book can be a sign of distinction but not a very strong signal, especially given the large number of books being published. -- hroest 13:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one of the three reviewed books is edited. The other two are authored. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The user "Amigao" has been publicly flagged as editing Wikipedia entries with an anti-China bias at an industrial scale. Although the complaints were not made by the best reputable sources, the description is worth considering. The contributions by "Amigao" are enormous - the user edits tons of stuff on a daily basis! So is that a shared account, which violates Wikipedia rules? You can also look at the talk page of "Amigao", which lists many well-established grievances against the user. Therefore it's no surprise that "Amigao" initiates a deletion of a Wikipedia entry that doesn't reflect badly on China. 74.211.96.51 ( talk ) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : agree with David Eppstein comments above. I think the sources in the article (eg: Book reviews [25] , [26] ) put this past the finish line. In addition no one has indicated they did a search for non-English sources for reviews of their work as brought up by Espresso Addict. Looking at the article, everything seems sourced reasonably for a BLP. The noms comment regarding this being "Highly promotional" is very questionable. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Science Bulletin: Does not seem indexed in anything significant: [7] (Engineering Source (EBSCO), MEDLINE (United States National Library of Medicine), zbMATH). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and China . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article had the old ISSN and e-ISSN for Chinese Science Bulletin, which I have now replaced with the correct ones for Science Bulletin. https://miar.ub.edu/issn/2095-9273 shows that the journal is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate) and Scopus (ELSEVIER) as well as Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Natural Science Collection (ProQuest). Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain It may be that Science Bulletin is notable, but which information in the article are about it and not about the Chinese Science Bulletin? What should be removed from the article - it has only one footnote to a press release currently. Zh wiki seems to have more, but right now our entry is asking for a WP:TNT , given the confusion. PS. Our article claims the publication was estabilished in 1956, zh wiki gives they year 1950, and there are many inconsistencies between en and zh. Language - for us, English, for zh, Chinese English (?). What is the publication relation to "Chinese Science Bulletin"? Zh wiki claims it is a former name, but miar has two different pages for it? It's a mess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus If it helps, there is an article in Science Bulletin itself about the change of name: [8] . So, Science Bulletin was known as Chinese Science Bulletin until 2014. Regarding miar having two pages... if you're referring to the fact miar.ub.edu has a separate page for the title "Chinese Science Bulletin" ( https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1001-6538 ), that would be because it has a different ISSN to the "Science Bulletin" title. So far as I'm aware, when serials are renamed they also get a new ISSN, so this seems pretty normal as far as I can tell. The reason for the language confusion may be because there is also a Chinese-language version of the journal (科学通报 or "Kexue tongbao") with its own ISSN (which is documented on zh.wiki but not en.wiki). Chinese Science Bulletin aka Science Bulletin is the English-language version so far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn ( talk ) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Monster Iestyn Thank you for looking into this. I was concerned that there may be another publication with the same name, not notable, that got merged into this article. If this is not the case, then I hope someone will try to untangle this and reference this - I agree the topic may be notable, but the current execution is terrible. Sure, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP , but WP:TNT is a thing too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus No problem, glad to help! Monster Iestyn ( talk ) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Huang, Yanhong 黄延红; Yan, Bin 彭斌; Peng, Bing 彭斌; Zhu, Zuoyan 朱作言 (2019). "我国科技期刊改革实践与思考 ——以《中国科学》系列和《科学通报》期刊为例" [Reform practice and discussion of scientific journals in China: taking the Journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin as examples]. 编辑学报 [ Acta Editologica ] (in Chinese). 31 (6): 638–640. doi : 10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2019.06.013 . Archived from the original on 2024-06-25 . Retrieved 2024-06-25 . The abstract notes: "It is an important topic to speed up the construction of world-leading scientific journals. This paper explores a variety of publishing practices based on the journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin , such as optimizing the content orientations, strengthening the sponsor’s policy support of Chinese Academy of Sciences, promoting the initiative of the scientisfs, and improving the academic quality. We also propose some successful suggestions on the construction of journal clustering, international cooperation and exchanges, the professional publishing team, and the digital development of media integration." Fu, Li 付利 (2013-11-15). "专题策划提升科技期刊的品牌影响力— — 以《 科学通报》（ 化学学科）为例" [Special topic planning to enhance the brand influence of scientific journals - taking "Science Bulletin" (chemistry discipline) as an example]. 出版科学 [ Journal of Scientific Publication ] (in Chinese). 21 (6): 32–35. doi : 10.13363/j.publishingjournal.2013.06.015 . Archived from the original on 2024-06-25 . Retrieved 2024-06-25 . The abstract notes: "By analyzing a number of special issues on chemistry published in Chinese Science Bulletin , this paper discussed the strategies and approaches of organizing special issues for scientific journals, including the following four aspects: 1) How to choose the topics? 2) What is the most effective editing procedure? 3) How to advertise and promote the special issues? 4) How to make more associated experts involved? Examples indicate that special issues play an important role in improving the academic quality and enhancing the influence of scientific journals. " There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Science Bulletin ( simplified Chinese : 科学通报 ; traditional Chinese : 科學通報 ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 10:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep one of the older and most important/well read Chinese science journals in the West. Indexed in Scopus, easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS . We also cite it nearly 400 times on Wikipedia. Headbomb { t · c · p · b } 22:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep now that the confusion has been clarified and the articles disentangled. Notability is clear. Star Mississippi 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

ECONned: Its only "reference" is a link to its store page, which makes this article look like an advertisement. It has been tagged as needing citations since 2016 and tagged for notability since 2022, but no movements to rectify these issues have been made. As such, I'm recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk ) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Politics , and United States of America . Grnrchst ( talk ) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: I found nothing on this to substantiate notability; no good references at all, especially no secondary sources ( WP:GNG ) or indication of meeting WP:NBOOK . Actualcpscm ( talk ) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Well, with all the reviews that have been found, I think keep is the only reasonable option. Thanks to everyone who searched for these better than I did! Actualcpscm ( talk ) 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can only find mentions in conjunction with descriptions of its author (for example, "Yves Smith, prominent blogger and author of ECONned ...") I can't find any sources to support notability per WP:NBOOK . Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is a substantial two-page academic review by Neil Fligstein in Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (March 2011), pp. 140-142; and the book has well over 100 citations in Google Scholar. There is another three-page review here by Richard Du Boff in Monthly Review ; Sep 2010; 62, 4. There is also coverage here (also published in a shorter version here , both available via WP:Library). I think it might be worth having a further look around. (The fact that the book is mentioned in a lot of author descriptions does make it hard to find sources that are about the book, but I am not sure right now that they don't exist.) -- Andreas JN 466 12:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Actually, refreshing my memory, WP:NBOOK only asks for two substantial reviews, and I've posted two substantial academic reviews above. In addition, there is a press review here in The Guardian , and there are assorted mentions like the one here by Glenn Greenwald . That already means it clearly meets WP:NBOOK . (The article does require some work to reflect these sources ...) -- Andreas JN 466 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NBOOK per citations listed by Andreas. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new source. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep, or merge to an article to be created at Susan Webber (blogger) . Noteworthy? Yes. Notable? I am not convinced that the current stub content requires its own article. BD2412 T 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have now added a Reception section with six reviews ( Contemporary Sociology , Monthly Review , The Guardian, South China Morning Post, Central Banking and ScienceBlogs , the first four of which are summarised. (I can't see the Central Banking one and the ScienceBlogs one is a little too lightweight in that company.) -- Andreas JN 466 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Andreas has now done some excellent work on this article and found a litanny of reviews that support the book's notability. My concerns have now been thoroughly addressed and I no longer think this article warrants deletion. Thanks for the efforts Andreas! -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ Andreas 's great work. Thanks for doing it! -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:10, 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

Sarecta, North Carolina: I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina . - Samoht27 ( talk ) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a reliable source. This probably warrants more care to determine its level of scholarship, but also offers greater depth of coverage. Lubal ( talk ) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They were not considered because the main subject of those sources is not "sarecta", therefore they are "passing mentions", eg not sig cov. James.folsom ( talk ) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND and also WP:GNG , per my search which found the books above and also some mentions in scholarly articles. SportingFlyer T · C 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per sources presented above and incorporated status. – dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Definite keep. Added some sourcing and 1943 map showing location. Very fascinating to see that older states in the United States have formerly incorporated towns that have sunk so far into oblivion to lead to a deletion nomination. Apparently it still had a charter from the state until 1984 although it (and many other towns in the state) had long had no local government. But it was definitely was incorporated in 1787, though losing a battle to be the county seat in 1784 was apparently a blow. -- Milowent • has spoken 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I found it was surprising how contentious county seats were, and how many "towns" disappeared for that reason. James.folsom ( talk ) 17:31, 26 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

Antonela Roccuzzo: Recommend redirect to Lionel Messi#Family and relationships ---- FMSky ( talk ) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . FMSky ( talk ) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep - Previous AFD closed 18 days ago. Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Previous AFD here under a name misspelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonella Roccuzzo Suriname0 ( talk ) 14:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Was kept at the last vote, I can't see that notability has changed in the last month. Famous for being with a famous person I suppose, coverage is there. I wouldn't consider her "notable", but my opinions aren't what we use to establish notability in wiki. GNG is met. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fashion , Football , Internet , and Argentina . Suriname0 ( talk ) 15:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per previous AFD. Giant Snowman 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep She is written about in a fair bit of tabloid, although wikipedia is against such media that does not discount it. There will be stronger sources that can go in the article, the article could look better, it's not very well written or a great read. Govvy ( talk ) 13:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per above. Clearly notable figure with many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 08:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per recent AFD. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 17:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

The Answer (Steven Universe): Kuchi Kopi ( talk ) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . The reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing

keep

February 2003 Saddam Hussein interview: The article was created in 2005 and has been sparsely edited in the 20 years since. There has not been subsequent in-depth coverage that puts the interview into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines and does not appear to have the lasting significance that notable interviews with other political figures have had, such as An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales , Nixon interviews , Betty Ford's August 1975 60 Minutes interview , Palin–Couric interviews . True, the interview was on the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq , but nothing said during the interview or the coverage seems to point to its lasting notability. Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Journalism , Iraq , and United States of America . Longhornsg ( talk ) 07:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Events . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Spencerk + historical NAADAAN ( talk ) 12:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep - This event meets notability for it's geo-political context, as a controversial event in journalism, and also as a notable event in television history. Agree that page could be punched-up to include context. See the recent documentary The big interview The panel on the interview in 2008 at National Conference for Media Reform , Rathers' Trustees Award nomination It was extremely controversial, at the time. The CBS CEO called it "It was the craziest sweeps in the history of show business" 1 . A number of details provided in the interview provided new information about diplomacy leading up to the war. Please consider the scale of the events leading up to the war , and the role of this interview in prime-time news. 1 2 3 4 5 I presume it's recent attention this week is due to its comparisons with the recent Putin-Carlson interview. For recent reflections, see op-eds in 2017 , lists of most famous interviews , etc. That's just a bit of googling, but please see the google books results for the full-illustration of how noteworthy the event was in modern history. I'm happy to improve the article, to add the historical context that is required WP:NOTPAPER cheers Spencerk ( talk ) 15:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Spencerk. This was important at the time, and notability is not temporary. The existing state of the article is not a reason for deletion; as long as sources exist ( WP:NEXIST ). Toughpigs ( talk ) 12:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The article most certainly does not fail WP:MILL or WP:10YT . However the sourcing is very bad, and the highlights outtake is entirely subjective. Geschichte ( talk ) 08:53, 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

Anita Soina: NortonAngo ( talk ) 11:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya . Shellwood ( talk ) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Passionate environmentalist doesn't get you a wikipedia article. I can't find sources that talk about her at length. Delete for lack of sourcing and the flowery language used. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The article needs work, but the subject is notable. Soina is discussed in Kenyan media (often with regard to her activism, 1 2 3 4 , affair with a comedian 5 6 , and political campaign 7 8 9 ). She is also featured on sites focused on youth-driven climate change advocacy 10 , 11 12 , including PBS and Reuters . -- Jaireeodell ( talk ) 15:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Environment . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Have added another couple of newspaper articles about her and her book: seems to have plenty of coverage in RS. Pam D 07:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Now that more reliable sources have been added. Article is clearly in a better shape than it was before. CycloneYoris talk! 21:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Nova International School Skopje: There are links to the school's website. I cut it down but this was reverted and it is now even more promotional. If found notable, it still probably needs TNTing. Boleyn ( talk ) 07:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Respected, I am sorry for the trouble that my edit has caused was not aware of the consequences. I work for the school (NOVA International School Skopje) and I would like to ask you for help with page content to be compliant with the Wikipedia community guidelines. Much appreciated Arsdac ( talk ) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arsdac ( talk · contribs ), would you provide between two and six reliable sources that discuss Nova International School Skopje? Possible sources could be newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books. The reliable sources must be independent sources and must provide significant coverage about the school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline discusses the requirements in detail. If at least two independent reliable sources can be provided in this discussion, the school will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , and I will support keeping the article. Cunard ( talk ) 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard Sure I am glad if I can help. Here are some reliable sources that have articles about NOVA International School Skopje: [27] https://www.state.gov/nova-international-schools-fact-sheet/ [28] https://www.ibo.org/en/school/002853 [29] https://amcham.mk/members/nova-international-schools/ [30] https://internationalschoolcommunity.com/school/729/NOVA_International_Schools_-_Skopje [31] https://northmacedonia.un.org/en/173800-memorandum-understanding-nova-international-schools [32] https://meta.mk/en/tag/nova-international-school-skopje/ I hope that this article can help. Willing to provide more information if needed. Regards Arsdac ( talk ) 06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arsdac ( talk · contribs ), are there any independent reliable sources (such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, journal articles, or book sources) about the school? The sources you provided seem to be affiliated with the school or contain content provided by the school or are unreliable sources. For example, this source says, "Information and statistics are current as of September 2023 and provided by the school" so is not an independent source. And this source does not seem to be a reliable source. Cunard ( talk ) 06:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Cunard I am sharing a new set of links and I hope that this will help provide the requested information: [33] https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/republic-north-macedonia/organisational-variations-and-alternative-1#:~:text=International%20Schools%20that%20include%20upper%20secondary%20education%20are%3A [34] https://www.expat-quotes.com/guides/macedonia/education/international-schools-in-macedonia.htm#:~:text=International%20Schools%20in%20Skopje [35] https://faktor.mk/megjunarodnoto-uchilishte-nova-organizira-megjunaroden-fudbalski-turnir-vo-skopje [36] https://denar.mk/296011/makedonija/orvoren-konkusot-za-stipendiite-boris-trajkovski-za-skoluvanje-vo-megjunarodno-uciliste-nova [37] https://science-bits.us/schools/milena-stojanovska/ [38] https://www.ceesa.org/%F0%9F%A7%ACscience-for-kids-conference-spurs-intellectual-curiosity-and-logical-thinking/ Arsdac ( talk ) 11:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Arsdac ( talk · contribs ), the Denar Media link was useful as it helped me find other articles from the publication. Thank you. Cunard ( talk ) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools , which says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations , the general notability guideline , or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ) Sources Krstevska, Anita Babic; Demush, Bajrami (2023). "The Role of Strategic Planning In Ensuring the Success of Education" . SEEU Review . 18 (1). South East European University . doi : 10.2478/seeur-2023-0050 . Archived from the original on 2024-04-02 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 . The article is released under the CC BY 4.0 DEED license . The article notes: "This research paper analyses and compares the strategic plans through shared mission and vision of some schools and countries, analysing the case studies of NOVA Secondary School of Skopje and one local primary school Jan Amos Komenski, Skopje. ... The participant in Interview 1, Dr. Bela Gligorova, is the secondary school division principal of Nova International School of Skopje. This school has recently been accredited by the International Baccalaureate authorization team and is currently preparing for the upcoming MSA re-accreditation in 2024." The article notes: "In conclusion, NOVA IS strategic planning process follows all three main phases taking into consideration the self-study through SWOT analysis, setting SMART goals for school improvement, and the recommendations for school development provided by the IB accreditation and MSA reports. The mission and vision of this school reflect the objectives of the SMART goals for school improvement from the current strategic plan, articulating the desired direction and core values and beliefs of NOVA International School of Skopje. The designing of the next 5-year strategic plan with the new SMART goals for improvement might result in the further revision of this school's mission and vision, thus emphasizing the importance of competent and dedicated strategic educational leaders like the principal Ms. Bela Gligorova and NOVA IS director, Mr. Ivan Novakovski, with their effective teams." "Училиштето „Нова" одбележа две децении јубилеј со над 5000 ученици кои минале низ образовната институција" ["Nova" school celebrated two decades of jubilee with over 5000 students who passed through the educational institution]. Денар Медиа [ Denar Media ] (in Macedonian). 2017-12-11. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 . The article notes from Google Translate: "The international school "Nova" celebrated its two-decade anniversary yesterday in the packed hall of the Macedonian Opera and Ballet, and the event was attended by a large number of established guests. ... In the past 20 years, more than 5000 students have passed through "Nova", and a large part of them continued their education at some of the world's most prestigious universities, including "Harvard", "Yale", "Oxford", "Princeton", "Berkeley". , "Bard" etc. ... There are three divisions in the school: preschool center, primary and secondary school. "Nova" is an international school, accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and supported by the US State Department. In addition to the regular program, "Nova" offers International Baccalaureate programs and high-level AP programs (College Board). "Nova" is part of the CEESA association, which includes accredited international schools from Central and Eastern Europe. " "Учениците од „Нова" истражуваа дали играњето видео игри ги подобрува рефлексите" [Nova students investigated whether playing video games improves reflexes]. Денар Медиа [ Denar Media ] (in Macedonian). 2019-04-10. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 . The article notes from Google Translate: "These are just some of the questions that the students from the international school "Nova" tried to find an answer to, and they presented the projects at the Science Fair that was held yesterday at this educational institution. About 130 children from sixth, seventh and eighth grades presented their research on a variety of topics and visitors were able to view projects focused on questions such as whether the magnetization time of a needle affects the functioning of a compass; which is the most fire-resistant material; how the solar panel affects the temperature of the room etc. This is the tenth edition of the traditional science fair and so far hundreds of students in "Nova" have presented research from several scientific fields." Less significant coverage: Evans, Thammy; Briggs, Philip (2019) [2004]. North Macedonia (6 ed.). Chesham, Bucks: Bradt Travel Guides . p. 52. ISBN 978-1-78477-084-6 . Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Google Books . The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Skopje has two international schools, the American school NOVA (w nova.edu.mk), and QSI International (w qsi.org/macedonia/mcn/), both of which offer prekindergarten through to high school." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nova International School Skopje ( Macedonian : Меѓународно училиште НОВА Скопје ) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding WP:TNT , this revision is a neutral reversion that could be reverted to. Cunard ( talk ) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to satisfy WP:GNG per above. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:17, 2 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

Safe Surrey Coalition: As always, political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist -- notability hinges on media coverage about their activities, not just on verifying their existence. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by the city council itself, which isn't support for notability at all -- and even the one hit that actually comes from a WP:GNG -worthy media outlet isn't about this party at all, but is here solely to verify a tangential fact about somebody else from a different party. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada . Bearcat ( talk ) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking anything to indicate meeting of notability requirements per WP:ORGCRIT . Coverage I found is local and does not help establish notability. AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets notability and is covered by significant national media. For example: From The Globe and Mail : 1 . From CBC News : 2 , 3 , 4 . From Global News : 5 . In short, it passes WP:ORG as having been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ⁂CountHacker ( talk ) 09:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per sources above which show notability. Red Blue Green 93 17:12, 15 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

Aril Brikha: Google search brings up fewer than 60 results, mainly social media accounts and music streaming sites. ... disco spinster talk 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Iran , and Sweden . ... disco spinster talk 17:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : A search in w:sv:Mediearkivet , which collects all but not all Swedish newspaper articles from more recent years, gives 154 hits in print media, though. Articles like "Techno för själ och fot" ( Sydsvenskan , November 2000), "Själfull techno" (Sydsvenskan, January 2000), interviews in major media like Svenska Dagbladet or Sveriges Radio P2 and so on seems to indicate notability to me. I figure the problem here isn't notability, but rather that most of the buzz never ended up easily accessible online because he peaked 23 years ago. / Julle ( talk ) 19:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : i improved and added more citations and based on what Julle said, I will vote to keep this one. Royal88888 ( talk ) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per edits to the article since it was taken to AfD and my comment above. / Julle ( talk ) 13:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Sangramsingh Thakur: Non-notable roles including an "electrician" in a web series. Other references are just credits, mentions, or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India . CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not done any lead role in films ... all roles are supporting/recurring roles , not passing WP:NACTOR Criteria till now . thank you Worldiswide ( talk ) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Just a note that the page was moved to draft space for just over 3 days. I've restored it to main space, as articles should not be draftified during a deletion discussion. I'm quite surprised nobody noticed. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh : , Thanks for moving back. I did notice and notified the admin who was involved in the discussion on the talk page of the article but looks like they have not been editing in a few days. Appreciate you taking care of this as I wasn't sure if a simple move would have restored everything. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, @ CNMall41 & @ Hey man im josh , I'm travelling, forgot to put up a notification! Valereee ( talk ) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Valereee : , no big deal. I didn't ping anyone else as I figured it wasn't life or death. Cheers!-- CNMall41 ( talk ) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation would be welcome here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable. The Nagpur Today refs look like reliable, significant coverage. The xpresstimes.in ref is pay-to-play. Others refs seem independent and reliable but are either too short to establish notability or just passing mentions. Nagpur is a city the size of Brussels but Sangramsingh Thakur is still a Nagpur "hometown boy". It's reasonable that Nagpur Today would cover him in-depth when out-of-town media give more limited attention. This gives us enough to write a reliable article about Thakur and reliability is the ultimate motivation behind our notability guidelines. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability cannot be established by articles in one publication. The references in The Nagpur Today also fall under the same principles as WP:RSNOI as they do not appear to be written by staff writers. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CNMall41 , here's what the notability guideline says: "…a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." ( Notability#Notes , footnote 4) My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I think footnote 4 refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). In that case, that footnote does not apply to this subject. Over the course of 100s of AfDs [4] [5] , I've never seen this footnote invoked before until this and another AfD today . That makes me think this is a narrow rule, otherwise, we'd be tossing out articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or only to Economist articles. As for WP:RSNOI , that guidance does not rule out using articles without bylines; it suggests that lack of a byline may be an indication of paid, promotional content. When I read the Nagpur Today articles, they did not appear to be paid content. It'll be interesting to read how others view these 2 issues. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the reply. What I am saying is if a single publication is the only one running stories that would count towards notability, we shouldn't just keep a page based on that. If the person is worthy of notice, they would receive coverage elsewhere as well. As far as RSNOI, you are correct that it does not rule out articles without bylines. It does however state "exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability ." We have to look at each reference individually. Outside of The Nagpur Today, the references that talk in-depth about the subject are Outlook India with a byline of IANS which is a "guest post" and has no editorial oversight (I would consider this akin to WP:FORBESCON ) and Xpress Times which is clearly marked as "brandspot" at the top with the byline of "Express Times Team" indicating churnalism. The others are mentions and bios. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with A.B.'s comments above and, given the coverage the actor has received, think the page could be retained. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just using one example, would agree that this source counts towards notability? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 00:30, 9 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

Antslive: Still has a long journey to get to notability MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 ( talk ) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Music , and United Kingdom . MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 ( talk ) 20:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems like plenty of coverage: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Geschichte ( talk ) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Almost TOOSOON. Looks like he just became a musician in the last year or so... These are from a RS per Project Albums [13] , [14] , just not enough coverage yet to establish notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Geschichte, see also [15] , [16] . If kept, it should be renamed to AntsLive . Wikishovel ( talk ) 05:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I second the proposal on moving the page title, as the guy's name has the capital L in the middle. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the RS coverage identified above, significant play on BBC national radio per [17] & [18] & [19] , and nomination for a notable award per [20] . Resonant Dis tor tion 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the multiple reliable sources significant coverage identified in this discussion. He also passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 8 for winning a notable award at the 2023 UK Music Video Awards and being nominated for another at the MOBO Awards , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 21:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The article needs improvement, but the rapper is getting coverage from reliable sources as found by the voters above. --- DOOMSDAYER 520 ( TALK | CONTRIBS ) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : With such prominent media coverage and award nominations, it's hard to argue against this artist's notability. The article needs improvement, for sure, but it seems unfair to delete the article. Waqar 💬 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the references provided by Geschichte, The subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, including prominent media and national radio. He has also been nominated for and won notable awards, meeting WP:ent criteria. The article needs improvement, but the existing coverage clearly establishes notability. Therefore, the article should be retained. Master rollo ( talk ) 12:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Abhijit Mukherjee (earth scientist): Shellwood ( talk ) 14:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete : As per my checking, I found no reliable secondary sources with in-depth coverage that can establish notability. The sources are just passing mentions, and the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG criteria. The majority of the article is also unsourced. Grab Up - Talk 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I agree with Atlantic306, He meets WP:PROF . Grab Up - Talk 17:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with well cited works as shown at Google Scholar here and has won a notable award Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology so deserves to be included, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it fulfils the notability criterion as per WP:PROF since the person received the SS Bhatnagar Prize, the highest science award in India. Pinakpani ( talk ) 06:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the subject has 6400 citations and an h -index of 45 on Scopus, as well as multiple first-author papers with 100+ citations. Passes C1 and probably C2. JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:PROF . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 08:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Emmanuel Khamis: Seems at best WP:ROTM . Fails WP:NPOL , WP:ANYBIO . Cabrils ( talk ) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep : the nom does not indicate a WP:BEFORE and the WP:Scare quotes does not add anything to the nom. This South Sudanese politician is notable as he is mentioned in multiple reliable sources (e.g. Sudans Post and Sudan Tribune ) which are now included in the article. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How does the subject meet WP:NPOL or are you suggesting that the subject meets GNG? - Enos733 ( talk ) 05:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would think under “Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage”. FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Just want to note the subject is a former mayor of the capitol city of South Sudan. Generally, a capitol city mayor would probably have enough sources for an article. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above, mayor of a national capital. The nominator seems to have missed this fact? Geschichte ( talk ) 08:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Cal Harris (engineer): Rates one passing mention each in Motown Encyclopedia , Motown: The Golden Years and I Hear a Symphony: Motown and Crossover R&B . Clarityfiend ( talk ) 00:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , California , and Michigan . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I think the combination of the references and the awards adds up to notability. Wikipedia's coverage of recording engineers is weak and ought to be improved. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not Wikipedia's function to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or even LESSERWRONGS. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 12:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Engineering . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:CREATIVE .3 for co-creating significant body of work as a recording engineer, mixer, and occasional synthesizer player, most immediately verifiable via [80] others verifiable by liner notes, including but not limited to Last Time I Saw Him , Trouble Man (album) , 1990 (The Temptations album) , Marvin Gaye Live! , Let's Get It On , Caught in the Act (Commodores album) , and Hot on the Tracks . — siro χ o 06:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Meets WP:CREATIVE #3 as head of recording during the glory years at Motown . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 14:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Auriga Leader: References are press releases from a decade ago for a "PR stunt" installing solar panels that provide 1/2000th of the ship's energy. Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions . Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's an expiremental ship so not "a run-of-the-mill ship". I have not yet looked for sources, hence only a comment. Nomination seems to be focused on references, rather than on sources, as we should per WP:NEXIST . On the upside, correct use of the concept "references". gidonb ( talk ) 03:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is extensive coverage of this ship, including 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 . There’s plenty more beside this. Mccapra ( talk ) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Mccapra's sources (and here's another one I found) show the ship passes WP:GNG . ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs } 15:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Further to my initial comment, and the sources found by Mccapra and KN2731 , this ship passes the WP:GNG . gidonb ( talk ) 12:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The amount of the ship powered by solar power is irrelevant to whether it is notable. There is significant coverage, so it is notable. Bensci54 ( talk ) 16:56, 28 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

Nangal Puthiyavargal: Fails WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , India , and Tamil Nadu . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1990#Released_films . Per nom, fails WP:NFILM . RangersRus ( talk ) 15:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per new sources. Disappointed with this nomination please do not nominate Murali 's films in future if sources exist. DareshMohan ( talk ) 23:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw : Per WP:HEY . Good work DareshMohan. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Thanks to the improvements made and the withdrawn nomination. (Ineligible for a speedy close thanks to !vote prior to improvements.) 2pou ( talk ) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Statue of Josiah Quincy III: An image in Quincy's article suffices. Mangoe ( talk ) 02:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . No notability? The statue was erected in 1879 in front of Boston's City Hall, a City Hall which was the official center of Boston government for the next 90 years. A major city like Boston, of such importance to the nation and its history, just doesn't toss up a statue of anybody in front of their City Hall for 90 years. One that's still sitting there at the historical site another 54 years later and apparently has survived the 2020s statue purge. Its only statue companion? Benjamin Franklin. The Quincy statue seems notable from common sense alone. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 04:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Without respect to this particular subject, Boston has hundreds of statues. Some indeed are notable, but nothing is notable just because it exists . What common sense dictates is that since notability standards have not yet been repealed, one must actually find sources. Ravenswing 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Location, location, location. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the second time you've said a statue is notable because it exists. Please stop it. Now, sources have been added in part because it's in a prominent place, but if its notability is merely inherited from location, it should be merged to Old City Hall (Boston) . Public buildings often have public art, but that doesn't inherently mean they need stand-alone articles unless there is significant independent coverage, and this is not a policy-based vote that a closing admin should give any weight to. Reywas92 Talk 13:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are plenty of sources, as mentioned by others below. My comment was about WP:COMMONSENSE , which is an aspect of WP:IAR (a major Wikipedia policy). Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's not common sense, because even if others find sources after you make a meaningless comment, there could still be a WP:NOPAGE argument to merge, perhaps even to something like Public art of Old City Hall (Boston) . You didn't say "There are probably plenty of sources for something old downtown", you said "It's automatically notable because of where it is." Location is not and never has been an exemption to our notability standards. Reywas92 Talk 13:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Once again, WP:COMMONSENSE is an aspect of the policy WP:IAR, which my comment covers (referring to the maintaining of Wikipedia by not removing this statue's page). Can we please stop cluttering this discussion with a semantic dispute, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 13:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 04:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've added some sources based on a quick Google Books search, and surely a search in the newspaper archives would yield plenty more. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Clearly meets GNG, with substantial coverage in multiple sources; the modern sources indicate lasting importance. It's difficult to believe that a statue listed in every tourist guidebook of the day, and that got two whole columns for the mayor's speech at its dedication, wouldn't be notable. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 04:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - based on coverage in reliable sources, meets GNG. Netherzone ( talk ) 22:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

TJ Rovinka: I can't find any significant coverage of this club that meets WP:GNG . My Google searches, even with "site:.sk" next to the club's name, only come up with club's official website and match reports, the former of which is not independent. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia has been tagged for notability issues for years, which certainly may not help copy over English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Football , and Slovakia . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . The team played on the third tier continuously from 2014 to 2022 , and participated in the national cup. That's usually more than enough to merit inclusion. They might not be called "TJ Rovinka" in the coverage, probably just Rovinka. Geschichte ( talk ) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of football clubs in Slovakia , where it can be added. That article is in need of an update/clean up anyway... Giant Snowman 18:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The list page seems to fail WP:NLIST , so I suggest someone nominate it for deletion too or alternatively redirect to Football in Slovakia . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep A list of Sportnet articles show the club has been consistently covered in local press in spite of refusing a promotion recently: [26] SportingFlyer T · C 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most of them are paywalled, though. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't matter. SportingFlyer T · C 12:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of football clubs in Slovakia per above. This is an awful article with almost nothing behind it. Anwegmann ( talk ) 01:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Article notability is based on the overall notability of the topic, not the state of the article. SportingFlyer T · C 09:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Could we get more evaluation of the local coverage brought up by SportingFlyer and whether or not it is enough to satisfy our notability guidelines? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk ) 15:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of football clubs in Slovakia – Per above. Svartner ( talk ) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the Sportnet coverage that SportingFlyer points seems in-depth to me - there's many, many articles - but that's only one publications. But there's other sources out there as well, and frequent coverage of their matches. one two . Nfitz ( talk ) 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bratislavský Futbalový Zväz looks like a blogspot to me.. . ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . Had a good look for sources, plus information in general about this team. They most likely never played in the second tier of Slovak football either. Sport.sk seems to have nothing about them at all . Looking at the SME sources provided by SportingFlyer, I have summarized details of those references to aid the discussion here. Sources linked on page discussed above by SportingFlyer Article Overview "more than a trivial mention" Osobnosť majstra nominovali takmer všetci. Ako vyzerá ideálna jedenástka IV. ligy Bratislava? Club managers of the fourth-tier league chose their ideal league XI at the end of the 2023-24 season. One of Rovinka's players made it on the list. No Bude mať Inter na drese meno trénera súpera? Lembakoali sa teší na strašiaka súťaže Discusses Rovinka having won the fourth tier in 2023 and refused promotion to the third level. Yes O tretiu ligu sa na západe strhol boj. Rovinka odmietla postup, kto ju nahradí? Discusses Rovinka having refused promotion from the 2022–23 fourth tier, Bratislava league. Yes Spolu dali 81 gólov. Ako vyzerá ideálna jedenástka IV. ligy Bratislava? Discusses team of the season for the 4th division (2022-23 season). No Pripravovali sa v akadémii Slovana. Na jar hrajú takmer stále doma a valcujú Discusses Rovinka having won the 4th-tier league and having played 9 of the first 11 matches in the second half of the season at home. Yes IV. liga BFZ: Jeseň prežili v unimobunke. Napriek tomu sú prví a prekonal ich len Neapol Review of the first half of 2022-23 fourth-tier season. Yes Hral za Petržalku a Slovan, pribrzdili ho zranenia. Teraz exceluje v štvrtej lige Player interview. No Jesenný líder hral doma iba štyri zápasy. Na vlastný štadión sa vrátil po dvoch rokoch Review of the first half of 2022-23 fourth-tier season. Yes VIDEO: Rozhodca zostal v šoku. Hráč sadol „na koňa“ a chcel skórovať In a match against Rovinka, one opposition player got a piggy-back from a team-mate while their team was preparing to take a corner. The referee blew his whistle. No Klub z piatej ligy je v osemfinále pohára. Znie to ako sen, teší sa manažér A team from the fifth tier beat Rovinka in the national cup. No Zaskočili velikánov. Ďalšie prekvapenia pandémia nedovolí COVID eliminated all non-professional teams remaining in the 2020–21 Slovak Cup . No Senzácia v pohári. Fortunaligista vypadol s amatérmi Amateur team Rovinka knocked fully-pro side Senica out of the national cup. Yes For me there are 6 instances (some overlapping) where I would argue for it being more than a trivial mention – see third column. In addition to the SME sources, the first source from Nfitz in their comment above (Deník) discusses a 2017 "Super Cup" match between winners of regional cups in the Czech Republic versus Slovakia. According to that, Rovinka played in that on account of having won the Bratislava football association cup beforehand, which I found a primary source for here . All in all, I feel this scrapes WP:GNG . More sources may of course exist. C 679 15:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided between Redirect and Keep, no support for a Deletion. It would be helpful to get feedback on the source analysis which seems to indicate adequate coverage. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm satisfied with Cloudz679's essential source analysis that sufficient RS has been found. Thank you. Thanks also to SportingFlyer for the many links to check. I'd sure like to see some sourcing applied . BusterD ( talk ) 12:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu: It was deleted before in 2017, and does not seem to have been improved. Just getting a patent is not notable, it has to become a real product/method heavily used. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions . Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep :First off, most of the inventions shown on the page are dated AFTER 2017, showing that it has been tremendously improved from 2017 to 2024. I am wondering how you did not see that. Getting a patent is one thing but being mentioned by two succeeding presidents in reputable national newspapers does not seem to me that the subject is non-notable. The page is not advertising as there is no other way to show his inventions other than the tone used, unless you can provide a sample sentence for writing about inventors. His biogas is heavily used in Nigerian prisons to generate electricity and it was in partnership with no other than the Federal Government of Nigeria. There are more than twenty indepth national newspapers which describes his inventions too. So I am wondering how his notability is an issue. Royalrumblebee ( talk ) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Bordering on G11 speedy, however he is notable and i believe that the article just needs to be cleaned up and have advertising removed. Nagol0929 ( talk ) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't get the deletion. I suppose the advert has been removed or still at a least look. However, WP:GNG requires that the article must have covered by reliable sources that are also verifiable. All I can see per WP:NGRS in the sources to show this article meets our general notability guidelines and for creative professionals . I won't say "keep" or "delete" but mostly suggest clean up. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expansion about nomination . First it is worth remembering that anyone can submit a patent, just as anyone can submit an abstract for a talk, the current ref [11]. Existence does not make the patents or work notable, there has to be reputable independent secondary evidence of this, of which there are none here, just requotes of material from him. Secondly , claims need to be appropriate and consistent with established science. For instance the claim "single electrons and lone pairs are the major sources of toxicity in elements and compounds" is both a circular reference to his own work, and scientifically deeply unsound. Many other statements are scientifically very unsound ( WP:FRINGE ). If they were sound then there would be independent sources from reputable scientific journals to back them up, of which there are none. Thirdly , references must at least be consistent with and support the claims. The article has the invalid science "vapor-like water that emanates from ice is another state of water different from vapor which emanates from hot water" sourced to [16] (which should be [18]) which is a primary source, 100% fringe science published in a disreputable journal. Finally , Notability depends upon reliable, independent sources, and I see none of that here, just a lot of unsupported claims, reproductions of what he claims, masses of awful science ( WP:FRINGE ), and advertising/puffery. This is not WP:CREATIVE , claims have to be verifiable and not fringe ( WP:FRINGE ). Ldm1954 ( talk ) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also , none of the patents is sourced using the standard {{patent}} template, or better the standard {{cite patent}} template. As such the claims that they exist is unverifiable. Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : His fire proof paint is known offline. The application of his claims is largely recounted in the sources here. I'd say wiki articles about the sources show their reliability as per WP:GNG . Don't know how thick is his science or theory. Removing unsound scientific claims but retaining his verified applications would do. Diamondsee ( talk ) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Leo Aro: He doesn't even have a portugese wiki entry. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 13:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football . '''[[ User:CanonNi ]]''' ( talk | contribs ) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep [36] and [37] and [38] all look like WP:SIGCOV . I would recommend withdrawing the nomination. Robby.is.on ( talk ) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have fleshed out the article with those sources plus some more I found since. What do you think, @ Govvy : ? Robby.is.on ( talk ) 21:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment He played for a few top teams in Brazil, Robby pointed to a few sources, but I would like to see a bit more for my liking. Govvy ( talk ) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – Per sources provided by @ Robby.is.on . The athlete also had notable spells at SC Internacional, Lecce and Leixões. Svartner ( talk ) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per improvements, just squeezes by WP:BASIC for me, cheers. Govvy ( talk ) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep per Govvy 's rationale. Orig nom here: with the changes this does seem to squeeze by WP:GNG now (i.e. a WP:HEY ). Although I'm not sure about [1] being independent, given he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject Where did you glean that information from? Robby.is.on ( talk ) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I read the article. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 19:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course I did, too, albeit through a translation service. I couldn't find any signs that the writer of the article had a close relationship with the subject , only that they were a supervised intern ("Estagiário, colaborou sob a supervisão de Heitor Esmeriz"). Robby.is.on ( talk ) 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, I didn't see that those were quotes. Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep relevant from my point of view -- Acartonadooopo ( talk ) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources and per an extensive professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann ( talk ) 00:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Imaan Zainab Mazari: The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari . Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , and Pakistan . Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG , the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 ( see this ) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr ( talk ) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] off topic discussion @ Rspeer : personal disagreements. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer , an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections . Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:ANYBIO , award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News , a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP , you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith . Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG: BCC , TFT , etc. Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/ WP:BASIC . X ( talk ) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions. The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth , and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability . War Wounded ( talk ) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't demand individuals to have significant achievements or unique contributions . — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying. After this prolong review before I ! vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keep ed. My statement stands with War Wounded . -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Lianozovo: TH1980 ( talk ) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Russia . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' : A disambiguation page with two entries is perfectly valid, where neither of them is the obvious Primary Topic. Pam D 08:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per PamD . Also, I'd like to add that Russian disambiguation page has 6 entries. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have just merged Wikidata, so that now this disambiguation page has links to three other languages. It is weird that there was two Wikidata for Lianozovo disambiguation page, I had to first resolve conflicts with descriptions in multiple languages and only then it allowed me to merge. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Perfectly valid DAB page. Absolutely no need for deletion. The nom apparently misunderstood what is stated at MOS:DAB which indicates that A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term , and since neither of the entries listed is the primary topic then the page is completely necessary. CycloneYoris talk! 17:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per PamD and CycloneYoris . AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 18:26, 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

Bez-MX: The Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth, but the mention in Softline is very brief and is largely about the developer, and coverage of the game there may be summarized as 'this game is coming out at some point and is based on defense projects by Ronald Reagan'. The article could be redirected to List of Apple II games , but I don't think non-notable entries should be on the list. Pinging involved editors - article creator @ BOZ : , @ Cunard : , who removed the PROD, and @ Cocobb8 : , who added the PROD. Waxworker ( talk ) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Waxworker ( talk ) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Even if there are two potentially reliable journal sources, WP:AGEMATTERS . I don't see any lasting coverage of the video game after its release. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I looked at WP:AGEMATTERS and that seems to be pertaining to older sources becoming less accurate over time, rather than having anything to do with needing more recent sources for lasting coverage. BOZ ( talk ) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] AGEMATTERS doesn't apply here, that's more about the changing perception of events, not an old video game. You could argued WP:SUSTAINED perhaps. Not sure I agree with it, but it would be a plausible application at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you, I changed my vote to a keep per other's arguments. Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - undecided on notability, but leaning towards not retaining the article. It's so short and vague that it hardly conveys anything to the reader, and it borders on COPYVIO territory in the way that the reception is largely lazy copy/pastes of review content. I could be persuaded otherwise if someone showed improvement was possible, but the article was created 4 years ago by an active editor, so I'm not hopeful that's happening. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article's "Reception" section has been improved . Cunard ( talk ) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is a...minor upgrade, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Got non-trivial review coverage in Softalk and Computer Gaming World but still falls short of the typical threshold for passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep since the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which says (in part): A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject . " Significant coverage " addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. " Sources " should be secondary sources , as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ... Analysis of the sources and the general notability guideline Bez-MX received two reviews: a 499-word review from Computer Gaming World and an 834-word review from Softalk . Each of these sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline. The general notability guideline says that "multiple sources are generally expected". wikt:multiple defines the word as meaning "more than one". The "multiple sources" requirement is also met. There is no requirement to have more than two sources because the two sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about Bez-MX. These are from high-quality, highly-circulated gaming publications. Computer Gaming World had a circulation of 300,000, while Softalk had a circulation of 150,000. The two reviews Bez-MX received were published four months apart which is sustained coverage. However, there is no requirement for articles about creative works like games, books, films, and television shows to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time in having reviews published years later. That is because reviews are not the "Brief bursts of news coverage" discussed in the guideline. Reviews provide critical analysis of the creative work. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable. Sources Shaw, Luther (July–August 1982). "Micro-Reviews: Bez-MX" . Computer Gaming World . Vol.  2, no. 4. pp. 34–35 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . This is a 499-word review of Bez-MX. The review notes: "The real strength of BEZ-MX is in the advanced game which requires planning. In addition to the elements in the basic game, players of the advanced game must maintain industrial production in a war situation. Players assign the population of their countries to work on the farm, factory, airfield, or city. You can have the people work in these areas (which will help keep military goods in production) or you can hide your population in shelters (perserving population but ending production)." Hunter, David (March 1982). "Reviews" . Softalk . Vol.  2. p. 103 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . This is an 834-word review of Bez-MX. This page notes that David Hunter wrote the review. The review notes: "There is scoring in Bez-MX to determine who wins, though a low score does not necessarily indicate a badly played game. It is easy to rack up points bombing cities and farms, but destroying the more crucial things like the runway and factory are what help you win the game." Article that does not provide significant coverage: "New Players" . Softline . Vol.  1, no. 2. November 1981. p. 2 . Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive . The article provides four words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The first two to look for are Bez-Mx and Bet-J, both based on current defense projects that President Reagan has given the go-ahead to in real life. Besnard is excited because he feels they're great strategy and action games. You lay down your strategy at the beginning of the game and then modify that strategy during real-time using game paddles. Bez-Mx and Bez-I should he available in December." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bez-MX to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the arguments of Cunard regarding the GNG. If consensus finds against retaining the article regardless, then I would suggest a merge to the List of Apple II games would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE and to provide a starting point should further sources materialize in the future. BOZ ( talk ) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or Delete - per WP:THREE . As my comments above mention, the sourcing available isn't enough to sustain an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Apple II games , it's close but not quite enough coverage to meet GNG. -- Mika1h ( talk ) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: WP:THREE is an essay that says to provide the three best sources. It does not say that three sources are needed. On the section of the talk page titled "why is three better than two?" , the author wrote, "I don't think there's anything magic about three, but it seemed like a good number . My suggestion if people insist on three and not two, is to remind them that this is just an essay and people shouldn't be slaves to it." The AfD nominator acknowledges that "the Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth". The sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about the subject. Since the Computer Gaming World and Softalk magazines are reputable and had wide circulation, they are good enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline since "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Aside from the AfD nominator, editors who have said the game does not meet the notability guideline have not explained why they think this. Do they think the sources are not high quality enough? Do they think the sources are not in-depth enough? Do they think that more than two sources are needed? A merge to List of Apple II games would be better than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion . However, a merge would result in the loss of content to comply with the due weight policy . Cunard ( talk ) 05:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles with more coverage have been deleted for lack of sourcing. The fact is that keeping articles with this little sourcing is not the consensus of WP:VG and would be considered unusual in the best of times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This response still does not explain why these two sources are insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline . Do you think the two sources are not reputable enough? Do you think the two sources are not in-depth enough? Do you think more than two sources are needed? Or is there another reason I have not listed here? At AfD, articles with two high quality in-depth reliable sources usually are considered notable, so a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games deviation from the general notability guideline ratified by the broader community would explain why some editors here have a higher bar. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so the general notability guideline is the one to follow. Cunard ( talk ) 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm well aware THREE is an essay, but that doesn't automatically make it invalid - quite the opposite, I would think this is exactly the sort of scenario that it was created for. As I noted, the sourcing is so brief that the writer(s) can't even muster up coherent article about the subject. I've read the article. All it says is that it was a game that involves shooting and two reviewers thought it was okay. That's...almost nothing of substance. If that's all that can be extrapolated from these sources, then no, I don't believe it to be significant coverage. And even if it was significant coverage, that doesn't automatically save it from valid merge/redirect stances. What I'm saying falls within the points of WP:MERGEREASON as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reading the three sources in the article, there is potential for a decent expansion. (I know this wasn't your only argument, but as I do plan to expand the article, I felt the need to comment). Skyshifter talk 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Skyshifter - I'm open to changing my mind if someone proves it, but I kind of figured if it was possible, it would be done by now. Ping me if you work on it before the AFD closes and I'll revisit my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Context matters, and for a 1981 game released for the Apple II, I don't see why we shouldn't consider two reliable, independent and significant coverage sources enough to establish notability. Skyshifter talk 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The two reviews listed above by Cunard are sufficient for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt . Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 17:55, 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

K.F.C. Moerbeke: There is zero coverage about it online (apart from the usual stats websites). It was tagged in 2012 and it still fails notability guidelines. Recently PRODed then DEPRODed so nominating it here. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn by nominator - Gidonb found coverage in multiple reliable sources and article has been improved. Sgubaldo ( talk ) 14:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Football , Europe , and Belgium . Sgubaldo ( talk ) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – The only source of the article is the club's Facebook page. Svartner ( talk ) 17:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This and all similar arguments below fail the golden WP:NEXIST rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article , hence should be discounted to the fullest extent. gidonb ( talk ) 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ GiantSnowman : - another editor has presented some sources below. I haven't looked at them, so have no opinion at this point, but as you asked to be pinged I have pinged you :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk ) 13:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with nomination, unless someone can prove otherwise. Govvy ( talk ) 20:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am still a little on the fence, but I will strike my delete per the updates to the article. Govvy ( talk ) 10:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - As the person who originally PROD this, I agree here. HawkAussie ( talk ) 09:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since you raised the PROD yourself: why did you prod this if there is not even the beginning of a case for deletion? Which part of "must" in the following WP policy is unclear? PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. gidonb ( talk ) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Especially with sources now being put in and the article being expanded, I do feel like it's now a Keep . HawkAussie ( talk ) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the above; unable to find any meaningful independent coverage of this club. Left guide ( talk ) 23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the coverage presented below, which clearly satisfies WP:GNG . Left guide ( talk ) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per all above. No evidence of notability. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 14:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Constant coverage in HN, HLN, and GVA. [10] A few coverage examples: [11] [12] [13] [14] Note that Belgium doesn't have an equally accessible newspaper archive as Delpher in the Netherlands. So these examples are recent. The club has been around since 1927. gidonb ( talk ) 07:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Significant coverage in two reliable sources identified by Gidonb . This discussion seems to be the worst kind of WP:SNOW with only Left guide having claimed to have done any searching. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss sources just flagged by gidonb Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While the nomination has been withdrawn , there are extant delete ! votes so I h ave not closed it, but it's certainly also trending toward a keep thanks to the sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious ( talk ) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. There are good sources, so there are good reasons to keep the article despite the low league tier. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - @ Svartner : , @ HawkAussie : , @ Govvy : , Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Keep per me? I posted delete above, but then nobody pinged me about changes to the article! So I might just strike my delete. Govvy ( talk ) 10:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Not sure why this is still open. The deletes carry no weight. gidonb ( talk ) 05:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Zaporizke, Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast: Not significantly improved as per comments by the AFC reviewers, moved the page to the main space by one non-AFC reviewer. NP83 ( talk ) 19:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: NP83 ( talk ) 19:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Perhaps relevant information could be found at https://ukrstat.gov.ua/ State Statistics Service of Ukraine . I'm reluctant to say that a village isn't notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A page for the village with more information than this one here exists on the Ukrainian Wikipedia; uk:Запорізьке (Покровський район) . Physeters ✉ 04:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – per WP:GEOLAND , populated places are "typically presumed to be notable", and looking at the sources, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that this is a populated, legally recognised place. It's hard to find sources (not least because "Zaporizke" is not a unique name – there are several villages by that name in Ukraine) and some of the existing sources are pretty weak, so some cleanup is needed but I do think it is a notable topic. As an aside, I can't see that this has been declined (much less rejected) in AfC, unless there are older, deleted drafts; it was created in mainspace, draftified by an NPP patroller, and then moved back to mainspace by the draft creator. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Appears to pass WP:GEOLAND . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The article is spare, but already has enough to demonstrate notability as a populated settlement and location of historical events.   — Michael Z . 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : because the subject of the article is a populated place it passes WP:GEOLAND , so it notable even if the article needs some improvement. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : poorly sourced, but passes NGEO. Needs a better title. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - okay, here's the issue with the above keep ! votes. While they are all correct that if this was a legally recognized populated place, it would pass GEOLAND, there is not a single source which says that. Indeed, none of the current sources even mention this location (except for the non-reliable weather link). I could not find any information using the link provided by Eastmain (but that could be due to the language barrier). The Ukrainian page appears to solely sourced to the weather reference. If someone can provide a link that actually shows this is a legally recognized place, please ping me. This is one of about 1-2 dozen articles created by this same editor, all which have the same sourcing issues. Onel 5969 TT me 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . While the first source in the table does not mention the village per se, it does show its location on the map. The second source in the table links to a different Zaporizke located in Volnovakha Raion, Donetsk Oblast. The fourth source should link to a page on understandingwar.org , though a quick search of that site does not yield any results. Physeters ✉ 02:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page for the former Berezivka Village Council uk:wiki lists Zaporizke as one of its subordinate "population centers". https://regulation.gov.ua/catalogue/regulators/id982/functions Physeters ✉ 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Onel5969 Here is a page for the village on another Ukrainian government website, albeit it is quite bare; https://decentralization.gov.ua/locality/24393 Physeters ✉ 04:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per WP:GEOLAND , and see https://gromada.info/gromada/vmyhaylivska/#1699 -- Yakudza ( talk ) 14:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: prepared by User:onel5969 Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://opentopomap.org/#map=12/47.8548/36.5553 The source does not mention this location ✘ No https://www.qwant.com/maps/place/admin:osm:relation:3946993@Zaporizke_87100#map=15.20/47.3804267/37.6530284 ? the source does not indicate what this is, appears to be an intersection ✘ No https://weather.in.ua/ua/dnepropetrovskaja/8496 No editorial oversight Simple mention of the location ✘ No dev-isw.bivings.com ? Dead link ? Dead link Dead link ✘ No https://t.me/dsszzi_official/2337 Appears independent ? Cannot tell if there is any editorial oversight Does not mention the location ✘ No https://news.yahoo.com/russian-troops-shell-dnipropetrovsk-oblast-220452993.html Major news conglomerator Does not mention the location ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Comment . As to the name, it should be renamed to Zaporizke, Synelnykove Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and the other one to Zaporizke, Kryvyi Rih Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast . The hromada name is unnecessary per Wikipedia:UAPLACE . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The reason why the hromada is specified is because there are three villages called Zaporizke in Synelykove Raion. This one, which is in Velykomykhailivka rural hromada, a second one in Slavhorod settlement hromada, and a third in Mezhova settlement hromada. Physeters ✉ 17:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, but the other two villages don't have articles. And is there more than one village by that name in Kryvyi Rih Raion? -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a second Zaporizke in Apostolove rural hromada. Physeters ✉ 19:09, 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

Southport Sockman: Mdann52 ( talk ) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Mildly amusing anecdote, but that doesn't make it notable. Athel cb ( talk ) 15:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's very notable locally and across merseyside and lancashire 31.94.28.139 ( talk ) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep on this one, though the article really does need to pull it's socks up . This was not a single incident, but rather a spree of incidents over several years - a lot of socks. Furthermore, although the court case is reported to have been in 1998 there does appear to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the UK-based "sockmen", including: coverage from Canada from 1996 ( Medicine Hat News ), a 2009 article ( [19] ), a film produced in 2015/16 ( Liverpool Echo , IMDb , Mirror ), a 2017 book ( [20] ), a Connecticut radio show in 2020 ( [21] ), and a retrospective article in 2021 ( Daily Record ). Coverage could be better, but does appear to be much more than "breaking news". Resonant Dis tor tion 18:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I have reverted the vandalism where an IP had added a third name to the perpetrators, and also added some of the above refs as citations within the article. Resonant Dis tor tion 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added an 'In popular culture' section to the article with talks about the film and book adaptations, with can help enforce its WP:N . Mjks28 ( talk ) 11:21, 25 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! 17:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Events described in article are notable, as they have inspired multiple media products (per @ ResonantDistortion 's argument above, such as a film). Article could, however, benefit from some rewording/restructuring, and add a section that could cover its media adaptations. — Mjks28 ( talk ) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep oh wow, I remember this happening, some of my friends were 'victims'. Anyway, I've added some extra detail with contemporaneous references. Orange sticker ( talk ) 23:30, 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

Vere Claiborne Chappell: Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Philosophy , United States of America , Massachusetts , and New York . UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Aside from this mention [7] I'm not seeing anything else. Timur9008 ( talk ) 20:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move to Vere Chappell , the name under which he usually published. A pass of WP:NPROF 1c as the subject of a festschrift , Contemporary Perspectives on Early Modern Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Vere Chappell (Broadview, 2008) [8] . There's an obituary in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association [9] and a number of book reviews [10] [11] [12] on JSTOR. (Additionally, for the use of future editors, there's an obituary of his ex-wife here [13] that contains more biographical information.) Note that the author of Sexual Outlaw, Erotic Mystic: The Essential Ida Craddock is apparently his son of the same name. Jahaza ( talk ) 20:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. A festschrift establishes notability. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move, as Jahaza suggests. -- asilvering ( talk ) 23:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 00:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep and move passes WP:NPROF . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 11:02, 30 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

Game Boy Advance SP: Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 03:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Kpg jhp jm 06:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The nominator seems to be attempting to open a merge request at AfD, saying in their nomination that they suggest merging with Game Boy Advance . Apart from that, the idea that "few would care about" a topic is very much not an admissible argument at AfD. jp × g 08:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , anticipating an avalanche, very clearly meets WP:GNG clicking the the "Find sources" links above. — siro χ o 09:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Is this trolling? Very obviously notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 10:17, 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

Faroe Islands Handball League: Nothing particular to this league returns on my BEFORE but I'm okay if someone with better google abilities in different languages is able to find coverage. microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Handball , and Denmark . microbiology Marcus ( petri dish · growths ) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , one of the main sports leagues of a small nation. Try searching Burn-deildin as a league name together with the national internet extension site:. fo . Geschichte ( talk ) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Handball is at the Faroe Island the most popular sport. Many articles about the league exists. [9] 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 18:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Veronika Dvořáková: Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Handball , and Czech Republic . CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep denik has some articles about her. Especially this article and also idnes with this interview . If you google <<"Veronika Dvořáková" Hazena>> there are more sources. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 18:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to try translate the articles and re-word myself if this nomination was kept. However, since I knew nothing of handball-related subjects the moment, it's admitted difficult. CuteDolphin712 ( talk ) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 18:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the concern is absence of sources, and this is dealt with in the comments here by Malo95, so I see no enduring rationale for deletion. Article needs improvement, not deletion. C 679 07:08, 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

WikiTree: Belle Fast ( talk ) 09:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In reading the prior comments, it seems like the two primary arguments for deletion are 1) the page is not written to Wikipedia standards and 2) WikiTree itself does not live up to the standards of some individuals. I don't believe either should be grounds for deletion. Poorly written profiles should be rew-ritten and a company profile should not be deleted based on the complaints of disgruntled customers. WikiTree has more than one million registered users and it is quicky becoming a major player in the genealogical community. Family Tree Magazine recently declared it one of the 100 best genealogy websites of 2023. These factors alone should qualify it for a Wikipedia profile. Keep the page, fix it up so that it meets Wikipedia standards, and let the disgruntled members take their criticisms to Yelp! DMRand ( talk ) 03:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you aware that of the "more than one million registered users," only 232,460 have signed the Honor Code as of just now ( https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=genealogist ) and thus are fully enabled to edit profiles? And that management's own estimate is that only a few thousand are currently active contributors ( https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/351001/how-many-genealogists-have-contributed-to-wikitree?show=351276#c351276 )? 2600:1010:B181:CD66:45D3:2A9D:92DC:EC52 ( talk ) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and SALT per first AfD, page serves no use, very little if any reliable second source coverage, seems to fail WP:GNG . Bunch of primary/self cites on the page now. May serve as a magnet for various WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP activities for and against the site but there is little meat here. SALT against creation for either positive or negative material and edit warring over that. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 09:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 02:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) I am striking my ! vote because I had a negative reaction to this article's bickering on the talk page and the apparent behavior of editors. Also there have been efforts to improve the article. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you very much for a prompt and balanced response Belle Fast ( talk ) 11:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That previous AfD nomination and subsequent deletion are not relevant to the current situation. Apparently the earlier AfD was for an article about a different entity named "WikiTree." It appears from the Wayback Machine that the site called WikiTree in 2005 and 2006 had the same domain owner, but that site apparently was taken down. The WikiTree.com site covered by the current article asserts (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:About_WikiTree ) that the site opened in 2008. Orlady ( talk ) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Orlady : Thanks for looking into that. If it was a genealogy site (which archive.org shows) with the same domain owner, it does seem relevant to this discussion, no? Their first party assertions about the start date don't hold a lot of weight. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 04:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an article about a website, not a domain name. I haven't determined what the contents were of the article that was deleted 17 years ago, but archive.org images of wikitree.com back in 2005 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20050209002555/http://www.wikitree.com/ ) and 2006 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20061129183230/http://www.wikitree.com/ ) look more like a parked domain than they do a website. I can't see how the deletion of an article about whatever existed in 2006 should prejudice all future decisions about articles of the same name. The current "WikiTree" article was created in 2014, 8 years after the deletion of the previous article. On the Internet, 8 years is like a lifetime. Orlady ( talk ) 22:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correction: I have reviewed the history of the deleted article (which in fact was deleted several times between 2006 and 2008). The subject was not Wikitree.com, but rather was Wikitree.org, which apparently belonged to a man named Tomáš J. Fülöpp (not the current owner of wikitree.com). From archive.org, it appears that at some point the owner of Wikitree.com acquired the wikitree.org domain and redirected it to wikitree.com. Orlady ( talk ) 22:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There are relevant scholarly articles that have utilized data provided by WikiTree. Notably, the research papers titled 'Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees' and 'Data Mining of Online Genealogy Datasets for Revealing Lifespan Patterns in Human Population' have relied on the data offered by WikiTree. These references demonstrate the value and importance of WikiTree as a resource for researchers and academics in the field of genealogy and population studies. While the absence of some outside sources may be a valid concern, it is crucial to recognize that Wikipedia itself is an ever-evolving platform, and the absence of cited external sources at a particular moment does not necessarily warrant deletion. As a community-driven encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to provide comprehensive coverage of notable subjects, and WikiTree undoubtedly falls within that category. 2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2 ( talk ) 15:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From the first of these learned papers, I quote: “The data we use were provided by WikiTree, a free, collaborative worldwide family tree project created by a community of amateur genealogists. Data are available on 6.67 million people in over 160 countries (but mainly the US, UK, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and Holland) going as far back as the 1st century …... Data were validated by WikiTree using their in-house procedures which include checking source materials and by making individuals' profiles editable only by a limited list of users, and we provided additional validation by comparing lifespans in the data with those reported by third party sources.” [4] The three authors betray a considerable degree of naivety. WikiTree members are indeed amateurs and most of their work shows it. Fiction plays a strong part in many of their trees, hence the ludicrous claim of descents from the 1st century. An example is the profile for “Tiberius Claudius Caesar Britannicus Born before 12 Feb 41 in Rome, Italy Son of father unknown and Valeria Messalina Brother of Claudia Octavia Died 11 Feb 55 after age 13 in Rome, Italy” [5] The only source cited for this rather distant ancestor is Wikipedia! As for the unbelievable claim that data for 6.67 million people was validated by WikiTree, one has only to look at random cases from the past twenty centuries or even just the last couple of centuries to find endless examples of people with no credible source at all. The whole set-up is flawed and shoddy. Restricting editing powers to certfied users may limit the amount of fake info being added, but will they ever be able to clean up millions of valueless profles already there? I'm sorry, but I do not believe that a survey like this can whitewash WikiTree and do not think it should count against deletion. Belle Fast ( talk ) 19:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 2601:2C5:4700:310:3A14:457E:FCB5:7AE2, it seems you might have forgotten to log in before commenting. Would you mind saying whether you have any connection to PureRedneck , or any relationship to WikiTree? Thanks, MundoMango ( talk ) 21:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions . Orlady ( talk ) 19:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There doesn't appear to be even an attempt by the nominator to address the reliable source coverage already used in the article? Difficult to claim non-notability when there's no discussion of existing sourcing in relation to said notability. I've done a brief search and found several more usable sources as well. Patton-Imani, Sandra (2018). "Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children: Adoption, Belonging, and Online Genealogy" . Genealogy . 2 (4): 37. doi : 10.3390/genealogy2040037 . Retrieved August 5, 2023 . Beidler, James M. (June 24, 2012). "Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration' " . Lebanon Daily News . Retrieved August 5, 2023 . McGyver, Diane (November 13, 2012). "What's a WikiTree?" . Kings County Record . Retrieved August 5, 2023 . And it looks like this stemmed from an ANI thread about an editor who was behaving inappropriately? But that has nothing to do with the notability of this article and subject. Also, based off of the talk page of this article, there just seems to be several users with a personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue with the article subject. Silver seren C 18:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some sources have been added since this was nominated I think. Most of the cites on this page seemed to be to Wikitree itself, genealogy blogs, genealogy sites that on inspection could probably not be called WP:RS , etc. My google search (which perhaps was not exhaustive) found very little mention that wasn't fluff. If this site were getting substantial coverage I would've expected more than a few local news reports (for a national site?) and some genealogy blogs. I'll reconsider my ! vote if I see significant in depth coverage. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 05:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The latter two sources I gave above aren't local news reports, but syndicated articles that were in a ton of papers nationally. I just picked one of those papers to use, but they are very much not local content. Silver seren C 05:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The newspapers are paywalled for me, did you get them through The Wikipedia Library? —DIYeditor ( talk ) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, it's the primary resource I use. Silver seren C 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first item is a very interesting and illuminating piece of academic research, for which the author found WikiTree a great help. That is however one individual's case, hardly enough on its own to establish notability for the whole site? As for the cited newspaper mentions, which date from over 11 years ago, are they anything more than PR puff? Belle Fast ( talk ) 10:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And since it has been suggested that I personally “do not like” WikiTree, that may be true but I will not demur at an article which cites adequate outside sources instead of being self-referential and includes critical comment as well as laudatory. Belle Fast ( talk ) 10:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, no, Belle Fast did not to my recollection or knowledge make this because of an ANI report, but rather because of a dispute resolution request which I found confusing and malformed, and in my response to which I suggested that someone could nominate the article for deletion if they wanted, which I believe I had seen discussed on the article's talk page already. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . While WikiTree does have many excellent pages which show links to reliable online sources, scans of proof documents, relevant images, and well-written biographies, these cannot outweigh the vast accumulation of user-contributed dross which, to my mind, renders the site as a whole (unless its supporters can prove otherwise) non-notable. Belle Fast ( talk ) 08:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] FYI Belle Fast, I believe your ! vote is already counted as the proponent. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 12:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . The article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I attempt to survey them here, to address the deficiency noted by Silver seren . As of the latest edit (5 August 2023 05:50 UTC) the article has 32 citations, of which 14 link to WikiTree.com content and seven are user review sites or favorable blog posts. Reference #20 (as numbered in the current version) is the website for the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, which mentioned WikiTree briefly as a “partner.” Of the two list entries, GenealogyInTime's 2016 “Top 100” chart (#6) did not describe its rating criteria, and Similarweb (#7) rated WikiTree eighth most visited, with no text description. The ISOGG wiki entry (#31) describes DNA-related features using information obtainable on WikiTree.com, with no in-depth evaluation. The entry cites WikiTree.com, blog posts, and Wikipedia. Five citations are media reports. The Daily Beast article (#2) is a report about the 2015 Global Family Reunion event, giving only brief mention to WikiTree. The New York Times (#8) published a general overview article about online genealogy sites. It mentions WikiTree in two paragraphs, presenting basic information available at WikiTree's Home and About pages. USA Today (#10) provided a similar summary of WikiTree-provided information. Familytree magazine (#29) offered one paragraph of information, again gleaned from WikiTree.com. None of these articles contains anything resembling in-depth coverage. The fifth media article, from the Lebanon Daily News (#11, also mentioned by Silver seren ), is paywall protected from both my home computer and those at my local public library. The remaining two sources (#1, #17) are academic journal articles having two authors (Fire and Elovici) in common. The first, quoted above by Belle Fast , was not a peer-reviewed publication. The second was peer reviewed, but the paywall only shows the abstract. The abstract describes “a large online genealogy dataset with over a million profiles and over 9 million connections, all of which were collected from the WikiTree website.” This language, from two of the same authors, suggests that both papers suffer from the same excess of credulity. I think it worth noting that WikiTree provides data to researchers, gratis. In my opinion, the above sources (with the possible exception of the unviewable #11) fail to establish notability. If better sources do exist, the article's contributors have not been able to find them with nine years of effort. Moreover, the lack of independent, in-depth, balanced, coverage makes it unlikely the article can achieve NPOV. It seems that reliable sources of information critical of WikiTree are vanishingly rare. MundoMango ( talk ) 23:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management). [ reply ] Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest [21] , here's the relevant text: "One outfit that is marching into this breach is WikiTree. With the slogan "Growing the World's Family Tree," this free system, as its name implies, uses the same manner of collaboration that Wikipedia has used to build that online encyclopedia into one of the marvels of the Internet. On WikiTree, participants are able to choose their preferred levels of privacy and collaboration with other genealogists. Profiles of living people can be kept completely closed or shared with only the users that a participant selects. The merging of the profiles of presumed common ancestors are handled by each user on a case-by-case basis. "Although broad-based collaboration is challenging we believe the benefits we get as researchers and the legacy we're leaving behind make the effort well worth it," according to WikiTree's brochure. WikiTree is found at WikiTree.com." Partial GNG-point, I'd say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 07:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To continue, with fifteen new citations added today as of 20:35 UTC: One (#29) duplicates a previously cited blog post (#34 now, was #19). Five are posts in the WikiTree members-only G2G discussion forum (read-only for non-members). Two are YouTube videos produced by members on behalf of WikiTree. Wikis for Dummies (#3) has incorrect publication information. Googlebooks preview pages show copyright 2007, cited text describes “wikitree.org” as “in its infancy.” CNN (#4) is an overview of online genealogy, mentioning WikiTree twice as a site that includes social networking features. The Oklahoman (#6) is titled incorrectly. The actual item was “What is WikiTree?” a public service announcement of an upcoming promotional talk by a member. Guardian (#7) article about WikiAnswers; WP:INHERITWEB . Family Tree Magazine (#9) links to podcast Ep. 56, January 2013, not 2023, promotional interview with the owner. #11 is a blog post promotional interview with the owner. Kennett and Pomery, 2011 (#12) has a brief description of WikiTree, more objective than most but outdated. Plus eleven bulleted items that I didn't look at. MundoMango ( talk ) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management) [ reply ] Keep . What about newspaper coverage in several US states to prove notability? -- Flominator ( talk ) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pick a couple of GNG-good ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As with any wiki that allows edits from a community of users, there will be content that needs further examination and work to bring it up to standard. Example profiles following a set of style rules and standards: Dewsbury-65 , Calvert-613 . The work done by volunteer contributors on WikiTree has been cited as a source in books, magazines, and newspaper articles. Example: Wanner, Dick (16 Jul 2022). "Historic Black Inventor Made Grain Harvest Faster, Safer for Famers" . Lancaster Farming . Vol.  67, no. 42. Ephrata, Pennsylvania : LNP Media Group. p.  B19 . Retrieved 7 August 2023 . - it is referring to Ruth-893 Azurerae ( talk ) 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, but "cited as a source" doesn't matter. WP:GNG -good coverage does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Wikitree, like Geni and Familysearch is a work in progress. Its userbase is constantly striving to make the website the best it can be and even now sources are being added which verify its notability. It has been accredited by various well-known genealogists. I know that seems like a feather in the site's cap. However, it should count for something as users of that site worked hard on their family trees. To list them all would take some time. Videos, however, can be found on the site's Youtube channel. Edits have already been made to the page, which, to be honest has improved its flow considerably. It has stopped being less like an advertisement and more like what it should be--A page outlining the functions of the website, its history, and its importance to the genealogical community. More changes are underway and more sources have been added by contributors to support its notability. Cferra ( talk ) 23:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ https://g.co/kgs/aP2rQJ ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/4CpA6KhbohKW7a1huUT7oU ^ https://ra.co/dj/dennyb/biography ^ Quantitative Analysis of Genealogy Using Digitised Family Trees Michael Fire, Thomas Chesney & Yuval Elovici September 2, 2014 https://archive.org/details/arxiv-1408.5571 retrieved 4 August 2023 ^ "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Brittanicus (Bef.0041-0055) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree" . Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not all ! votes are currently valid, but amongst those that are, it's not currently clear enough to call Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk ) 12:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not the easiest call, but I think this is a case where footnotes exist but they don't add up to notability. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reality is, while this page definitely needs to be improved on, there is enough outside coverage in my opinion to warrant the page's existence. PunkAndromeda ( talk ) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep From a recent review of the current page version, there appears to be more than adequate references to outside sources that discuss everything from site functionality to the market share of the genealogy websites to data research done utilizing the site and professional papers using profile information found on WikiTree. A scan of similar sites (Ancestry, MyHeritage, Geni, FamilySearch, etc.) seems to reveal similar pages with a similar style of presentation, some with essentially the same external coverage, so this one does not seem any more or less suitable, and while we're not comparing these as a whole, it seems awkward to cite the removal of what appears to be a recognized site in the genealogical market without any indication of concern about the others. Dsfulker ( talk ) 00:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WikiTree is a well-recognised genealogical site. The page has now been improved, with better sourcing, but in any event the way to address sourcing concerns is to make sourcing better. While some comments can be found on the web about the accuracy of some information on WikiTree, the same applies to other genealogical sites for which there are Wikipedia articles, like Familysearch, and this is not a reason to delete the page. The quality of sourcing is not dissimilar to that in articles for sites like Familysearch, and so is the presentation. Mfcayley ( talk ) 08:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's still a lot of primary refs, and sections like User privacy seems way too detailed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I must admit, I feel a bit lost here: This is my first deletion discussion in en.wp, after working over decades at de.wp. There deletion requests were often about proving notability or fulfillment of relevance criteria. When describing (and not advertising, which we should clearly avoid because of NPOV ) a website, it's obvious that you will often use the website as source. I mean, who could describe features better, than the site itself? This is of course not the case when writing about public reception, criticism, comparison to others etc. When looking at WeRelate , geni.com and Rodovid , the composition of sources is roughly the same, I would say. I can understand, if you declare passages of the article to much advertising, too detailed, not neutral etc., I can't grasp, how exactly more "non-primary sources" would look like for this type of article. Can you please explain? -- Flominator ( talk ) 18:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The website knows what it want to say about itself, but on en-WP, that is of limited interest, per WP:ABOUTSELF . If we're going WP:OTHERCONTENT , there are also websites like Wikipediocracy , Palmer Report and Dogsbite.org . However, if we're looking for role-models, it's probably better to look at GA/FA articles, WP has a lot of iffy content, and it's not unlikely many articles on websites (or anything, really) are significantly edited by "fans", and if the article is relatively unnoticed, that will show (there's the opposite too, of course [22] ). Which is of course not necessarily bad, fans tend to know stuff, but they also tend to edit from the position that the whatever is great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Violette Martin ( talk ) 19:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (deleted Violette Martin ( talk ) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep I am biased, as I am a volunteer leader on WikiTree. The site was a major focus of my lightning talk at WikiConference North America 2020, and I contributed to the 2016 property proposal discussion for the (accepted) property on Wikidata that provides links to the site. As others have stated, the presence of poor research on a significant portion of the 33 million ancestor profiles is not an indicator of notability, although it certainly must influence Wikipedia editors who diligently delete any source citations referencing the site. FamilySearch Family Tree, Geni.com , Ancestry member trees, and any sites with user-generated genealogy information are bound to be riddled with errors. It's why the collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated. KarenJoyce ( talk ) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] “.... collaborative global trees are peer-reviewed and contentious profiles are monitored and curated ….” Really? How frequently can a database with millions of names be checked? And who does the checking? If by other amateurs, how are they better equipped to judge? A WikiTree admin, whose acts are above challenge, officially changed the name of an English ancestor from James to Jacobus, unaware that the baptismal register on which she relied was in Latin. Please do not pretend that WikiTree, despite some excellent material, is overall a quality product. Which is why a Wikipedia article which conceals its faults and sings only its praises is not neutral . Belle Fast ( talk ) 07:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I am a WikiTree member, so I should not be counted as "voting" here, but I do want to comment. The current WikiTree article is severely bloated, and it has become more bloated during the course of this AfD discussion. There is far too much nonencyclopedic content, much of which is sourced only to the WikiTree website and thus contributes to the perception that the article is almost entirely based on content from the article's subject. If the article is kept, editing of the article to resolve the bloat problem would also address the heavy reliance on "self"-reported content. That does not mean that all "self"-reported content must go away. In my experience editing Wikipedia content about entities such as companies and educational institutions, I have seen that it is seldom possible to adequately document these entities without including some content that is sourced only to the subject of the article, and this is also the case for WikiTree (as a privately held company that has never made business headlines for events like change of ownership, lay-offs, or scandal). It is hardly surprising that there are no independently authored full-length books or articles providing in-depth coverage of WikiTree, but I think the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers (such as The New York Times in 2011 ), in Family Tree magazine ( https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/ ), and in books like " DNA and Social Networking: A Guide to Genealogy in the Twenty-First Century " (and probably some other sources cited in the article) should be sufficient to establish notability of a website . Additionally, I think the very recent web traffic data from SimilarWeb (8th in website traffic among Genealogy&History websites, behind Ancestry.com, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, Geneanet, and 23andMe, but ahead of widely known sites including Findmypast, FamilyTreeDNA, and Rootsweb) and the 2016 "popularity" ranking of 15th (basis not reported) by GenealogyInTime Magazine indicate the importance of WikiTree within the context of genealogy websites. And I am aware of blog posts by unaffiliated professional genealogists that may (if cited selectively) help to further document the impact of WikiTree. Orlady ( talk ) 19:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Note: Much of the "bloat" I referred to in the above comment has now been addressed, thanks to Drmies and others. Orlady ( talk ) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on examining the content of the media sources cited (my vote, above), "the descriptive content about WikiTree that has appeared in articles about genealogy websites in reputable newspapers ... and in books" does not (in my opinion) rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV . Superficial coverage is no less so for appearing in reputable publications, or in lesser publications no matter how often repeated. I believe "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" should go well beyond repeating information obtained from the website or its promotional material, and would include such questions as: How many of the one million members have been inactive for a year or more? How many members make more than a few contributions in a typical month? How many of the 35 million profiles are duplicates, fabrications, or completely unsupported by verifiable sources? And so on. Such coverage, if it exists, would go far to support claims of notability; included in the article, it would add greatly to NPOV. MundoMango ( talk ) 20:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management). [ reply ] Slightly off-topic, but you reminded me of Numbeo . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appears to have barely adequate secondary references of the required independence and reliability. Edison ( talk ) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm wondering about outside canvassing given that we have about 5 keep votes from editors with 100 or less, most significantly less, contributions. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doug Weller : I was canvassed off-wiki by email on 11 August and waded into the fray with my Keep comment and flurry of editing in an attempt to find better sources. I later read about WP:STEALTH . KarenJoyce ( talk ) 00:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also found the helpful Template:Rfc notice and used that on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genealogy . KarenJoyce ( talk ) 00:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you mind sharing details of this canvassing, ideally at WP:ANI ? That really shouldn't be tolerated. Thanks :) Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 08:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doug Weller : seems endemic to everything that's been going on with this article. Hopefully the closer can sort through it. I'd probably go back and unstrike my "SALT" vote because if it's deleted I think the advocates of this commercial "Wiki" will just come back and make it again. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 00:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd argue that WikiTree is clearly a wiki with no quotes required, as each page represents a person, living or dead, or a place, document, factory, etc. And it is promised to be free forever , although it is operated as a small ( seriously small ) business. I am not one of the single-digit number of paid staff team members , but clearly I should step back as I'm a user and fan. Perhaps the other fans, banned former users, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT folks should do the same? KarenJoyce ( talk ) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah you may be right about stepping back. Do you think that if everyone who has an opinion about the site recuses themselves the ! vote will it be more balanced? I don't know where the line is on having a COI in that regard. —DIYeditor ( talk ) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don‘t think there’s a clear line in the policies/guidelines, but I think it would be good for the discussion if some of the ! votes here were refactored. With their agreement, of course. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Most of the debate here centers on the quality of Wikitree itself rather on whether it meets the admissibility criteria. Agree with KarenJoyce . Violette Martin ( talk ) 13:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are right, Violette. But if the quality of WikiTree's organisation and data is imperfect, shouldn't the Wikipedia article address this? It is illuminating to read comments by the admittedly small sample of disappointed users at https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/wikitree.com The site's summary reads: “WikiTree has a rating of 1.87 stars from 15 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied …. WikiTree ranks 54th among genealogy sites.” Belle Fast ( talk ) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If WP:RS have bothered to notice, this article can too. Citing sitejabber would be like citing Amazon reader reviews (as in heck no ). However, since the site is usergenerated, imperfections is not that surprising, pretty much part of the package. To quote Jimmy Wales commenting on Wikipedia in August 2023: "It's pretty good in parts." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 07:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm working on a source assessment table to clear up this discussion a little. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 08:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Actualcpscm , if you feel up to it, you can look at the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's the table for the sources currently in the article. There were two to which I did not have suitable access to fully determine their suitability. I'll take a look at the ones in the discussion here and at the link above now, thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång ! Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Actualcpscm Thanks for working on this. On Roots and Branches, see my "Found LDN (#11) on ProQuest" comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On DNA and SN, see [23] . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the arxiv pdf, I'm not sure this was reliably published somewhere, or if it is some sort of student paper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.google.it/books/edition/It_s_All_Relative/u0k8DwAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=0 ~ ~ Partial https://www.google.it/books/edition/Sharing_Your_Family_History_Online/u9MoEAAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:9781526780300&printsec=frontcover ~ ✘ No https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5571.pdf Does not discuss WikiTree in detail, just uses it as a source of data. See WP:SIGCOV . ✘ No https://www.thedailybeast.com/massive-genealogy-project-shows-we-are-familyliterally WP:DAILYBEAST ✘ No https://books.google.it/books? id=5VXgXlU7g-YC&pg=PA300&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ? Reads a lot like an advertisement. WP:NCORP requires strict independence. ~ Hardly. Again, WP:SIGCOV requires that analysis can be extracted without WP:OR or WP:SYNTH This is a maybe. ? Unknown https://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/10/living/real-simple-finding-your-roots/index.html ✘ No https://eu.oklahoman.com/story/lifestyle/2022/11/16/oklahoma-city-metro-area-happenings-news-and-events/69622284007/ ? Event announcement is likely not strictly independent. ✘ No https://familytreemagazine.com/podcasts/episode56/ ? ? Didn't check. ✘ No https://lisalouisecooke.com/2023/03/22/what-is-wikitree/ Interview Blog ✘ No https://www.google.it/books/edition/DNA_and_Social_Networking/MEM7AwAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=0 Presumably, although the author is an active user . ? I'll have to check ? Unknown https://web.archive.org/web/20140923024330/http://wikitree.appappeal.com/ ? ~ This "review" regurgitates marketing language and keywords without providing any substantial analysis or insight. ? Unknown https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1608820/wikitree-surpasses-35-million-profiles ~ ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1577271/1-000-000-members-passed-at-8-57-a-m-eastern-us ~ ✘ No http://www.genealogyintime.com/articles/top-100-genealogy-websites-of-2016-page02.html ? List entry ✘ No https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/hobbies-and-leisure/ancestry-and-genealogy/ ? List entry ✘ No https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/feb/12/wiki-answers-wikia Does not mention WikiTree ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1848/have-you-signed-the-honor-code ~ ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code ~ ✘ No https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/technology/personaltech/19basics.html? pagewanted=all&_r=0 Passing mentions only ✘ No https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2015/06/24-degrees-separation/ Personal blog ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Duplicates ~ ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/29385/did-you-see-that-you-can-now-export-gedcom-for-individual-tree ~ ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20150724120807/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2011-06-03-genealogy-web-tools_n.htm ~ Listicle entry. Doesn't provide any analysis. ~ Partial Roots and Branches: New genealogical mantra - 'Collaboration' ( https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/7631C40EA5B24F09PQ/1?accountid=196403 ) Doesn't provide analysis, reporting only basic facts about the project. ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/365669/should-all-profiles-of-people-born-150-died-100-years-ago-open ~ ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/377813/that-profiles-people-who-were-born-years-died-years-must-open ~ ✘ No https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:GEDMatch ~ ✘ No https://isogg.org/wiki/WikiTree Appears to be WP:UGC ✘ No https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2700464 Only mentions WikiTree once as a source of their data. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Here's the table for the sources at Talk:WikiTree#This_was_under_"References"_for_some_reason . I didn't analyse the last few, it's clear that there's a pattern here: they used WikiTree as a source and did not analyse it further, ergo no SIGCOV. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is the "Analyzing Digital Discourse" book actually about "our" Wikitree? I don't have good access. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Checking... , although it looked like it to me. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're right, that's something else. Table and ! vote have been amended accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out! Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.google.it/books/edition/Analyzing_Digital_Discourse_and_Human_Be/9sSNCwAAQBAJ? hl=en&gbpv=0 This is about a different WikiTree, more commonly stylized Wiki Tree. Darn. ✘ No https://www.irelandxo.com/ireland-xo/news/tracing-your-roots-dna ? Presumably yes. ✘ No https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.1507441.11 ✘ No https://books.google.it/books? id=IdWkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ? Presumably yes. ✘ No https://www.lowcountryweekend.com/2023/04/11/international-african-american-museum-sets-spring-early-summer-programming/ ✘ No https://eu.pressconnects.com/story/news/connections/2018/03/26/genealogy-roots-ancestry-stories/376788002/ ? ✘ No https://www-euppublishing-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/epub/10.3366/brw.2020.0346 Passing mention. ✘ No https://www.cairn.info/revue-population-2020-2-page-391.htm Passing mention. ✘ No https://www.proquest.com/docview/2655175415/8BF23F813A0D4F7EPQ/1 Note that this is the same author as source 2 from the article. Small magazine, but presumably notable; no reason to believe otherwise. ✔ Yes Tovey, Helen. “Genealogy Gadgets & Apps for All Occasions!” Family Tree Magazine (02671131), June 2022, 32–35 ? ? ? No access ? Unknown https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/88/article/722734/pdf Uses WikiTree as a source ✘ No https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/17/article/627387 Uses WikiTree as source of data ✘ No https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/787987 No access, but completely implausible that this would have sigcov of WikiTree ✘ No The judicial officers of the Transvaal High Court, 1877- 1881 No access, but implausible for SIGCOV, likely uses WikiTree as source ✘ No https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1c0438e6c0 ✘ No https://journals.co.za/doi/epdf/10.17159/sajs.2020/6363 Uses WikiTree as source ✘ No https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1910&context=sahs_review Passing mention ✘ No https://www.medichub.ro/reviste-de-specialitate/orl-ro/femei-celebre-in-stomatologie-secolele-xviii-xix-id-7667-cmsid-63 Uses WikiTree as source ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . And here it is for the sources discussed at this AfD. My ! vote is coming in soon. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At a glance, Kings County Record is an ordinary newspaper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 09:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that it's a newspaper of record, it's probably reliable. That gives us another GNG source. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? https://www.proquest.com/docview/2582803033/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1 ✔ Yes https://www.proquest.com/docview/1021925089/D4D14316374D4B25PQ/1 ~ No substantial analysis. ~ Partial https://www.proquest.com/docview/1151258320/288919154B3E4D32PQ/1 Anyone know anything about King's County Record? Appears to be reliable. ✔ Yes https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-farming/129612151/ Cites WikiTree as a source ✘ No https://familytreemagazine.com/uncategorized/best-social-media-websites-2014/ ? ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . Weak Keep . This discussion is a mess , and I think a lot of participants got completely sidetracked. However, the standards of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP are almost certainly met. The three best sources here are 1 , 2 , 3 . 1 is about a different WikiTree. I think there's still enough here, but it's really borderline without that book. However, I think there is a very strong WP:NEXIST argument to be made. Clearly, WikiTree is used a source of data by a lot of reliably published academic papers, often without further explanation. To me, that indicates a certain renown within the academic field; if WikiTree were not considered reliable, it wouldn't be used to frequently in academic works. Renown does not establish notability, but it's a consequence of analysis (that we have not found yet). Someone, somewhere almost certainly analysed the reliability of WikiTree data for academic work . I find it hard to believe that it would be so widely used if that had never happened. That gives us 3 GNG sources, plus potentially some of the ones I don't have access to, plus a high likelihood that there is academic analysis of the reliability of WikiTree that we haven't found. That's enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP , in my opinion. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Edited 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's also this source re. GNG. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] On the NEXIST, I think there's an argument that such sources would have appeared by now, if they're out there ( WP:MUSTBESOURCES which of course is an essay ). I'm not confident it's "a lot", I have no good comparison. It can indicate a certain renown, or to some extent some academic sloppiness. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That‘s the thing, NEXIST and MUSTBESOURCES are somewhat contradictory. I want to assume that academic use of WikiTree is based on legitimate renown rather than sloppiness, but I‘m not naïve to the point of denying that sloppiness exists in academia. It seems that someone took the time to compile a large number of academic works that use WikiTree as a source, so it is weird that they found all that and no analysis. I‘ll take another look at the GNG sources we actually have. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 12:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Looks like there‘s still enough. We‘re back to WP:THREE with the Kings County Record piece. None of those sources are particularly convincing to me, but all of them technically fulfill the requirements. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Actualcpscm , I can't find where anyone verified that the Kings County Record piece was a news report, rather than an event announcement or similar? Sorry if I missed it. MundoMango ( talk ) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) (former member and frequent critic of WikiTree management) [ reply ] If you meet the requirements, you can access it through the Wikipedia Library. It is a brief report on WikiTree, not an event announcement or press release. It's attributed to Diane Lynn Tibert McGyver (labelled a freelance writer), who doesn't seem to have a direct connection to WikiTree. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update on this assessment: There are currently 3 GNG sources (see table), as well as two partials (low depth of coverage). Still looks enough to me even without the NEXIST argument. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regarding Legitimacy and the Transfer of Children , I would argue that WikiTree was simply a research tool, like the computer the author used. She mentions the WikiTree mission; signing up for an account; not being able to enter both an adoptive family and a biological family (without creating a separate identity for herself), and uses several paragraphs to describe the disappointment, concluding with "We are not fully part of either family, and thus, our sense of belonging is always contingent and negotiated"; later she mentions, but provides no detail about her experience (if any), with the "Adoption Angels." WikiTree was used mainly as an example of how genealogical websites work. - (Full disclosure: I am a WikiTree excommunicant. I wouldn't presume to vote in this discussion.) 2600:1010:B121:DC53:50F:7866:448C:37DA ( talk ) 19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

International Humic Substances Society: Let'srun ( talk ) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado . Let'srun ( talk ) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Environment . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Long-standing and recognized organization in the field [18] ; among other things, they maintain and provide a set of standard reference materials (IHSS standards) that are widely used in soil research [19] . -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 07:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think Elmidae is right to keep this, but I'd point out that Humic acids are the gardener's equivalent of complementary medicine, a thing where products whose composition isn't even known to the producer are offered for sale with promises of enhanced plant growth based on extremely scanty evidence and no scientific basis. Like complementary medicine, everyone involved in humic acids is very vocal, but the terminology is more impressive than the underlying facts. We should keep this organisation not on the basis that it supports important science, but on the basis that it's generated evidence of notability in a field that gets written-about. Elemimele ( talk ) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything. I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances. In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me. The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse. About potential other sources, here's some: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/4/1044 - "[...]we studied the standardized samples of HS of the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS)." ... could be used as an independent source to show and characterize an activity of the society in supporting soils research https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-023-26398-3 - more of the above https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004313541530021X - etc https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/suwannee-river-natural-organic-matter-isolation-of-the-2r101n-ref https://chembioagro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40538-021-00229-4 - there's actually quite a lot of these studies where somehow it's the IHSS that provides the materials - I think that should be covered but lack the technical background in this area to say for sure or to say exactly how it should be done https://www.google.com/search? sca_esv=594703604&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKlmO1zdHuPzIE9DqtqzXFXVRISa1Q:1704008925634&q=inauthor:%22International+Humic+Substances+Society. +International+Meeting%22&tbm=bks - sources from within the group's conferences, useful I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x ^^ Chin, YP. , McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers ( talk ) 08:09, 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

Amin Husain: BLP concerns have been raised at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amin_Husain Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw per overwhelming consensus of other participants. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 15:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Decolonize This Place . The project appears to be marginally notable, but I think it's a WP:BLP1E for Husain. Little sign of WP:NPROF . As far as GNG, there is some coverage of the subject's recent suspension from NYU, mostly (but not entirely) in blacklisted right-wing publications; I do not think that it is enough that we need this article. There is some possibility for WP:NCREATIVE , but I didn't find anything outside of the one project. Watching in case better evidence of NCREATIVE arises. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really don't care if Husain keeps his own article or not (Wikipedia already has too many BLPs and not enough quality editors to maintain them), and think it's silly to myopically focus on a single recent event , but coverage "mostly (but not entirely) in blacklisted right-wing publications" is quite misleading: New York Daily News [28] , The Forward [29] , Washington Square News [30] , Hyperallergic [31] , and The Messenger [32] are hardly rightwing publications, and while National Review [33] , The College Fix [34] , Israel National News [35] , Jewish News Syndicate [36] , The Jewish Voice [37] , and Campus Reform [38] lean conservative, they are not black-listed. The only formally deprecated or generally-unreliable sources I can find (without descending into the dregs of Twitter and bot content scrapers) are this article in the Daily Mail and an editorial in the New York Post . And for the umpteenth time, "right-wing publication" does not necessarily mean "bad" or "unreliable", no more so than do the many "left-wing" publications commonly used on Wikipedia, and indeed, systematic disregard of sources simply due to their editorial or political stance would (or should ) fundamentally violate WP:NPOV : an event can be significant even if left-leaning media largely ignores it. --Animalparty! ( talk ) 21:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to Keep , in light of the Occupy Wall Street coverage uncovered by Red-tailed hawk , which I did not find. The recent remarks about Hamas contribute somewhat to notability, although I am still unconvinced that it would overcome WP:BLP1E on its own. Although the sources covering the latter are a mixed bag, I do think there is enough coverage that it should go into the article. Apologies for delayed response; limited Wikipedia time this week. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's a lot of recent coverage about recent comments, which is probably why this article was created, but this activist seems to have a long history that goes back at least until the early days of Occupy Wall Street . Long story short, he's been given significant coverage as an individual by independent reliable sources in the context of at multiple events. These events include: Occupy Wall Street . A 2012 profile in New York Magazine , which dedicates several paragraphs to him, names him ten times, and states that Husain is characterized by a number of the prime movers as one of OWS’s "deep thinkers" . He is also mentioned in The Toronto Star and Mondoweiss in relation to OWS, although the coverage is more brief. Husain also granted an interview in 2014 with Waging Nonviolence about his role in OWS. Decolonize This Place . There is significant coverage of Husain in a variety of sources that relate to his involvement in Decolonize This Place. Coverage from The Jerusalem Post includes a standalone article specifically about his role as well a second standalone article about calls to fire him over it. He's heavily featured in an article by The Paris Review regarding DTP, as well. His mentions related to this project date as far back as 2017 in Hyperallergic , and 2016 in The Guardian . (There's also a fairly long blogpost by Verso Books about media coverage of Husain's participation in DTP, though I think that it's self-published as a blogpost, and thus wouldn't be usable for a BLP. I note it merely for posterity sake.) Passing mention also occurs in a 2021 piece and a 2019 piece from The New York Times , which describe some of his art-related protest organizing. Hamas denialism . Recent comments that seem to have denied aspects of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel , as well as the backlash to it and his firing, appear to have been covered significantly by a good number of sources. Such sources include The Forward , JNS , Israel's Channel 7 News , Hindustan Times , Hyperallergic , Washington Square News , The Messenger , and of course The Free Press (which seems to have been first to report on this). Some of these are possibly non-independent (Husain was a contributor at HyperAllergic, and WSN is NYU's student paper), but nevertheless there are multiple independent reliable sources here. In addition to the above, he seems to have conducted an interview with the online affiliate of Monthly Review , another with the Center for Artistic Activism , yet another with Arts Cabinet , and yet another with Jewish Currents . As such, this is not a WP:BLP1E nor a low-profile individual by any means; he has both actively engaged press coverage by granting various interviews regarding his work in relation both to OWS and to DTP and he's given public speeches about it. He has also has been significantly covered in the context of multiple events. What all the sources above point to, therefore, is a very clear pass of WP:NBASIC / WP:GNG . Some have indicated concerns about the current article's content. However, as the deletion policy itself notes , when editing can fix these reasons for deletion this should be done rather than deleting the page . There are enough sources to write a reasonably detailed article about this individual that is not doomed to be about a permastub. As such, the article should be kept and improved. After all, deletion is not cleanup . — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly meets GNG. Thriley ( talk ) 03:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: GNG appears to be adequately met, per Red-tailed hawk. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 19:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

keep

Georgetown football, pre–1890: Per WP:NOPAGE , this content can be trimmed down and be found at Georgetown football . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , American football , and Washington, D.C. . Let'srun ( talk ) 19:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What the hell... NSEASONS states that seasons can be grouped if lacking individual notability - I do, as an ATD for the 1881 season article (which you seem to really not like for some reason), this article on the first 16 years of Georgetown football - and within minutes of finishing you AFD it. I can add the next five seasons to this if it helps, but why are you now so much against merger articles when they're created by me, when you've done the exact same before for arguably less notable groupings (DelState)? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Let'srun : How many seasons do you think need to be added for this to be notable? Through 1894? Through 1900? More? I will tell you this, though: I oppose in the strongest possible terms a "trim-down to Georgetown football", as that would just either (a) result in a load of WP:UNDUE content or (b) result in near-total erasing the first 16 years of the team's history, which need to be mentioned somewhere at Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per Cbl62 and Jweiss. This is a valid split, something Let'srun has been supportive of in the past when others have done such actions (even doing it himself). Futhermore, his lack of a reply to my above comment (how many seasons would equal notability) while actively editing elsewhere indicates that this is simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination / nomination due to it being my work. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I do not think WP:NOPAGE applies here as the nominator suggests, as Georgetown Hoyas football is not an appropriate WP:ATD for this type of merge. More reasonable would be expanding the scope of this page to 1894, as Category:Georgetown Hoyas football seasons indicates that was the last season prior to a rebranding. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This is a legitimate combined article on the early years of a notable football program. Combining multiple years in this fashion is valid per WP:NSEASONS ("In cases in which the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article."). Debates as to which years should be included or excluded is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE that should be discussed first at the article's talk page. However, such a disagreemen is not a proper basis IMO for taking the article to AfD within minutes of creation (and without any discussion or dispute resolution), as was done here. Cbl62 ( talk ) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 ( talk ) 01:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. Honestly, AFD needs to be snow closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Cbl62. -- Zoo Blazer 01:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is the best way to present this information - you could split any season out and it would be only marginally notable but that's covered by NSEASON and it's not like it's poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T · C 18:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 11:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

David Gonzalez (storyteller): I confess I hummed and hawed about this nomination because it felt as if he should, indeed could be notable. However, when you boil it all down, there is no record of sustained or exceptional notability under any of these labels - coverage is interviews or non-RS; there is no "well-known and significant award or honor" or multiple nomination. Ultimately, while undoubtedly widespread in his interests, I believe the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST (and its multiple associated creative guidelines). Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Bands and musicians , Arts , Poetry , and Music . Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Received coverage in multiple RS including NYT , WaPo (original link ), The News Journal , Star Tribune , etc. Although he didn't win, a nomination for a Drama Desk Award seems noteworthy. APK whisper in my ear 06:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep between the existing sources in the article, the ones found by APK and these sources that appear to be not otherwise used/found from various newspapers, some of which contain significant biographical coverage of him and not just his work: Animal Magnetism , David Gonzalez teaches, entertains with 'Sofrito!' , David Gonzalez's 'Sleeping Beauty' , A River of Dreams , It All Comes Down to the Story , Program puts spotlight on Latino tales . Skynxnex ( talk ) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I don't know if you (Alexandermcnabb) must wait until he is dead. David Gonzalez is an artist with an amazing career and dedication to his craft. Just look at Ralph Blumenthal's (unpaid) review of him in the New York Times. In it he describes step by step the life of this multi-disciplinary artist. Previously Lawrence Van Gelder, also a NYT critic, praised Gonzalez's work. He is a doctor in music therapy with many years’ experience working with underserved communities. He has written more than a dozen plays that have been presented many of the best American theaters. He has received numerous awards, grants, and commissions, and is respected by other well-known artists who collaborate with him in his productions. There are many, many artists on Wikipedia with a much lower profile. Their articles have been created, on many occasions, by a cousin or a friend or someone who runs social networks for them. Let's be serious, David Gonzalez is a great artist and his work, and his life enrich Wikipedia. This article has been done in an honest and professional manner. I hope there is some consistency in Wikipedia, and it will not be deleted. As for the text, I will give it an overhaul, trying to improve it. -- Ursulabela ( talk ) 06:01, 12 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

The Pentecostal Mission: HenryMP02 ( talk ) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Christianity , Sri Lanka , and Tamil Nadu . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this , I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 ( talk ) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:04, 27 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

Alfred Stanford: Fails the general and author -specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Authors , Military , United States of America , and New Jersey . UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Being in the military isn't notable by itself; might have a pass with AUTHOR, but I can't find reviews of his books. Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oaktree b : . Many reviews have been added. Djflem ( talk ) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Tried to find book reviews of his first two novels in the Library of Congress newspaper archive from 1923-1925, nothing. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is a credible claim of notability as an author, but unfortunately the sourcing in the article doesn't support the claim and I wasn't able to find in-depth sources about him and his work in a Google search. Alansohn ( talk ) 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR . Here are various reviews for multiple of his books. There are many more on newspapers.com: [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] . Jfire ( talk ) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a few old reviews don't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR , fails WP:GNG . Mztourist ( talk ) 03:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple reviews of multiple works is routinely considered to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR , and WP:NTEMP . Jfire ( talk ) 03:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Jfire which of the 4 heads of NAUTHOR says that? 3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are not sufficient in themselves, unless the author created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Mztourist ( talk ) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In practice, the way "significant or well-known" is determined in AfD discussions is via the presence (or absence) of reviews. Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shelby , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Collins (writer) , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Prescott . Jfire ( talk ) 04:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Those decisions obviously do not comply with the clear wording of NAUTHOR. Mztourist ( talk ) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've expanded the article with additional sources and reviews for all but two of his books. I hope this is enough to meet WP:HEY . Jfire ( talk ) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reviews found by Jfire, which meet my understanding of both AUTHOR and GNG. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Works have been the primary subject of reviews, thus satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Djflem ( talk ) 09:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment User:Espresso Addict and User:Djflem which head of WP:NAUTHOR do you believe he meets? If you are relying on 3 note that it states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So reviews are not sufficient in themselves. Mztourist ( talk ) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which part of "or reviews" is unclear to you? Djflem ( talk ) 11:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "or reviews" is perfectly clear, but you are ignoring the "In addition", which means that reviews are secondary to the first sentence requiring the subject author to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has not been established. Mztourist ( talk ) 03:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not ignoring a thing, that's your assumption. (spare us). As it the idea that Alfred Stanford has not created a significant collective body of work despite reviews that confirm that. Djflem ( talk ) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No assumption made, that's clearly what 3 says. If reviews were all that was required then why would 3 be worded as it is? Mztourist ( talk ) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources . Djflem ( talk ) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over whether WP:NAUTHOR is met by having reviews of books by the author. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 17:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reviews are the obvious way to establish that an author has created a noteworthy body of work. That's not just common sense; it's how WP:NAUTHOR has been applied day in and day out. I daresay this should not have been relisted. XOR'easter ( talk ) 23:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to disappoint you, XOR'easter . I like there to be a clear consensus before closing an AFD. Otherwise, a closure is likely to be challenged at Deletion review . And, unfortunately, we have fewer and fewer admins patrolling AFDs, closing discussions so the few of us who do tend to review a lot of AFDs. But many AFDs are closed before their relisting period ends so that might happen. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The added reviews make it clear that this passes WP:GNG . -- Mike 🗩 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' Really history in this article with viable secondary sources. Passes WP:AUTHOR . scope_creep Talk 17:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR , which I will concede is a low bar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 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

Geoff Young: People do not become notable just for running as candidates in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk ) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky . Shellwood ( talk ) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Full disclosure I participated in the last AFD and my vote is unchanged. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL on candidates is good since every cycle we get a lot of non-notable candidate articles. I still think Young is different because he's run so many times over a decade there is enough WP:SIGCOV out there to write an article and meet WP:GNG . This is like his ninth campaign, and I think him winning a nomination last cycle and the party refusing to endorse him is kinda notable. I'd like to see this article kept and improved instead of deleted this time. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that Young has been run so many times that he meets the WP:GNG . I think there is enough WP:SIGCOV , simply because he has run so many times, and that he claims that the Kentucky Democratic party has rigged primary elections against him. Along with the Kentucky Democratic party refusing to endorse him. FatCat96 ( talk ) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have gone over this before. Running once or twice does not make one notable. Once a perenniel candidate runs more than 7 or 8 times he becomes notable. Bearian ( talk ) 16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan and Bearian. Although the subject fails criterion #1 of WP:NPOL , he passes criterion #2 having drawn significant coverage as a perennial candidate. Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: True, he does not meet WP:NPOL , but he does meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV due to him running so many times over the course of 10 years. FatCat96 ( talk ) 22:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Speaking generally here, as I haven't taken a look at the article and as such will not be casting a ! vote, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that (in general) simply being a longtime perennial candidate equates to notability. Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Merely being a perennial candidate should not denote "automatic" notability. In this case, however, the subject has received significant coverage beyond mere routine campaign coverage. In part for his notoriety as a perennial candidate, and in part for his controversial conduct as a candidate (his own party's refusal to endorse him, his allegation of a rigged primary). It is for this reason that I (and apparently others) have concluded that he passes WP:GNG . Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:25, 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

Microsoft Outlook (mobile app): No consensus to restore. SeanJ 2007 ( talk ) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . SeanJ 2007 ( talk ) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Microsoft Outlook as before. Aintabli ( talk ) 02:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The original merge was without consensus. It’s a completely different program from the desktop app with separate history. Just because it has the same name doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. It’s like merging Sonic the Hedgehog (1991) with Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) -- MSMST1543 ( talk ) 17:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per MSMST1543. Its established and notable history as a separate app was decimated by the merge argument that it is one and the same with the desktop software of the same name, when it is not. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:12, 22 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! 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : For such reason, it is an acceptable fork per WP:OKFORK . CastJared ( talk ) 15:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you clarify what you mean by "such reason"? Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 16:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Such article splitting. CastJared ( talk ) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Was there an original discussion about making a redirect here? It's not clear to me what consensus is being circumvented, but I see that the page has been moved a few times, so maybe I'm missing an old AfD or talk page discussion? As is right now this seems like a procedural close; I don't understand why this has been brought to AfD. There's no arguments being made about notability here and as far as I can see this isn't a CSD G4 situation or similar. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits ) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion was at Talk:Microsoft Outlook/Archive 1#Merger proposal . ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 23:43, 29 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

Grrr (2024 film): Movie not presently notable. Coverage consists of press releases, WP:CHURNALISM press releases, and release date coverage. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn . microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - There is nothing in this article that addresses either general notability or film notability . This article does not speak for itself , and there is no mention of significant coverage . Robert McClenon ( talk ) 15:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists.... Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your ! vote. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Mushy Yank - In my opinion, the burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators. Article authors should wait until the sources exist before moving the article into article space in the expectation that there will be reviews. A film article with no reviews is a film article that should have stayed in draft space or user space until the reviews were published. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To explain: Not sure why we're here . We are here because the article author wrote an article with no Reception section. That is why we are here. Robert McClenon ( talk ) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Reviews in The Week , and The Hindu would be enough to keep this. And there's more coverage (including OTHER REVIEWS in South First, Tribune, Onmanorama, The News Minute, Times Now)... So non-notable, how, why? This meets GNG and NFILM. A redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2024 should have been considered anyway before nomination as ATD. So, I am very sorry but I think this may have been a bit hasty, and am inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw. The person who moved this to Main was right. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, aside from some churnalism or press releases based coverage, so this clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk ) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy @ 2pou : who draftified this. — Saqib ( talk ) 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage : thank you for your efforts, but just read the page then, and open the links of the 9 reviews (and there are probably more). :D))) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. — Saqib ( talk ) 22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your ! vote seems so .... pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews , including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , In short. No, I don't see any coverage here that can help establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk ) 22:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Kerala . - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Not sure why this AfD came up or if a WP:Before was done. So many reliable reviews... I would even advise a Snow Keep . DareshMohan ( talk ) 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : Reviews in the article are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk ) 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : The film released yesterday (June 14) and has multiple reliable reviews which satisfy WP:NFILM . Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly enough coverage since its release yesterday. hinnk ( talk ) 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As nominator, withdrawn and keep in light of the new sources. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above passes WP:NFILM . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 21:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , those voting delete have given no proper reasoning as to why the sources aren't adequate. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in assuming good faith , you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete ! votes had been stricken at the time of your ! vote, which also does not present policy arguments. microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My vote is based on the presence of sources in the article combined with no apparent issues with them. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My vote is keep this article stay not deletion by -- Sunuraju ( talk ) 14:11, 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

Janneke Parrish: Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils ( talk ) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Covered in the Guardian [1] and the NY Times [2] . With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania . Shellwood ( talk ) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : and [3] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [4] and [5] . Her situation at work is discussed here [6] . Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to AppleToo . The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event : being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice , some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox . That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT . Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again ( talk ) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment : I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT . (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information , but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman . She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT . Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO . The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo , so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her. Separate comment : I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used . The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her . Say ocean again ( talk ) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The nom is on the basis of WP:BIO1E , not WP:BLP1E . Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies. We've got WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues because of the test on WP:PSEUDO : Is the individual substantially covered? Y Is the individual the main focus of the coverage? N She is the main focus on coverage of her firing, not the event itself Is the person notable for any other events in their life? N Say ocean again ( talk ) 20:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically ( 1 , 2 ). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3 . In regards to WP:BLP1E , I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus ( talk ) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [ [7] ] [8] . DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Multiple sources provide in-depth significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV There are sources that cover her activities and significance even before the #AppleToo event. Regarding her role in the #AppleToo movement was substantial and well-documented, and the event was very significant, meaning she does not meet condition #3. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage of her activism, showing that the firing is just one aspect of her broader public presence. Additionally, she has received significant coverage for her experiences with health professionals following a miscarriage and discussions on how changes in US abortion regulations will impact women's medical care. Thus, her coverage goes beyond a single event, substantiating her notability. Master rollo ( talk ) 11:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Modern Chinese characters: Walt Yoder ( talk ) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not ready for mainspace Meh it's fine where it is . It's not clear what constitutes a "modern Chinese character" (no mention of obselescence horizon). This reads like a very mild POVFORK and has entirely empty sections consisting only of headers. Some concepts are mentioned without being introduced (who is Professor Su?). It's not clear why the author chose to create this article in mainspace rather than contribute to existing articles. It seems like the author has put a lot of good faith effort into this article, and once it is finished it could serve as something like Introduction to Chinese characters , or split into bits and added to existing articles. I don't think the content should be deleted, but rather draftified or userfied. All the sources are reliable and as far as I can tell, all claims pass WP:V . Folly Mox ( talk ) 04:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article won an excellent score at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_China/New_articles . "Modern Chinese characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ctxz2323 (talk · contribs · new pages (7)) started on 2023-07-15, score: 100" Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 13:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Ctxz2323 , I think you have a really good start to an article here, and frankly I would have loved it if such an article had existed back when I first started learning Chinese. The "score" of 100 you're seeing is based on the text of your article matching regular expressions listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/China . What it means is that the article is 100% likely to be a Chinese topic, not that it is 100% excellent. I think you should consider moving the article into your userspace until you're finished with it. Folly Mox ( talk ) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Professor Su can be found via the citation [16]. He is a professor of Peking University, teaching "Modern Chinese Character". " According to Professor Su's estimation, the total number of modern Chinese characters (in Mainland China) is about 10,000 and a bit more. [16] " Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 13:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree that the article is not complete. But isn't it true that even a stud article may be published and grow on wiki? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for lack of a valid rationale . Even the commenter who suggest it is not mainspace-ready sees potential in it. I am not seeing the WP:FORK here, and there are two book sources primarily about Modern Chinese, enough to indicate independent notability for an article on the topic. This article has TWO significant issues: uncited statements, and the fact that it occasionally feels like an essay if it broke the rule of not using the word "you", but AFD is not cleanup. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2 "you" s in the article are in the first paragraph: According to the latest data of Ethnologue, "Mandarin Chinese (the modern standard Chinese, also called Putonghua) is the largest language in the world, if you count only native speakers. If you count both native and non-native speakers, English is the largest (with Chinese being the 2nd largest)." And Chinese is written in Chinese characters. They all appear in a direct quotation from the Ethnologue citation source. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 01:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you all for the informative discussion. Now I agree to move the article into my userspace to make it more complete and mainspace-ready. But, I have just got a message from User:Hey man im josh - Wikipedia, telling me that "the page Modern Chinese characters has been reviewed" (sent 12 hours ago). Does it mean it should stay in the mainspace now? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 00:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Walt Yoder and Hey man im josh : what do yall think? Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore, but the article in progress here only has one incoming mainspace link, from Standard Chinese . I'm feeling overall meh about what namespace the article should be completed in. There aren't inaccuracies, just missing sections and some duplicated content. (And for the non-specialists, one source cited heavily in this article – Qiu Xigui (2000). 文字學概要 [ Chinese Writing ]. Translated by Gilbert Mattos; Jerry Norman. – is the number one best and most authoritative English-language source on the topic) Folly Mox ( talk ) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main reason why I moved it out to Mainspace before it was completed is: "Modern Chinese characters" is a big topic, and it keeps branching out new articles, (some of which are already reviewed, some got hundreds of visits already). And it seems it will take one year at least to have it and the sub-articles completed. However, if you prefer to have it moved to some other namespace to be completed in, it will be ok for me. By the way, I was the subject teacher of "Modern Chinese characters and Information Technology" in a university for over 10 years before my retirement 5 years ago. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 04:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another reason: the first 5 sections of the article, including the Top, are completed. And there are cases where some volumes in a series of books are published before the others. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 06:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The following information just got from wiki might be useful for your consideration: "curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo" "Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews" "322" visits in 10 days. Does it mean wiki readers are interested in this article? If yes, then we should be more careful with it. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I totally agree with the idea that "Mainspace development definitely isn't the norm anymore." And understand that if an article is to be published incomplete, it must be exceptional and supported by sufficient reasons. In the case of article "Modern Chinese characters", the reasons include: Out of the 7 articles I have published on Mainspace so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons: If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid. The article has already branched out 5 child and grand-child articles in the mainspace, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous? In the article, 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at 24,455 bytes. It is not an empty article. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately deleted, will it bring a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"? Data from wiki: "Modern Chinese characters · 7/14/2023 - 7/24/2023 · 322 pageviews" "curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters: Publish page to mainspace undo" 322 pageviews in 10 days, does it means the readers are quite interested in this new article? Sorry, I might have talked too much. But my intention is to provide you more relevant information. Thanks for your patience. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 03:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Ctxz2323 , I pinged the nom a few days ago and they haven't responded. From me, I personally withdraw any objection to article namespace . Thanks for your contributions; keep up the good work. Folly Mox ( talk ) 14:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many thanks! Do I understand that the article is kept in the mainspace? I WILL try my best to make it better and better. Thank you all again! Thank God! Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 22:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfDs usually run for seven days, so there's still a possibility that people will show asking the article be moved into your userspace, but given the level of participation so far that seems unlikely, so the article will probably remain in mainspace. Judging from the relief evident in your post immediately above this one, this conversation seems to have caused you some stress. If that is the case, I'd like to apologise for my contribution as a stressor. Happy editing! Folly Mox ( talk ) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are right! Having a Deleting label at the top of your article is stressing! Thanks for your understanding! Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 07:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This became a two person discussion and the nominator didn't withdraw their nomination. The article creator volunteered to move their article to User space and I'd like to hear from other editors on whether or not this should stay in the main space or be relocated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I prefer that the article stays in the main space, of course, instead of moving to my user space. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 07:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let me reiterate the reasons why I prefer the article to stay in the main space, with the data updated: Out of the 9 articles I have published on the main space so far, "Modern Chinese characters" is the only one published incomplete, and there are reasons: If we are going to present a somewhat in-dept introduction to "Modern Chinese characters" (a big title), it will take at least one whole year to write, I am afraid. (having teaching this subject for over ten years in a university in Hong Kong) The article has already branched out, or spined off, 7 child and grand-child articles in the main space, 4 of which are already reviewed. If we refuse the grandpa/mum a seat while the children and grandchildren are sitting there, will it sound ridiculous? In the article, more than 5 sections with substantial contents are already completed. The file size is now at about 24,000 bytes. It is not an empty article. The article "Modern Chinese characters" has recently been reviewed, if then be immediately relocated or deleted, will it bring forth a lot of why's from the readers, and be a laughing matter on our "wiki review work"? Data from wiki: "Modern Chinese characters · 7/13/2023 - 8/2/2023 · 819 pageviews ", "curprev 13:36, 15 July 2023 ‎ Ctxz2323 talk contribs‎ m 18,374 bytes 0‎ Ctxz2323 moved page Draft:Modern Chinese characters to Modern Chinese characters : Publish page to mainspace undo". 819 pageviews in 18 days since the page was moved to main space on July 15, does it mean the readers are quite interested in this new article? Is it OK if the article suddenly disappears from their view? More reference sources have been added and editing done according to the suggestions of the editors in this discussion. Thank you for your attention and help! Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per above Brachy 08 (Talk) 04:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems to me that the topic is self-evidently notable and therefore deserves to be in mainspace. That said, there does need to be better editing to make it encyclopedic and reduce the total size of the page. My advice would be to work with relevant wikiprojects to clarify the topic and find a way to summarise the main points if there are to be other pages on related topics and subtopics. JMWt ( talk ) 08:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and oppose moving to user or draft space . The topic is clearly notable and the article is already a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. I entirely reject the idea that articles should be approaching completion before they appear in main space. A gentle remark: it can be difficult for a subject matter expert to provide references. For an ignoramus like me it is easy because everything I know on a subject is gleaned from current reading. Make a huge effort to at least reference each paragraph. Thincat ( talk ) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you mind telling me where the POV (Point of View) fork lies in, so as to help improve the article? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 06:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry I clicked [reply] to "A POV-fork, and also clearly not a completed article. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)", and it appeared here above. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 06:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or weak keep - the topic is clearly notable, and the parent page Chinese characters is quite long so not a straightforward merge situation. My reservation is that the article in its current state reads much more like a draft, especially with all the stub headings. Personally I would prefer this article be fleshed out more in draft space before returning to main. I don't see any reason to rush this into mainspace. If kept, I agree with others that attention should be brought to the relevant WikiProject for prompt work. StereoFolic ( talk ) 03:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Simplified Chinese , or Standard Chinese . This is an article ripe for merging, and though its execution likely means it should be TNT'd , it's notable as evidenced by the previous comments. Modern Chinese Characters as a single topic is best treated as one merged with Simplified Chinese characters given that the CCP under Mao modernized the language into removing all the necessary strokes for certain symbols, the character for fish (⿂ vs. ⻥) being one of the most glaring examples. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 03:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Modern Chinese characters" covers a larger range than the characters in either Simplified Chinese, or Standard Chinese. By the way, are you going to merge article Chinese characters into Chinese language ? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would not recommend the merging of the two pages you proposed. The characters are a subtopic to the language that is significant enough to warrant their own article. I don't see how this fits into this discussion. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Modern Chinese characters include modern traditional Chinese characters. How can you merge them into Simplified Chinese? Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Simplified Chinese is not the only modernized Chinese language. Modern traditional Chinese is used in Taiwan and Hong Kong. And many Chinese language users are not living under the CCP. In fact, (⿂ and ⻥) are both modern Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, maybe there is a misunderstanding. You said "Merge into Simplified Chinese", and I understood your "Chinese" as Chinese language, not just Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 ( talk ) 02:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Respectfully, User:InvadingInvader , the assertions equating simplified with modern , as well as those conflating language and writing system, are incorrect. Having taken a more thorough look at the article as it stands now, I'm a bit more in favour of a rename, although I'm struggling with an appropriate target. Dissatisfying ideas have included Modern usage of Chinese characters , Present status of Chinese characters , Modern Standard Chinese writing , Overview of modern Chinese writing , Current status and applications of Chinese characters , Chinese as She is Wrote , et al. I think a rename may be in order because the topic is not well defined: there are at least three authorities delimiting the set: the PRC State Council, Taiwan's Ministry of Education, and the Xinhua Zidian (leaving aside the Hong Kong pedagogical aide and authorities in Japan and Korea). I don't think there's a suitable merge target, but I would kindly recommend to the author MOS:TONE , since phrases like the existing Wiki articles , the purpose of this article (and its branching articles) etc. don't quite fit encyclopaedic tone. The remainder of the article after the lead seems pretty on point though. Folly Mox ( talk ) 03:28, 4 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

Neha Singh Rathore: There is nothing apart from 'FIR news' and 'UP Me Ka Ba?' Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 07:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bands and musicians , and Music . Youknowwhoistheman ( talk ) 07:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bihar . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 08:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:BASIC and sustained in-depth coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, that can be used to further develop the article. Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Sources include e.g. [ reply ] ‘Democracy gives us the right to ask questions’: Neha Singh Rathore’s Bhojpuri tunes are going viral ( Scroll.in 16 Oct 2020) ‘What’s there in UP?’: Bhojpuri singer Neha Rathore gets into song war with BJP MP Ravi Kishan ( ThePrint 16 Jan 2022) UP Polls: The Song Battle Between YouTube Star Neha Rathore & BJP MP Ravi Kishan ( The Quint , 16 Jan 2022) ‘Not afraid of trolls, will continue to raise public issues via Bhojpuri songs’ ( Hindustan Times 20 Jan 2022) Neha Singh Rathore: How ‘not-so-confident’ poet began singing truth to power with Bhojpuri rap ( ThePrint , 2 Feb 2022) Is ladki mein ka ba: The million mutinies in Neha Singh Rathore’s songs ( The Indian Express 11 Feb 2022) Bhojpuri singer Neha Rathore marries Himanshu Singh in Lucknow. See first pics ( India Today 22 Jun 2022) Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore ties the knot with Himanshu Singh ( Asian News International 23 Jun 2022) Who is 'UP Mein Ka Ba' fame Neha Singh Rathore? ( Hindustan Times , 22 Feb 2023) UP Police notice to Neha Singh Rathore: Who is the Bhojpuri singer? ( The Indian Express 22 Feb 2023) Theatre association asks UP police to withdraw notice to singer Neha Singh Rathore ( IANS / The News Minute 23 Feb 2023) Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore: ‘My mother says I will be put in a jail where rats will bite me. But I am not scared’ ( The Indian Express 24 Feb 2023) Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore takes potshots at Uttar Pradesh government ( The Hindu 24 Feb 2023) "Treated Like Criminal": Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore ( NDTV , 26 Mar 2023) Bhojpuri singer Neha Singh Rathore booked over post on MP urination incident, BJP worker is complainant ( The Indian Express , 7 Jul 2023) Bhojpuri Singer Neha Rathore Booked Over Social Media Post on MP Urination Incident ( The Wire 8 Jul 2023) Crooning for campaigns: Meet the female voices behind poll songs ( The New Indian Express 17 Jul 2023) Jingle warfare: Singers belt it out ahead of MP Assembly polls ( Indian Express 20 Jul 2023) How small-town comedians are taking the internet by storm ( Frontline 16 Nov 2023) Beccaynr ( talk ) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) sources added Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ; sources added Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ; two cite dates fixed, moved for list chronology Beccaynr ( talk ) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the many reliable sources identified in this discussion and added to the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Enough coverage, reliable sources. Sustained timeline. Obviously keep. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to scrape thru WP:GNG. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk ) 13:22, 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

Tea race (competitions): The creator advises that this is a translation from Russian Wikipedia, but the majority of the sources for this subject are written in English. The two levels of translation involved might explain some inaccurate or questionable content. It would be much better to be rewritten as a part of Clipper , using that article's existing sources for the bulk of the new content. The writing quality is poor. (Information: discussion originated at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Two_poor_quality_articles . A similar AfD is being submitted for Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae , to follow shortly.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk ) 18:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and History . -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Clipper —no evidence of significant coverage that deserves a forking. Obviously, the poor prose doesn't help, but even without that there really isn't much going for the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 15:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to tea race . Not limited to clippers. See JSTOR 23885249 . Lots of material for expansion. See this . We already have an article on the Great Tea Race of 1866 . — Srnec ( talk ) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments The history blog on tea races offered by Srnec has every sign of relying on Great Tea Race of 1866 as its sole source (find a fact in the blog that is not in the Wikipedia article). This subject is plagued with poorly researched books/sources – WP:HISTRS should be firmly applied. David R. MacGregor is a key source for the subject, with many more books than the one listed in the Great Tea Race article. Basil Lubbock is another important source, but can be demonstrated to have problems, so needs to be used with care. The JSTOR article is not supported by others writing in the field. (Note where the author had worked. I would deem the JSTOR article a primary source. The key point is whether there was the high level of interest in any races in the press, or whether a premium was written into the bill of lading of any steamer. Sources do not say that either applied, and my own searches of newspapers confirms that point.) The steamer trade rapidly suffered from overcapacity, resulting in the Far Eastern Freight Conference . Wikipedia has, IMHO, a reasonable set of articles that cover this range subjects, with the weak point being Clipper , which does not cover the tea trade in these ships well and needs expansion – but from quality sources. If the steamship races were to be felt important, there is space in Steamship#Long-distance commercial steamships for some comment, and something would be appropriate in the yet-to-be-written section of Clipper . ThoughtIdRetired ( talk ) 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thing is, I would not have expected an article on clippers (or steamships ) to cover any particular trade in detail at all . That is what struck me first about the nom—that the tea races should be folded into clipper is extremely nonintuitive to me, that the present article should be regarded as a fork of the ship article likewise. Perhaps split tea clipper out. Srnec ( talk ) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clippers were used on for a small range of cargoes over a limited number of routes. With speed being something close to a defining characteristic of this sort of vessel, I am puzzled why their relative speeds should be nonintuitive . The subject occupies a large part of any RS on the subject. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk ) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments If the race has an important historical event, which was covered in the press, watched by the whole country, the topic can be covered in a separate article. Quote: Indeed, the annual tea race was a Victorian sensation: the ships' progress was reported by telegraph and could be followed in the papers . I've added sources to the article. There's a pdf in the link below. -- Товболатов ( talk ) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Performance Evaluation of the 19th Century Clipper Ship Cutty Sark: A Comparative Study -- Товболатов ( talk ) 12:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename Tea races . While the 1866 race is the most famous, the 1872 one is notable as well (also at Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae ). There are sources out there, e.g. The Tea Races of the 19th Century ( Hudson River Maritime Museum ), multiple chapters each dedicated to a specific tea race in The China Clippers . AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend ( talk ) 02:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep . There's a discussion to be had in talk pages, on how the various articles should be split up or merged, but it's become pretty clear these tea race articles all meet GNG, and there's no gratuitous CONTENTFORKing, just cleanup and improvement. Including this collective subject. — siro χ o 03:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clear pass of GNG and the subject is dsitinct from Clipper . As per Clarityfiend, deletion is not for cleanup, and if the cleanup requires merges or consolidation, a considered structured merge, considering all related articles, would be better than imposing one from AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 17:50, 7 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

Internet (web browser): Independent sources just talk about launch of the application, but a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT . I don't think it should have a dedicated article. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet , Software , and India . Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's got a full article in the Verge and the Hindustan Times, both solid sources. I'm not sure what the issue is. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I looked at those and, as I said, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT . I think it really needs more than that to merit a standalone article, but we'll see what others say. Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 21:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Ok the Verge is minimal, but a solid source. Here's TechCrunch [29] Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : coverage in The Verge , Hindustan Times and TechCrunch amounts to notability. Owen× ☎ 15:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While it's understandably difficult to find sources for a browser simply called "Internet", I did find some reviews in addition to the above, including in Digital Trends . Some of them I found have a churnalism vibe to them or are sites that I'm not familiar enough with to say they're reliable, but I think what's been listed here so far does show enough notability per WP:GNG if nothing else. - Aoidh ( talk ) 03:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Toy2R: Nothing I could find online that meets WP:GNG . TLA (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Miller, Jade; DiNisio, Julie; Stoddard, Christine, eds. (2013). Airborne: An Anthology of the Real . Richmond, Virginia: Belle Isle Books. pp. 22 , 25 . ISBN 978-1-9399301-0-1 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "For instance, a company like Toy2R from Hong Kong will make a vinyl figure of a bear and then they will give that same vinyl bear to a few different artists to design. Sometimes they give you the actual vinyl toy, you paint on it and then it gets sent to a factory where it's duplicated and manufactured. But usually, what I get sent is a template in Illustrator format. It's an outline of the toy from the front, back and other sides. I can then print it out and draw on it, or do all of the designing in the computer. I usually do all of the designing in Photoshop. ... A few companies popped up that starting making designer vinyl toys. One of them is called Toy2R. They were making these little vinyl bears called "Qee. " I started seeing them at my shows hanging from fan's backpacks. I went to a store here in New York City called Toy Tokyo and bought a few of them." Cabrillo, James (2007-12-01). "Kinetically crafted: Super sits down with one of the biggest designer toy makers in the work" . Philippine Daily Inquirer . Vol.  22, no. 356. pp.  D1–D2 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive . The article notes: "Founded by toy mastermind Raymond Choy in 1995, Toy2R (which stands for "Toy to Raymond") is among the first companies to explore the potential of the designer toy. It was created out of an obsession for art toys, and has been stretching the boundaries between product design, art, and graphics for years. ... The hard work has paid off. Aside from incredible sales figures, Toy2R has received many awards, winning the Best Block Toys Award for five consecutive years, as well as the Most Innovative Company Award and Three Toygodd Crystal awards from the Action Figure Times, the largest toy website on the Internet. ... Toy2R continues to grow, working with many renowned and up-and-coming artists. The company is expanding the definition of art, finding its creations in more and more concept stores, galleries, and mu- seums worldwide. Today, Raymond's creations are sold in 19 countries, including Russia, South Africa, and the Philippines." "Toy2R" . Art & Sole: Contemporary Sneaker Art & Design . London: Laurence King Publishing . 2012 [2008]. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-85669-881-8 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive . The book notes: "Raymond Choy, president of Hong Kong-based Toy2r, opened his first toy store in 1995 after spending ten years working for a US footwear importer. Four years later, Choy decided to put all his funds into the development of his very first vinyl figure, the Toyer, and by 2001 he had developed the Qee Keychain collection, a uniquely designed keychain concept figure series." Wong, Stephen (2009-01-22). "Playing with innovation pays off for toy company" . South China Morning Post . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Toy2R captured the grand award in the innovation and creativity category. ... The company is widely credited as an important player in spreading the designer toy phenomenon worldwide. ... Since 1999, the company has grown a 100 fold. In 2001, he closed his toy store to focus on his own brand. He decided to go into the mass market in 2002 with a new vinyl toy called Qee, which was smaller in size and more affordable in pricing. This became an instant success. There are 18 models of Qee, all of which are patented. Qee can be transformed into a key-chain, which is also patented." Lubow, Arthur (2004-08-15). "Cult Figures" . The New York Times . Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "Raymond Choy, 39, is typical of the new breed of Hong Kong designer-toy manufacturer. ... Unlike Kim and Chan, who aspire to fulfill a designer's vision, Choy searches out new artists who will be willing to collaborate on a profitable toy. Like other manufacturers, his company, Toy2R, makes use of technological advances that permit a factory to interrupt a run to change colors and create limited editions. For most of the Hong Kong artists, however, limiting the edition was a way to present the product as an art object and to maintain quality control. At Toy2R, a limited edition is merely a marketing ploy. There are so many different versions of Toy2R's Qees that the profusion becomes bewildering." Peng, Zihao 彭子豪 (2015-05-28). "電腦展亮相貼近玩家 周氏國際秀文創力 Choicee Qee Robot打先鋒" [Computer show debut close to players. Choicee Qee Robot is a pioneer in international cultural and creative show]. Economic Daily News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "近年以全球街頭時尚潮牌天王品牌Ed Hardy、香港知名公仔品牌Toy2R打響設計知名度的周氏國際（Choice Only），在2015台北國際電腦展中將（6月2~6日）以堅強的設計能力告知全球ICT產業，台灣文創「原力」已可與國際相抗衡。" From Google Translate: "In recent years, Choice Only, which has gained design fame with global street fashion king brand Ed Hardy and Hong Kong's well-known doll brand Toy2R, will use its strong design capabilities at the 2015 Computex Taipei (June 2-6). Inform the global ICT industry that Taiwan’s cultural and creative “power” can now compete with the world." Chen, Yunshang 陳雲上 (2006-04-01). "Toy2R三款公仔贈車主" [Toy2R three dolls for car owners]. United Evening News [ zh ] (in Chinese). The article notes: "Toy2R的設計製作概念，讓公仔不僅是收藏擺飾品，也是精緻、簡單的生活用品，裝上盒內附的Key Chain，MINI Qee Bear搖身變為吊飾或鑰匙圈。" From Google Translate: "Toy2R's design and production concept makes the doll not only a collection of accessories, but also an exquisite and simple daily necessities. With the Key Chain included in the box, the MINI Qee Bear can be transformed into a pendant or keychain." Li, Changhong 李昌鴻 (2016-03-14). "蔡漢成：創意設計成致勝法寶" [Raymond Choy: Creative design is the magic weapon for winning]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-17 . Retrieved 2024-01-17 . The article notes: "港商玩具易集團Toy2R創辦人、QEE品牌設計總監蔡漢成 ..." From Google Translate: "Raymond Choi, founder of Toy2R Group and QEE brand design director ..." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toy2R ( traditional Chinese : 玩具易集團 ; simplified Chinese : 玩具易集团 ) 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 ) 11:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the fantastic sourcing by Cunard. pinktoebeans (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

GammaFax: Non-notable product. GabrielPenn4223 ( talk ) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions . GabrielPenn4223 ( talk ) 23:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably notable, but this is a stub that needs more. [1] and [2] are both fairly extensive coverage of this computer peripheral. Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per sources presented here and in the article. Other sources: InfoWorld, volume 8, issue 35, 1.9.1986, p. 9. InfoWorld, volume 12, issue 32, 6.8.1990, pp. 59, 62, 63, 66, 70, 71. (comparison of several products) PC Mag, 27.1.1987, volume 6, number 2, p. 36. PC Mag, 28.6.1988, volume 7, number 12, pp. 190, 193, 198. I will add this poor article to my to-do list (note playing video games takes too much of my free time). Pavlor ( talk ) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I would argue that by virtue of it being the first personal computer fax board , it meets WP:GNG . GSK ( talk • edits ) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Significant, in-depth coverage in multiple mainstream secondary sources cited above more than meets WP:NPRODUCT. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Credible claim to notability backed up by a few sources. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see many non-trivial sources which can be used. Lightburst ( talk ) 18:01, 18 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

Richard Eastell: The subject, who is an academic, has received little if any attention in reliable secondary sources except for coverage of a dispute that led to his resignation as a research director at the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. Other than the dispute, the biographical information is taken from his employers or himself. The dispute itself which was reported at the time and subsequently included in an article in Times Higher Education did not receive sufficient coverage for an article. With such little information, a comprehensive article about Eastell and his career cannot be written and therefore it is an attack page. TFD ( talk ) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} . Keep -- a surprising nomination, given that the subject obviously meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 and #8. Per this -- open the bottom section, "professional activities and memberships , he is a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (NACADEMIC #3) and editor of the journal Bone (NACADEMIC #8). Expand the article as appropriate. Nomoskedasticity ( talk ) 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's questionable whether either of these criteria apply. In any case, since you created this article 14 years ago, you have had plenty of time to expand the article. U can only assume that there are no secondary sources to enable you to do this. TFD ( talk ) 17:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It looks like plenty of additional information was added in April 2017 yet Nomoskedasticity and another user reverted it, saying "We're not going to have more than half this article built on WP:PRIMARY sources. ". Now you are quoting the same source, stating that the article could be easily expanded? AFrozenCookieMonster ( talk ) 12:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The person's notability is marginal. The article as created and now comes off as more an attack article rather than a reasonable BLP. Thus if nothing else the article violates the do no harm tenant of BPL. Clearly UNDUE emphasis on "controversies" that don't justify the existence of the article. If the controversies are given appropriate weight the article becomes little more than a sub. Springee ( talk ) 16:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I support delete, if we address the BLP issues associated with 1/2 the article being about accusations etc then I am far less concerned about the rest of the article being short. Springee ( talk ) 02:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Medicine , and England . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:NPROF . I see a large number of highly-cited articles on Google Scholar, and although many of them are also highly coauthored and this is a higher citation field, it looks like enough for WP:NPROF C1 to me. Looking at the fellowship in the Academy of Medical Sciences, it looks like a probably pass of WP:NPROF C3. Comment that the editor role at Bone is _not_ a pass of WP:NPROF C8, as this is only for an editor-in-chief. The president roles in (somewhat minor) academic societies might on the other hand be a pass of WP:NPROF C6. I agree with other editors that the coverage of controversies, while necessary, is over-long and over-detailed. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 18:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Russ Woodroofe's analysis. As others note care should be taken in this BLP. Specifically, it seems likely that the note about a 2010 dispute is UNDUE in the controversies section; unless there is other coverage not summarized here, the event is minor and the mere mention in the section overstates it. . — siro χ o 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . We have generally accepted FMedSci in the past as meeting WP:PROF and the citation profile looks excellent with 8 works above a thousand citations (though lots of coauthors). It would seem possible to tone down the criticism section of the article in order to reflect a more-balanced picture. Espresso Addict ( talk ) 02:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Apart from high citability (which is high even for a high citation field), the subject received several awards from the scholarly societies listed in the "Awards and honours" section of the article (e.g. Frederick C Bartter Award from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research , 2014; Society for Endocrinology Medal, 2004; Kohn Award, National Osteoporosis Society , 2004). I am not sure if any of these awards are sufficiently prestigious to satisfy WP:PROF#C2 on its own, but together with the citation record they are certainly sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 . Nsk92 ( talk ) 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment For sake of openness, this is a page on my father (apologies for any mistakes in wiki markup - I am still new to it). Nonetheless, the subject's notability feels marginal (sorry, Dad) and the page was created by Nomoskedasticity for the sole purpose (as per the history) of attacking the subject by highlighting (at the time) an ongoing investigation in which he has since been found innocent of misconduct (all a contradiction of WP:SUSPECT ). As has been noted elsewhere, and by many others, the "Controversy" really isn't one, yet even now the article focuses almost entirely on this (over half the article is the Controversy section and the associated references - not aligning with WP:AVOIDVICTIM : "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic"). Any other information about the subject is often swatted away - usually by the creator ( Nomoskedasticity ) as "Not verifiable by Independent Reliable Sources". AFrozenCookieMonster ( talk ) 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — AFrozenCookieMonster ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Just wanted to thank everyone for their time, help and input - I feel the page is looking much more balanced now - I've changed my "delete vote" to a "comment". Many thanks! (Hope this is all ok). AFrozenCookieMonster ( talk ) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment along these lines that it might be good if some established editors kept this page watchlisted against the possibility of a Controversies section ballooning up again. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Although I do not believe that Eastell meets the notability guideline for academics, I find that guideline may violate policy because it does not require coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I opened a discussion of the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability (academics) . TFD ( talk ) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with others that while the article's subject may have just enough notability to be included based on their academic achievements, the article violates the "do no harm" tenet and does read more like an attack page. This applies in particular since the article's creator has repeatedly been doing their utmost to revert changes made to make the article more balanced, often without comment, until a public discussion about the article was started and the balance started shifting, and there is no guarantee that they won't recommence that practice once interest in the article on the side of the editors has waned. Seeing as the subject has not actually had any decisions made against him, the (still considerable) prominence of the "controversies" section seems rather skewed. Toxictigger ( talk ) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Toxictigger ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Keep I concur with the arguments above that the relevant wiki-notability guideline is satisfied in multiple ways and that bringing the "Controversies" coverage into line can be done without deletion. Indeed, Russ Woodroofe has already made a start on that. XOR'easter ( talk ) 18:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep passes WP:Prof , apart from the controversy. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep I agree this individual passes WP:PROF . I've removed the "controversies" section and folded into the main career section being careful not to place undue weight on untested allegations, and skipping over extraneous elements like the settlement paid to the whistleblower. BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Easy pass of WP:NPOL as described above. There are other processes for the subject to request removal (and make the case that the subject is largely a low-profile individual). -- Enos733 ( talk ) 18:18, 2 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

Sam North: Appears largely as PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple mentions of this page elsewhere on wikipedia. I can do some work adding citations tmcq ( talk ) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The author was nominated for a Booker prize and won the Somerset Maugham award. Seems pretty notable to me. tmcq ( talk ) 17:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep In addition to being longlisted for the Booker Prize, his novel The Unnumbered was reviewed in the Guardian [1] and the Independent [2] , and the subject of an article in The Bookseller [3] . His novel, The Old Country is reviewed in the New Zealand Herald [4] , The Independent [5] , the The Observer [6] and the Financial Times [7] . His novel Chapel Street was reviewed in the Los Angeles Times [8] and Kirkus [9] . His novel The Gifting Program was reviewed in The Independent [10] . Jahaza ( talk ) 18:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you! tmcq ( talk ) 19:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm not sure that longlisted for the Booker prize is enough, but I'm seeing lots of reviews of his work in the British press. Russ Woodroofe ( talk ) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The reviews listed above by Jahaza are enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR notability. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 23:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per tmcq . Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 08:29, 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

49ers–Raiders rivalry: The reference page only lists one outdated article from Bleacher Report declaring the two teams as rivals, most of the articles supporting animosity between the two just revolve around the fan misconduct and the two teams cancelling preseason games. PontiacAurora ( talk ) 21:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Rivalry in professional sports is more a fan phenomenon than one that involves the players, but it's worldwide. Consider the reputation that English football hooligans have, for example. A rivalry between groups of fans is still a rivalry, and reports of fan misconduct are a demonstration of the rivalry's notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The rivalry is likely to fade somewhat with the Raiders now across a state line, but N doesn't expire just because a natural inter-city rivalry does. Nate • ( chatter ) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that speaks of the rivalry such as [1] [2] [3] . Alvaldi ( talk ) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I usually dislike rivalry articles for teams that are not in the same division. With that said, I do believe that this is a demonstrated and recognized rivalry, and that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per GNG and a lack of valid deletion rationale. Rlendog ( talk ) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Just as in the case of Rams–Vikings rivalry AfD vote, I believe that this article deserves to stay due to its obvious notability. I agree with the arguments on that above and because of that won't reiterate those twice. Rodgers V ( talk ) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep per what looks like a misunderstanding or unawareness from the nominator of WP:NOTTEMPORARY . ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per all above and WP:NOTTEMPORARY . Frank Anchor 15:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Per WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP , per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per above, it passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage. As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY , a subject/topic etc does not need to have ongoing coverage once it has had significant coverage, which applies to this rivalry. Fats40boy11 ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Bradley Shavit Artson: Password (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Philosophy , Judaism , Germany , California , and Massachusetts . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning Keep Article about him in Jewish Journal [20] Starred review in Publishers' Weekly of God of Becoming and Relationship: The Dynamic Nature of Process Theology [21] A journal article about his work [22] -- Jahaza ( talk ) 07:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Some more academic articles discussing his work: [23] , [24] , [25] [26] , [27] (yes it's on academia.edu but it's a copy of a journal article). The article does need to be completely rewritten, but I don't think WP:TNT is justified. Apocheir ( talk ) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : New sources look fine, including the article about him and the book reviews. Easily passes notability. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Diamondbacks–Dodgers rivalry: The teams play each other often because they are in the same division. And there was some short-lived beef in the 2010s but nothing to the level of a big rivalry like Yankees-Red Sox . Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball , Arizona , and California . Natg 19 ( talk ) 02:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Please note that this article was just nominated at AfD in November of 2023. That discussion closed as "keep." Ejgreen77 ( talk ) 02:33, 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

Celina, Minnesota: Maybe it was once a store, maybe not. Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse , which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on. Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers. Mangoe ( talk ) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, the

keep

Franz Bucher: Lacks independent sigcov. Jdcooper ( talk ) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - looking at and searching the internet, he seems to have some substantial coverage from largely German language sources. He's also been described as one of the leading German wood sculptors of the 20th century. [1] - Knightoftheswords281 ( Talk · Contribs ) 03:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the Schwarzwaelder Bote (Black Forest Messenger) on the occasion of his family donating part of his real estate to the community after his death in 1995. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland . Shellwood ( talk ) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I am not finding any reliable sources to add to the biographical information presented in the article. his entry on Dewiki cannot be used to bring the subject up to notable. It was created by the same SPA in English and in German. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST . He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Additionally, the second of the two references (museum stuff) failed verification. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 04:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep per Knightoftheswords281 , this artist is very notable in Germany and among wood sculptors. Randy Kryn ( talk ) 10:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is more than one Franz Bucher and specifically there is a German sculptor (1928-1995) and a Swiss painter 1836-1919 . A google search for "Franz Bucher artist" will bring up information about all three. Reviewers should be aware that finding an article about an artist in German isn't necessarily about the living Swiss artist. Again, I am finding no reliable sources for the information provided in this article and no way to bring the article up to notable. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk ) 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specifically presenting the sources that are suggested to exist, and evaluation of them for suitability (and, as per some comments here, making sure they're about the right person!) wouild be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't find sourcing for him in Gscholar (only a marine/fish scholar with the same name), jstor has nothing. Will try a . ch search, see what I find. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep. He seems to have some works in the Geneva art Museum [2] , his biography gives the date of birth and city that match up with this fellow. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He's not listed in the Historik Lexicon der Schweiz [3] , which is odd. That's the RS and gold standard for Swiss biographies. He's listed in SIKART [4] , found from the German Wiki. He appears to have won awards and his works are held in several collections, but my German is useless. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . I am not exactly overwhelmed by the quality of the available sources, but the SIKART entry (the one about him, b. 1940, authored by Fabrizio Brentini) gives some pretty solid material to work with. In addition there seems to be an (unfortunately paywalled) focused article on him in Luzerner Zeitung . Various supplementary sources here and there, and a couple of books , which I assume are mostly pictures but at least the former of which seem to be from a legitimate publisher (and as to the latter, I'm a bit unclear on this "Gisler" press from Luzern might have been, but it does seem to have found its way into some pretty fancy libraries). Overall I think it is possible to have an article on him, and therefore we should give it our best shot, although the person(s) behind these articles haven't exactly been helping. -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Pirro Mosi: (Surveyed as part of NPP October 2023 .) Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Albania . Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw? ) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : SIGCOV clearly exists and the article probably passes GNG, although I have no knowledge of Albanian and can't comment on whether the sources are reliable. — SamX [ talk · contribs ] 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] When I made a Google search to find sources, I found that Reddit post [1] . Idk if it is a canvassing attempt or not. Whoever comes here to ! vote should be aware that the AfD is closed based on the weight of the arguments rather than the number of ! votes. Ktrimi991 ( talk ) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : collected works are in the [2] Marubi National Museum of Photography , I think this meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER #4(b). // Timothy :: talk 22:34, 28 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, L iz Read! Talk! 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Clearly notable. I just added links to Google Translations to each of the six references. Most are independent, reliable references from Albanian media. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG with the sources currently in the article. Jacona ( talk ) 23:51, 2 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

Alison Smyth (footballer): The continuation of this page, and the content within, can create risks including risks against the life of the individual named. A Police report to support the deletion is available if required, I need an email address to send that too just. Belfasty ( talk ) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 16 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Nothing mentioned by the nominator (who has elsewhere declared a COI, if not paid editing status , with this article) is within Wikipedia's guidelines for deleting an article. Smith's appearances for the Northern Ireland international team are readily verified (as is her date of birth, which is generally relevant for athletes). — C.Fred ( talk ) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other areas of data content are being removed. This breaches G10 and should therefore be removed in line with this. Belfasty ( talk ) 14:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The only other content relates to her football, and it's verifiable. There is nothing within the article that is anywhere close to being attack content. — C.Fred ( talk ) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The reasons for the requested deletion are not reasons to delete. I don't see anything in the article that disparages, threatens, intimidates, or harasses the subject of the article G10 or some other entity and serve no other purpose. The individual qualifies under notability guidelines as being a sports figure on a national team. -- VViking Talk Edits 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Viewmont, Thank you. The content in isolation may not solely breach G10, however, the details within along with other information in legal matters not suitable for this forum(also being deleted) is leading to issues which fall under G10 so they are massively contributing to them. This is a former sports figure, not current, and the content is inaccurate in certain parts complicating it further. The person the article relates too is requesting removal. Belfasty ( talk ) 15:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Football , and Northern Ireland . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - no evidence of notability. BBC source is OK, but best I can find other than this which I don't think is enough. If sources are found please ping me. NB - nomination is nonsense and OP should not be editing about this topic due to COI. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of the reasoning that borders on WP:NLT alone. I would be neutral, but I believe the reasoning of the nominator is flawed enough to make me sit on the "keep" side of the line. Liliana UwU ( talk / contributions ) 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Smyth is notable due to being a member of the Northern Ireland national football team. Also, the nominator has not provided anything which could be considered grounds for deleting the article. Geordie ( talk ) 15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Playing for a national team no longer means a person is notable. We delete lots of articles for national team players every day. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk ) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk ) 17:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as per WP:CSK point 1. An article may be speedy kept if the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion , which is clearly the case here, as no Wikipedia policy-based grounds have been given. No objection to another editor nominating this in future if they actually invoke some relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Due to WP:CSK #1, as per Joseph2302. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep - No reason was given in why it should be deleted. Article seems ok. Shadow 345110 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep as per WP:CSK point 1 cited by Joseph2302. Seany91 ( talk ) 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leep passes GNG and CSK. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 22:50, 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

Political views of Javier Milei: Which, if any, of them should be replaced by a redirect to which target? ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Argentina . ~ ToBeFree ( talk ) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:POVFORK Political positions of Javier Milei should be deleted and link should be redirected to the original article covering that topic: Political views of Javier Milei . Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 16:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I created the "political views" article after extended discussions a few weeks back, and spent considerable time to reorganize and structure the content in order to make the article in a good shape, and facilitate further improvements. The "political views" article is substantially shorter, and more to the point than this main article. After it was posted and linked in the main article, one editor created the duplicate "political positions", and copied the content from this article as-is without editing, deleted the content of the "political views" article and redirected it to the newly created "political positions" article. I propose we discuss further improvements in the "political views" article, where the content is organized in a way that allows for easier improvement. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 17:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I like the structure of Political views of Javier Milei , but maybe we should move it back to draftspace for now, and turn Political positions of Javier Milei back into a redirect to Javier Milei#Political positions since they're still identical. Wow ( talk ) 17:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main discussion we had a few weeks ago is that the main article is an unorganized mess. Without having the structure in place everyone will add content in random sections. This has been pointed out in the Talk page by many, but it requires considerable work to fix this, so it has not been done yet. The content in the new article "political views" is primarily the same content as the main article contains, but distilled to contain political views only, and just list things factually. It does not make sense to create a duplicate of the content in the main article. Once we have this in place, anyone is welcome to improve the "political views" article further. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's delete Political positions of Javier Milei (to make way for page move), then rename Political views of Javier Milei to Political positions of Javier Milei , and then either draftify the renamed page or tag the non-neutral content in the renamed page. Also, I agree that the main page is a mess; now is a good time to start trimming it. Wow ( talk ) 20:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disaster is the openly biased and non-neutral article that the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, as the user Gobonobo said. The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, the original article, Javier Milei , already addresses his views and political positions in a very complete, extensive and profound way. Piertosiri ( talk ) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] It is standard practice on Wikipedia to open new articles once the main article grows large, as in this case. I submitted the article for review, and it was approved - not by me -. The serious error was done when @ Gobonobo decided to blank the article, create her own version, and redirect the main article to her version. Thats really bad practice, content discussions should happen on the articles Talk page. Bypassing the Wikipedia process by simply replacing articles with their own version is not a good way to improve this encyclopedia. You are welcome to contribute to the article, if there are things you believe are incorrect or biased, feel free to let us know what that is, and we can work on improving it instead of arguing. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is good reason to keep the name as "Political views". Political positions are more suited for political party programs, where you write about their policy implementations. It would be best to tag or fix non-neutral content, but i still don't know what is being referred to. Its more or less the same content that exists in the main article? Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The 2 articles should be deleted because they are totally unnecessary, repetitive and one of the articles, the one that the user Pedantic Aristotle tries to impose, is openly biased and has no neutrality, as the user Gobonobo points out. Javier Milei original article already addresses his opinions and political positions in a very extensive, complete and profound way. Piertosiri ( talk ) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] If there is any content disagreement, this can be discussed in the article talk page. This is a starting point for an article, it is not supposed to be a final version. As I don't know which parts you are believe are biased, it's difficult to comment, except that the content is derived from the main article, and simply lists the factual and sourced information found there. Feel free to point out any part of this article that is not correctly representing sourced facts. There are many things that can be improved, but as a start, I did not want to diverge the content too far from the original content in the main article. For reference, this is the state of the main article when this article was created; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Javier_Milei&oldid=1173745892 Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 18:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions" (for consistency, we use "positions" for politicians, as in Category:Political positions of politicians , and "views" for people who are not politicians, as in Category:Political views by person , needless to say, Milei is a politician). The article clearly needs a fork at this point. Still, a fork created as a standalone article (as "views") is a better starting point than an article that simply copypastes a whole section (as "positions"); not to mention that blanking an article and creating a replacement article in its place is definitely rude and should not be allowed to stand (that's the whole reason we have those 2 articles right now). And if this article lists so many positions and forgot a pair... just add them , no need for so much drama. Even a copypaste from main to fork may be acceptable if we move just specific passages, like those of whatever view is currently missing. Cambalachero ( talk ) 01:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 09:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify per Wow's suggestion, but support any outcome that results in a balanced article. As it stands, the 'political views' spinoff article violates NPOV by glossing over or failing to mention sourced content from the main article. Several positions that are described in detail in the parent article are conspicuously absent from the 'views' fork, including his rejection of sex education in schools, plans to abolish the Ministry of Women , and support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory . All of these are covered in detail in the 'political positions' section of Milei's article, but go totally unmentioned in the fork. Similarly, climate change is not mentioned even once in the fork, despite the fact that he denies its existence, calling it a socialist lie. [8] [9] The brief mentions of dollarization and abortion in the case of rape seem to gloss over the subjects and an there is an in-article note about linking to the COVID controversy rather than any elaboration on the topic. The imbalance also extends to framing and terminology, with lack of context and soft pedalling both being concerns. There is a stable consensus in the main article to describe Milei as " far-right , ultraconservative , and right-wing libertarian ". While these terms are present both in the lead and at the beginning of the political views section of the parent article, their use is avoided in the fork. After the 'views' draft was first rejected at AfC, suggestions were made for improving the balance, but no changes were made. Since the beginning of September, the 'views' article has gone almost completely unchanged with the exception of an attempt by an IP to mention climate change that was reverted . We're less than 3 weeks out from a presidential run-off here in Argentina. If we're going to have a fork, let's be sure that it deals with the topic fairly and proportionately. gobonobo + c 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi Gobonobo , the article Political views of Javier Milei , which the user Pedantic Aristotle intends to impose, is openly biased and has absolutely no neutrality. It does not reflect the original article. And if there is any of the 2 articles that should remain, it is the article Political positions of Javier Milei because it is the most complete, reliable, recognized and neutral. However, I still think that an article of this type for this political figure is totally unnecessary, repetitive and that the 2 articles should be deleted. The original article already addresses in a very complete, extensive and profound way the views and political positions of this Argentine politician. Piertosiri ( talk ) 11:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Piertosiri ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] WP:AVOIDYOU Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a discussion at AFC here , and the criteria is quite relaxed: if the topic is notable, the article has a decent size (as in, more than just a small stub) and there are no urgent problems such as copyright violations, then it is approved. Cambalachero ( talk ) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The content of the article should be discussed in its talk page. There has been no discussion there even after multiple requests for comments, and we should avoid disruptive editing . The article is a new article, there is no requirement for it to contain what the main article contains, regardless its based nearly entirely on the main article, but stripped down to contain only factual political views. Thats a good starting point. I can't find any parts of the main article that contains what you mention, that would be suitable for a political positions article in its current form, but if you feel something is missing, feel free to propose changes, and make your argument for them. I would also propose to check guidelines for biographies WP:BLP , I have read them carefully. This page is however an AfD discussion, and it seems like most wants to delete the POVFORK positions article, and move views to positions. After that we can continue improving Wikipedia, rather than waste everyones time. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:40, 2 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! 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views", delete "positions", and then move from "views" to "positions". Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep "views" , delete "positions" , and then move from "views" to "positions" . The "views" article was initially approved by @ Cambalachero , and then the "positions" article was created afterwards to redirect away from the "views" article, as one editor wanted to create their preferred version instead. This split has been highly disruptive and counterproductive, and has effectively stalled further improvements for weeks, which was even stated as the motivation behind these actions due to an upcoming election. The "positions" POVFORK includes a lot of political campaign statements from the opposition, that is unrelated to political views or positions, has in several cases no verifiability, states opinions as facts, omits inline cite, and was added to circumvent the Wikipedia process of discussing content additions, and effectively WP:STONEWALLING . The main article does not have consensus for its content, there has been discussions of a larger cleanup since August/September, but these improvements were delayed due to the protection that was added to the article. The creation of this "views" article was discussed by several editors already at that time, which was supposed to be the first step in the clean-up. It would now be a good time to proceed with improving Wikipedia, rather than continuing to promote and encourage disruptive editing for political gains. Pedantic Aristotle ( talk ) 02:44, 13 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

A Bastard's Tale: However, that is the extent of reliable or situational sources I could find covering the game in any significant detail, with even passing coverage being rare. Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions . Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . I also only found the same two sources, and there aren't any suitable redirect or merger targets. -- Alexandra IDV 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing to a very weak Keep thanks to the source found by ZXCVBNM-- Alexandra IDV 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep another review at Gaming Age here and other reviews linked at Metacritic here , imv Atlantic306 ( talk ) 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I considered Gaming Age, but all discussions on their potential reliability suggest that content published after 2002 may not be reliable. As far as other Metacritic sources go, none of those are listed as reliable sources for use on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Atlantic306 : ( edit conflict ) Looking at WP:VG/RS classification and the past discussions linked there, Gaming Age isn't usable aside from possibly old material from before it split off from IGN in the early 00s. The other reviews listed on Metacritic (aside from the two Cukie mentioned) are either classed as unreliable (God is a Geek, Worth Playing, GameGrin) or haven't been classed at all (PlayStation Country, GameSpew). If this is going to have a chance, I think we would have to discuss PlayStation Country and GameSpew at WT:VG/RS , although the lack of an "about" page or similar on PlayStation Country, and GameSpew's self-description as a passion-project blog site, makes me doubtful that they could be considered reliable sources. -- Alexandra IDV 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A review from Softpedia should get it across the finish line in terms of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep We very narrowly got there in the end with WP:THREE . Don't forget to make sure to add them in the article or used the sources found template! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Alexandra IDV : What do you think now that there's a third RS review? I feel it may just barely squeak by, but since you ! voted delete, I'd like your input before I withdraw. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Cukie Gherkin : I think this article subject only just meets GNG with the absolute bare minimum of coverage, but yeah, struck my "delete". -- Alexandra IDV 12:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All right then, withdrawn . - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 17:25, 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

Thomas Matthew Crooks: Only notable for one crime, nothing else. Can be covered enough in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump . No need for an article, and honestly needs to not have an article to respect our policies on recently deceased persons given the fact that most of what exists about him is speculation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and close --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep . RodRabelo7 ( talk ) 01:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Tried to withdraw but I was not fast enough . I thought TW would show prior AfD but it did not do so. Please feel free to delete this page under G6 if possible. Apologies for the trouble. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User / say hi! ) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep & close article has already been AfD'd like 3 times, all of which have been closed. Sir MemeGod . _. ( talk - contribs - created articles ) 01:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Power Without Glory (2015 book): I only did a web search because it's a fairly recent book and that should produce good enough sources, but all I found was a review from the Victorian Historic Racing Register , which just ain't gonna cut it. The article was added by Tsrwright , the book's author, starting with this edit to the page about the notable novel with the same title , before it was split off later (also see this editor assistance request ). I found out about this situation after the author contacted me because they were caught up in an IP block I'd performed. Graham87 ( talk ) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your research didn't go too far, Graham. The book is covered in depth in the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com. It received an Award of Distinction 2016 from the Society of Automotive Historians. It was shortlisted for the UK Motoring Book of the Year awards 2106. It had numerous favourable reviews by the journals of record as listed at the above website. The unannounced blocking of my log-in to Wikipedia for some years and the new proposal to delete mention of my book Power Without Glory ... was and would be unsatisfactory. Power Without Glory.... was the product of years of research and is the definitive account of its subject. On the other hand I must point out that Wikipedia has many errors contributed by people who must have done little or no research. It should not be thumbing its nose at genuine contributors. Tsrwright ( talk ) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, appreciate the desire to improve Wikipedia. Before making further edits to that article, you likely want to review our conflict of interest guidelines. Also if you like, take a look at the guidelines for reliable sources that we use to construct articles. If you can point us to further independent, reliable sources, such as professional reviews, it will aid in keeping this article. I would suggest not adding them to the article yourself due to the apparent conflict of interest. — siro χ o 06:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Tsrwright : You said that Graham's research 'didn't go too far', without providing any sources to show that Power Without Glory does actually meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG . Can you provide sources that you think meet one of these guidelines? JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Here's an in-depth review from a magazine (Dixon, Mark, and David Lillywhite. 2016. Power without glory: Racing the big-twin cooper. Octane . [16] ) — siro χ o 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's probably not as in-depth as it first appears; that book is the first of eight to appear in that review, which can be accessed through The Wikipedia Library (neither of the others have articles ... though one of the authors there who specialises in books about racing, Tom Rubython , does have a page here ... so does Brian Sewell , though he's better known as an art critic). We just tend to be more likely to have articles about authors than their non-fiction books ... except in cases like Guns, Germs, and Steel . Graham87 ( talk ) 06:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The ProQuest link I provided (also accessible through TWL) is 416 words dedicated to this subject, I believe it's the same review as the one in the first image you linked in your next comment. — siro χ o 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As for reviews of the book, the publisher's website has this and this . Being book of the month in Octane is the best of a bad bunch for asserting notability on Wikipedia. Graham87 ( talk ) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Via your links, I saw [17] which has at 2 or 3 more reviews that would count towards GNG This in-depth review from The Automobile . [18] [19] . This in-depth review in Speedscene , [20] author is credited as "JS", probably credited at the start of the review section or on the masthead. This in-depth review by David Moore, publication unknown [21] . There was also a review from VSCC Bulletin [22] that notes the author is a member of the club. It's probably usable in the article but may not be independent for our purposes. — siro χ o 08:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:BOOKCRIT . C1 / GNG. Based on the above comments, we have two or more independent reviews in magazines with SIGCOV: Octane ( [23] or [24] ) The Automobile ( [25] and [26] ) Speedscene ( [27] ). — siro χ o 08:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added a reception section and reworked the article a bit based on the reviews above. Should be in a better state now. — siro χ o 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm honestly ... surprised and kinda shocked with the precedent this kind of ! vote sets. So all you need to do is write a book about a super-niche subject, get it reviewed favourably in a few specialty publications about said subject that are by no means of general interest, and, hey presto, it's on Wikipedia? This goes strongly against general precedent and just the general sense of coverage I get by reading other book articles in Category:Australian non-fiction books . To put it another way: if this book is kept, there are thousands of others that could plausibly get articles here that I'd never think to write about in a million years. OK I'll shut up now, but I couldn't let this go uncommented ... Graham87 ( talk ) 09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Notwithstanding the reasonable requirement that people do not write their own reviews I submit that the entry should stand, or someone else write it because it is not a review, it is only a statement of fact. The title chosen was a play with the title of a book which was called 'The Power and the Glory which was about grand prix racing cars - the cars I was writing about had lots of power for their weight but didn't have any glory. That left me with a title which was the same an Australian novel of no particular merit by Frank Hardy which does have space on Wikipedia. There I wrote a short footnote explaining that there was another book with the same title and it was about Cooper racing cars. They-who-must-be-obeyed objected and deleted my footnote so I wrote a short separate entry. I feel Wikipedia should provide in some way for their being ,multiple books with the same title. I must have a look- how it deals with The Power and the Glory. Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see there are numerous entries for 'The Power and the Glory' including such as The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album). If a rock album could be listed then so should a well researched, award winning book. Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way Wikipedia mentions the TV series The Power and the Glory but not the book. Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, that helps Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, tbat helps TW h Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How do you delete stuff? Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Power and the Glory (Bad Ends album) has much better sourcing from much more commonly used sources on Wikipedia than this book does and probably ever will. Graham87 ( talk ) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia . Shellwood ( talk ) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There are a few books with this name (the short name at least, as in the title of the article here). I can't find ANY reviews of this book about racing cars, most are for an Australian book. There appears to be one listed already in the article, seems fine. The others don't have a url so I can't evaluate them. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Urls are higher up in this discussion. — siro χ o 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to mention National Library of Australia Doug butler ( talk ) 22:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The National Library of Australia aims to contain pretty much every book published in the country. Graham87 ( talk ) 01:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hence irrelevant ? Doug butler ( talk ) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I dont understand this bit of the discussion. The book is catalogued in publication by the Australian National Library and a copy is held there. It is listed on Worldcat at https://www.worldcat.org/search? q=ti%3APower+without+glory&limit=10&offset=11 There are copies in a number of libraries around the world. As previously noted it was favourably reviewed by the significant journals in its field, The Automoblile and Octane. Copies of these and other reviews appear on the publishers website at www.loosefillings.com but you do have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the home page . to find them but that doesn't take too long I don't understand how there can be a vote for delete simply because one person can't find all the reviews. Perhaps the problem lies with this not being a subject of interest to some of the people here. Anyway, there is a Loose Fillings article on line that lists some of the other reviews dated 03/12/2015 such as the following John Staveley in The Bulletin of the Vintage Sports Car Club On first opening this heavy, well produced book it immediately becomes apparent that it is … a vibrant story of motor racing starting before the turn of the twentieth century but quickly moving on to post World War 2 airfield circuits. … an important work, written in an entertaining style, beautifully illustrated and great value. What a good book! Highly recommended. Doug Nye, author of Cooper Cars on the Nostalgia Forum (an Autocar online forum) … here’s a beautifully-designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history—really well worth the money. Respect! He has spread his remit to cover the entire background story of small capacity competition cars after much diligent research, and deals with the nativity of the 500cc movement itself in really interesting depth. I rate it as an important, hefty, and good looking addition to any real motor sport enthusiast’s book shelf. John Medley, author of Bathurst – Cradle of Australian Motor Racing in The Oily Rag This is a marvellous book. You should buy it. It is filled with fascinating detail, a clear story line, broad and deep in its history and humanity, astonishing in its memorabilia and automobiliana, the author’s research and footnoting a model for other writers, the author’s hands-on experience in the field impeccably unmatched … The book is well produced, thoughtfully designed, and too heavy to read in bed. David Moore, Shelsley Walsh archivist in MAC News (Midland Automobile Club This excellent book is so much more than the title suggests as it covers a wide motor racing history … the JAP and Vincent units are fully illustrated by the author who clearly knows his subject in great depth … Interestingly, the author not only describes the origins of the cars themselves but also paints vivid pictures of the motor racing, social and political scenes of their eras. Jerry Sturman in Speedscene, journal of the Hillclimb and Sprint Association Fills a significant gap in motorsport history … All enthusiasts will want to have this one on their shelves … Entertainingly written and superbly laid out … the book is a visual treat as well as being a meticulously researched, in-depth survey of the history and development of the motorcycle V-twin engine in competition. Mike Cooper, Managing Director, Cooper Car Company Ltd I have been buried in the book all weekend. It is a fascinating read and I am sure many other motor racing enthusiasts will really enjoy it. Tsrwright ( talk ) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake, for copies of published reviews go to www.loosefillings.com and select Power Without Glory in the top banner. Tsrwright ( talk ) 09:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reproduced in LooseFillings' blurb are: Full page review by Mark Dixon and David Lillywhite of Octane magazine (and voted "Book of the Month" for February 2016); Two columns by "SS" in Automobile magazine of January 2016; Half a page by "JRCS" in the Winter 2015 Bulletin of VSCC (of which Wright is a member); Two pages by Stephen Dalton in the Mini Cooper Register (date not given); and a half page by JS in SpeedScene (date not given). All British or Australian publications. The Doug Nye review alluded to is unfortunately not reproduced. Doug butler ( talk ) 11:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete On further reflection, this book, like many in my library, is a reliable source for improving articles (as Wright ) has so usefully contributed to the article on J. A. Prestwich Industries , but not yet part of the motor racing canon as are several by Doug Nye , none of which AFAIK is the subject of an article. Doug butler ( talk ) 22:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for closer: Doug butler is the person who originally split the article into its own page. I'm adding this comment out of chronological order because I think it's far more important for closing this discussion than the comments by the book's author below. Graham87 ( talk ) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Doug Butler posted the separate article way back when, but after all these years he thinks it should be deleted! Tsrwright ( talk ) 13:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think whether or not Doug Nye books are mentioned on Wikipedia is the issue, Doug (Butler). Presumably nobody has put up information about any of Doug's books but that is hardly a reason for excluding my book which should be judged on its merits not by whether Wikipedia adequately covers other books. I initially posted a brief note on the original Power Without Glory page that there was another book with the same main title and that simple fact surely ought to be on the record. When that was rejected by other contributors I created my own, very simple, factual record which is that which is now under discussion. I have made some minor changes to the current page to better describe the book's significance in first documenting some of the key influences on the design of the modern racing car and I hope that helps. If that and any other changes are not good enough for Wikipedia's standards then just for the completeness of the facts something needs to be stated on the 'other' book's entry. Meanwhile, back to Doug and the question of the source of his review of the book which I think was online. I don't have that reference but here is his personal comment by email back in 2015: Extended content *:On 6 November 2015 at 23:34, Doug Nye wrote: WOW Terry, Great piece of work. Just arrived. I LOVE it! (redacted) On 7 Nov 2015, at 02:26, Terry Wright wrote: Thank you very much, Doug, I very much appreciate the kind words. How do you feel about me using a sentence of yours on my Facebook page ... ? (redacted) Your daughters certainly did a great job for you Terry. For your Facebook page by all means use anything you like. For example: “I was expecting a pretty basic agricultural old banger of a book - instead here’s a beautifully designed, very well-produced, highly detailed and sophisticated piece of engineering and sporting history - really well worth the money. Respect!” Best - Doug Tsrwright ( talk ) 02:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia is a summary of what secondary sources say about a topic, not what other people privately think of it. I have taken the liberty of hiding the email to hopefully make the discussion easier to read for everyone. If I've messed up the formatting while doing so, feel free to fix it. As for the argument about precedent, this article is just ... way out of range of what is normal here. To make an analogy in a different topic, federal and state politicians are inherently notable here ; the notability of this book compared to most non-fiction works on Wikipedia is like comparing the notability of the current Australian Prime Minister to a random council member of a small shire (let's pick on the City of Busselton where I live for an example). Newspaper coverage of said council member would only be restricted to the Busselton area except in extremely unusual circumstances, just as coverage of a book about a very niche topic like this one is only restricted to special interest magazines/websites about that topic. The essay Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is tangentially relevant. Also, Tsrwright, if I'd noticed your edits to the Power Without Glory novel page in 2015, I would have simply reverted them as self-promotion ... as would have many many other Wikipedia editors. You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long. Graham87 ( talk ) 05:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is becoming a very twisted argument and I take exception to the statement, 'You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'. I did not need a line or two on Wikipedia for promotional purposes; all I did was turn to Wikipedia simply to update its record of facts. I am not a philosopher so I have to rely on commonsense which tells me that just like the earth being round, it is a fact that this book meets the criterion of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Any other ideas such as 'self-promotion' and this being 'a book about a very niche topic' are simply opinion. It also suggests that what you regard as 'notable' is very much influenced by what you are interested in and that does not speak well of Wikipedia. Tsrwright ( talk ) 13:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete having tagged a few australian motorsport article talk pages, and motorsport articles in my time, I find the lack of a broad set of WP:RS to substantiate the notability and it is sufficient argument to delete. There is nothing from this discussion above that convinces me otherwise. Admittedly book stubs are hard at times to find enough reviews in reasonable third party sources, but that should not be an argument to keep. JarrahTree 06:24, 6 October 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 Dixon, Mark; Lillywhite, David (February 2016). "Power without glory: Racing the big-twin Cooper". Octane . No. 152. p. 166. ProQuest 1777019207 . The review provides 416 words about the subject. The review notes: "The sub-line on the front cover says 'Racing the Big-Twin Cooper' but this is so much more than that. It's better described in the blurb on the back: ... And actually, it's a bit more than that too, because in exploring the development of the first Cooper racing cars, and their predecessors in Great Britain and the USA, author Terry Wright also examines the conditions in which the populaces of the two countries were living before and after World War Two. All this turns what might have been a dry tome into a genuinely entertaining read. ... To help explain those racing scenes, Wright adds in fascinating social history of the period, which brings to life the wonderfully varied (and beautifully reproduced) archive pictures of cyclecars, midget racers and specials driven mostly sideways by their gung-ho owners, wearing little if no protective gear. For those images alone, the book is worth every penny of the £55 cover price. That it's a great read as well is simply a huge bonus." Mallett, Delwyn (January 2016). "Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper". The Automobile . pp. 83–84. The automobile historian G. N. Georgano said , " The Automobile is the only motoring magazine that I read from cover to cover. When it arrives, treat all other magazines are put aside until I have studied it thoroughly’." The review notes: "With the scene set, the latter part of Terry's book concentrates on racing and hill climbing in the UK and Europe from 1948. Event and personality photographs are outstanding, and include work by such photographers as Klemantaski. Terry's sense of history survives, with the rear-engine Benz representing Germany and the rather disturbing Elfe, France. One particularly evocative pair of shots shows manufacture under way in the Cooper garage, contrasted with the vast Brabazon assembly hall. A particular strength of the action shots is captions giving intelligent summaries of each driver's style and success or failure, while the main text goes into detail on performance and incidents during practice as well as in the event. ... The cover price of this book, not cheap for a specialised publication, is justified by the quality of production and breadth of coverage. Wright gives a balanced picture of the light racing car renaissance born, primarily, from a British willingness to get stuck in and build a car from available parts. To stand a chance, the result had to be a light, simple and economical racer which could be run successfully by amateurs in the face of more expensive and complex designs. Book and philosophy are recommended." The other reviews listed by siroxo. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Power Without Glory: Racing the Big-Twin Cooper to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 08:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there might be some COI editing going on, focusing the discussion on the book's author and their activity on Wikipedia takes away attention from what this discussion should be about which is assessing the sources brought forward by editors who are participating here. Less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suggest the posting by Cunard is a sufficient statement of the book's qualification for a Wikipedia entry. If the contents are relevant then I believe it further qualifies as 'notable' because it is an authoritative account of the largely undocumented origins and early development of the modern open-wheeled racing car. Tsrwright ( talk ) 03:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the author of the book, you have little standing to make such comments. [[ Notability on Wikipedia is not about how a work fills a niche; it's about whether it's received enough attention from the world at large to get an article here. As the nominator of this discussion, I don't think it has. I think the cited reviews are too specialised to really assert notability here. While researching the publisher, I noticed that the book's author helps run the publishing company, , making this book effectively self-published. I also question if there are any relationships (even monetary ones) between the book's author, publishers, and reviewers that may make the reviews less independent than they appear; the book's in a tiny niche, after all. I also notice that the notability criterion about reviews that this AFD hinges on has been strongly questioned in the past; I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) to find out if we can get some more input. Graham87 ( talk ) 12:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It appears from my reading of it that the discussion on deleting the criterion of two reviews ended in 2020 with numerous votes against change so surely that matter was dealt with then. Bear in mind that the book in question, of which I am the author and one of the publishers, had reviews from at least two (there might have been three, I forget) of the leading independent journals plus a number from lesser but still independent journals as well as one undisputed authority. It might also be noted that these reviews were laudatory as well as there being an award from the Society of Automotive Historians. As far as I can tell the 'notability' criterion has been met. That being so, deletion should require evidence that diminishes that notability but so far there has been none other than a claim, such as above, that this book is in a 'tiny niche' which I dispute. That raises the question is how large does a niche have to be for the book not to be excluded from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of niche information, tiny and otherwise, and surely that is one of its strengths. Tsrwright ( talk ) 06:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] By the way, there are no relationships monetary or otherwise between the book's author and publisher (who were in Sydney, Australia), and the reviewers who were mainly in England. As wisely stated earlier, less personal talk, more source analysis would help close this discussion. Tsrwright ( talk ) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - WP:COI editing is a red herring that can be dealt with at other venues. It seems to have been demonstrated already in this discussion that the article's subject meets the WP:GNG . HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk ) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – I do intuitively lean towards deletion but I won't cast a ! vote as I am inexperienced when it comes to writing about books and this is really a " vibe of the thing " argument. Something just seems a bit off to me about a book being able to qualify for an article with two reviews, especially when those reviews are drawn from specialist motorsport sources rather than general media.I suspect there is something more to the "non-trivial" standard than what has been brought up in this discussion. This just doesn't seem like the sort of book I would expect to have a Wikipedia article, but it wouldn't be the first surprise this site has given me. I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums . 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Getting personal again! If you have something to say to the Nostalgia Forum you should say it there. Tsrwright ( talk ) 10:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No Terry, I have no obligation to engage with you off Wikipedia. However, your conduct there suggests you are not here to build an encyclopaedia . But as you've been so eager to stress, you're not the topic of this discussion, the article is, so perhaps focus in, back off, and respect the processes of the editing community instead of talking shit on the Autosport forums. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 5225C's comment I'm also a bit disgruntled by the author's behaviour on the Autosport forums surely has no place in this discussion with the perjorative use of 'behaviour' as if I have somehow done something wrong. I can only assume that as the author of the above talking shit on the Autosport forums his were the comments deleted by the moderators in a discussion on Wikepedia's notability requirements for articles on books 5225C is a university student and given his rekarks above, I am surprised that he or she has any status on Wikipwedia. Tsrwright ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] his or her remarks Tsrwright ( talk ) 00:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I said what I said, escalate it if you like. 5225 C ( talk • contributions ) 02:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More source weighing is needed. If there are conduct issues, please raise at AN/I or other appropriate venue. Tswright, I would advise that you've made your case. You do not need to reply to every editor's input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood and agreed, but Wikipedia people should cut out the personal comments as previously requested. Tsrwright ( talk ) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . In-depth and reliably published reviews have been listed above. That is all that is needed for GNG. That some editors think the topic and the reviews specialized is irrelevant; that is not part of the GNG criteria. If you think this sort of topic should not have an article, you need to change the notability criteria to be based on something other than the existence of in-depth reliable independent sources, rather than pretending that those sources somehow don't count for reasons that are not part of the criteria. (Here from a neutrally-worded pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) . ) — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There's hardly a better reason to have an article about a book than substantial reviews in appropriate publications. XOR'easter ( talk ) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HumanBodyPiloter5, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter. GNG trumps SNGs such as WP:NB , which itself says "A book that meets ... the general notability guideline ... and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy , is presumed to merit an article". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Hunter Fraser: Despite this coverage, I don't think it's about him per se, but rather about an event, and he has not been convicted yet, so we can't add it to the article per the WP:BLP guideline. He is very early in his career, and this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON . Also, this article was created in bad faith anyway . Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BADFAITH . Simzeit ( talk ) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 18 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 20:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : He is missing before the trial. That is a fact that can be added. he has also written 52 articles according to google scholar profile . 1keyhole ( talk ) 21:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California . Shellwood ( talk ) 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - According to Scopus his h-index is 38. [21] Netherzone ( talk ) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : it is frankly absurd to call a full professor, who finished his PhD nearly 20 years ago, and who is PI of their own lab at Stanford, "very early in his career". -- asilvering ( talk ) 01:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes WP:Prof#C1 . Xxanthippe ( talk ) 10:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep . per WP:Prof#C1 with a high h index and 28 papers with 100+ citations he clearly had an impact on his field. -- hroest 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Scavenger's daughter: If I'm wrong, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k ( talk • contribs ) 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 8 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 09:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Book reviews, a soundcloud page and what appears to be a stage play, but no hits for this "thing", torture device? Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok so there is this [62] from 1894, this from 1905 [63] and this mention of the device [64] . Not sure they amount to substantial coverage, and if we'd even consider 100 yr old journals as RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Skevington's gyves : several hits on Google Books for that title, currently given in article as an alternative name. Most of those on p1 are Victorian, [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] but some more recent hits with WP:SIGCOV on p2 onwards: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] ). It's definitely real, or at least discussed as such by reliable sources: either way, it passes WP:GNG , but doesn't seem to be most commonly known under the present title. Seems to be quite widely discussed in relation to Protestant martyrdoms under Henry VIII and Mary Tudor, particularly in relation to Foxe's mention of it. UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠Scotty Wong ⁠— 05:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Support keep and move to Skevington's gyves per UndercoverClassicist , after reviewing some of their sources and perusing Google books as well. — siro χ o 07:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Springbank School: I was not able to find coverage that satisfies the above for this years 1-13 school. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New Zealand . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It is a composite school, providing education at both primary and secondary levels. - gadfium 18:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I confused ages 1 - 13 and year 1 - 13. I have updated my nomination according to your clarification. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems to get regular coverage in news media, e.g. with the change in principal this year. - gadfium 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Stuff.nz seems to delight in writing about the school. Since the article was written in 2011, the school has continued to get coverage in a variety of news outlets, as a Google search will show. Sionk ( talk ) 20:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . No evidence of anything beyond routine coverage. Article creator may have COI. Three (currently dead) stuff.co.nz links are all to Northern Advocate which makes it local news, not nationally significant. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs ) 06:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I will note that this is a school, and WP:NSCHOOL (part of the WP:NORG guidance) states that articles on schools are permitted to merely satisfy the WP:GNG , provided that the school is not-for-profit. Coverage from The Northern Advocate , therefore, is perfectly fine for establishing notability here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to satisfy WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . A brief search indicates that this school has received significant coverage in local media, beyond the sources cited in the article. The school appears to be notable in accordance with WP:GNG . Marshelec ( talk ) 06:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : repeated coverage by Fairfax New Zealand (" Stuff ") suggests notability meets WP:NSCHOOL. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable secondary school. Eluchil404 ( talk ) 03:15, 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

Peter Hehir: Was a regular cast member on The Sullivans , but seems to have otherwise played relatively minor roles. (I'm unfamiliar with Australian cinema, so I could be wrong). No online sources other than IMDB, etc. I was able to find several mentions in old newspapers on TWL, but they were all very brief and didn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV . PROD was removed by Kvng with the rationale 26 incoming links indicate potential importance . I checked a few of the incoming links and they were all from cast lists, with none of the pages mentioning the article subject in detail. — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia . — SamX [ talk · contribs · he/him] 03:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I agree that the subject fails WP:GNG . I also believe that he fails WP:NACTOR . As SamX points out, it seems like the subject's time on The Sullivans appears to be his only major role. In a newspaper search, the only additional reliable sources I could find were two brief reviews of The Hour Before My Brother Dies , a made-for-TV film. The film does not appear to meet WP:NFILM (so its article should also probably be nominated for AfD or even PROD), and thus the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR . voorts ( talk / contributions ) 04:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . AFI Award nominee who satisfies NACTOR with his roles in the above mentioned Sullivans, a lead in I Live with Me Dad and his AFI nominated role in Fast Talking . How quickly would it snow keep if he was a nominee for USA's major award instead of some other countries. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 02:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Re: AFI. He was nominated once, did not win. I'm not sure that's clearly enough to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO . ~ Kvng ( talk ) 13:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes Kvng, but what I actually wrote was that he passed NACTOR with his roles, multiple significant roles in notable productions. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 00:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should have read voorts comment properly, add a lead in The Hour Before My Brother Dies to the list of significant roles. Film with multiple AFI nominations. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep multiple significant roles and an AFI nom seems to meet WP:NACTOR . His most significant work was pre-Internet so may be hard to substantiate online. ~ Kvng ( talk ) 20:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See if the keep-voters can explain more about GNG in the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Trivial roles perhaps, I'm not seeing any significant coverage of the individual. Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please justify that throwaway comment about "trivial roles perhaps" against the above identified significant roles especially considering the Sullivans role acknowledged in the nomination. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Based on my limited knowledge of the series involved and what appeared to me during a cursory glance at the information. I haven't done a deep dive into each, frankly, I'm not that invested. I couldn't find anything that supported GNG. Others can disagree and dig further if they choose. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This should not have been relisted. The relisting of this afd is essentially a supervote. There has been a clear demonstration that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR . That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome. WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" such as NACTOR. GNG is a companion piece, it does not trump the SNG. Relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce their own interpretation of policy. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional to that can I ask those that claim he "fails" gng (especially commentators after the identification of significant roles) to identify what attempts they made to find offline sources given that Hehir's most prominent roles occurred pre internet saturation. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 13:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is for those seeking to keep an article to provide sources, not for those seeking to delete it to prove none exist. Stifle ( talk ) 10:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep regular actor in a major Australian cultural work. Additionally has roles in numerous notable works as per blue links in article. Clearly satisfies WP:NACTOR and WP:N Relistors and original AfD deletion advocates have still yet to address the concerns raised by duffbeerforme Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Disruptive BLP PROD removal. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' ; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP ) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS , WP:RS , WP:SIGCOV ). // Timothy :: talk 19:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two things Timothy . 1 Can you justify your claim that subject fails BIO given that NACTOR is part of BIO and a passing of NACTOR has been asserted above identifying pertinent roles. 2 Most of the plethora of policies and guidlines you link in your boilerplate are about the contents of an article, not about the existence of the article. Yes WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and any contentious material in a BLP without that must be removed but it doesn't say the whole article must be deleted. (Side question, How active would you be if you weren't semi retired?) duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lacking evidence of significant multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR . LibStar ( talk ) 04:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have now improved the article. There is now a link showing the existence of a collection of Biographical cuttings on Peter Hehir at the National Library of Australia that provides evidence of coverage for GNG so I'm expanding my ! vote to say he passes both NACTOR and GNG. Pinging other previous ! delete commentators LibStar , SamX , Oaktree b , voorts . duffbeerforme ( talk ) 07:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm still not persuaded the subject meets GNG or NACTOR: I can't review the biographical cuttings since they're not digitized, so I can't opine on that, but if they are what I think they are (effectively a scrapbook), I'm not sure how that establishes notability. The first source, an article titled "Movies available on tape in Canberra" from 1983, does not contain SIGCOV of the subject. The second source, a review of The Unquestioning , is a short plot synopsis. The third source is a link to a library catalog page. The fourth source just states that he was nominated for an award, but WP:NACTOR requires winning an award to establish notability under that test. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks voorts for looking again. On your points in reverse order: 2. Each of those four sources attest to the significance of his roles in each of the productions, directly addressing the NACTOR#1 criteria of significant roles in notable productions. (Note that number 2 is not about The Unquestioning , thats just the opening two words) 1. By maintaining a delete position you are opining that the cuttings are not good enough. And I don't understand your point about a scrapbook. How would cutting a newspaper article out of the paper and placing it in a scrapbook make it any less valid? duffbeerforme ( talk ) 03:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Criterion 1 of NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films , television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis added). His roles might have been significant in each of the films you've cited, but there's no evidence that any of those films are notable under either GNG or NFO . I think the sources you've provided, while reliable, are the equivalent of TV Guide synopses, not reviews by established critics such that the films are notable. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 05:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not up to the Peter Hehir article to show that other subjects are notable. But anyway: The Sullivans is clearly notable and has won 5 Logies. Fast Talking (three AFI nomination) has multiple reviews such as in the New York Times by Walter Goodman 23 April 1986. Also in Cinema Papers *2, Sun-Herald, The Age. It is also covered in depth in Australian film 1978-1994 : a survey of theatrical features [10] . I Live with Me Dad was reviewed in The Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times, both major Australian newspapers. The Last of the Knucklemen (7 AFI nominations) was reviewed in Cinema Papers, Sun-Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, Adelaide's Advertiser and The Age and is preserved by the The National Film and Sound Archive of Australia where the curator notes [11] " The Last of the Knucklmen received some of the best critical notices of any Tim Burstall film" and they also hold assorted papers relating to the film [12] . duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you please share links to the reviews you've cited? voorts ( talk / contributions ) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've updated some film articles, including some links to reviews, to better show their notability. Should also add Two Friends to the list of good roles. duffbeerforme ( talk ) 11:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to keep per sources provided by duffbeerforme . The subject has had at least two significant roles in notable projects: The Sullivans (which nobody is disputing) and Silver City, which was nominated for several Australian Film Institute awards, including Best Supporting Actor for the subject. If other users think the sourcing done by duffberforme is insufficient, then I would be okay with draftifying this article so that better sources can be added. voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru ( talk ) 13:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per duffbeerforme, meets NACTOR. Deus et lex ( talk ) 22:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Busytown: Pure plot summary and a mess - article's lead is "about fictional town", then starts talking about a fictional universe, proceeding to list major characters from the associated franchise. References - just some YouTube links. Prod challenged by User:A. B. who wrote: "This article is an overview of a series of books, games and TV shows that are in Richard Scarry's Busy Town (a.k.a. Busytown, a.k.a. Busy World, a.k.a. Busyworld) universe. You can find lots of articles about Richard Scarry that talk about this world as well as articles about individual books, games and shows. I did not find any that were just about "Busy Town". I am removing the deletion note anyway since an umbrella article for all these things. Note that there is also a template associated with this article, Template:Busytown . If this article is to be deleted, it should be discussed at AfD." So - here we go. I'll note that the series/franchise might be notable, but what we have here violates WP:GNG / WP:ALLPLOT /etc. and needs a WP:TNT . An article about series/franchise should be written from scratch based on sources. Arguably, one could do so using the second paragraph here - but where are the sources? We could also merge that paragraph into an article about the author, but again, I don't like merging unreferenced content. For now, best WP:ATD Ic an think of would be to redirect this to the author ( Richard Scarry ) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] AfD notices posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games , Comics and animation , and Television . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject itself meets WP:GNG with notable aspects that might not be comfortably merged into author's bio or any of the existing articles at {{ Busytown }} . There's useful prose to build off of in this article, though I think we can expand the scope to be more of a broad summary of the media focused around the topic (including "Busy People", "Busy World", etc). This "universe" is a massive cultural touchstone in children's media in the US. Such an article is probably the best way to cover this topic. I don't see a tentpole article dedicated to it right now. Coverage of this article's subject ranges from education, to analogies, to criticism to reviews of multi-media including a 1994 CD-ROM. Here's a refdump to get us going (not exhaustive): [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] — siro χ o 04:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just look at ref 1 - this is gibberish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's using it as an analogy. This is just a quick non-exhaustive search to show how broad coverage is of this subject. — siro χ o 03:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I am not disagreeing that the series may be motable (may, not is - no obviously good sources have been pointed out, we are at the WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES stage), as I said, the article right now is so poor it merits WP:TNTing . Redirecting it with soft deletion is being "nice". Of course, if anyone wants to rewrite it now, go for it - as you know, I am happy to withdraw nominations if fixes happen. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Richard Scarry or at least redirect. Plenty of coverage of Scarry and his bibliography of books in Busytown, but as a fictional location, there's no real coverage of the various characters at the level of this detail. Scarry's article could probably include a Busytown section to briefly describe the fictional world he wrote/illustrated but that's about it. -- M asem ( t ) 05:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to an author or series page. The article's subject matter as a fictional setting isn't supported by significant coverage in secondary sources. The above proposed reference list is a mix of trivial mentions and examples of primary source uses or reviews of works that feature the setting. I think the article would be warranted if there is a reliable source of independent overview or analysis of the Busytown world in Scarry's literature outside of primary sources. At present, there isn't, but hopefully more can be found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 22:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as @ Siroxo says the article subject is notable and the article has some good text. It's a different topic to Scarry himself as he did a variety of work of which the Busytown books are only a subset. I have added a small analysis and criticism section which includes several high quality citations. Each gives direct focus to the book with the possible exception of the Journal of Pragmatics article which just uses it as an example. Two (the Carnegie Magazine and Poetics) articles should easily count as SIGCOV. I agree this article needs more references although the obvious source would be the books themselves (not for notability, but as a reference). It seems to me many articles about books contain a "plot" section which is uncited for obvious reasons. Oblivy ( talk ) 08:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I respect and admire your approach to improve an article at risk of deletion. I disagree that the approach of collating academic minutiae can construct notability in itself, but it is a helpful thing to do. The Carnegie magazine primarily refers to an exhibit of the same name at the Carnegie Science Center. The Poetics journal is an obscure philosophical flourish on the depiction of animal labor in one Scarry book. The Occupational Medicine article mostly just describes the visual presentation of the cover of one book. The Pragmatics article does not mention Busytown. This would all be fine, but the article itself still lacks a foundation of having secondary sources reliably describe what Busytown is in Scarry's work. In terms of analysis and commentary, I'm still not sure why this couldn't be better covered in an article about the series/media (which doesn't seem to be called Busytown ) or of the author's work in the primary article. Hope I'm not coming on too strong over the notability of the setting of a children's book! But just my thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 09:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for looking at the sources. We can disagree (and I do) but I appreciate your thoughtful remarks. The poetics journal strikes me as a way of talking about how a ubiquitous children's book can influence how kids view labor roles. More importantly, it's entirely devoted to Busytown (and not the author) as a subject. And Carnegie museum article talks a lot about to article subject (the interview with the librarian) and why they decided to devote an entire museum exhibition to it. WP:GNG asks for significant coverage of the article subject in independent reliable sources, and these two are just that. For sure other cites are less in-depth. The question of what Busytown represents as part of Scarry's work probably belongs in his article, but this topic is deserving of an article. Oblivy ( talk ) 23:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No worries! I sometimes overthink this stuff and am mindful it can come off as being a bit much. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the start on improving it. I will try to get to it as well (or at the very least try to provide a more helpful source analysis beyond my above refdump). — siro χ o 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not bad. If we were to remove the fancrufty list of characters, this would start looking as a proper encyclopedic article. I suggest you do this and ping everyone who voted oppose so that they can reconsider their views, and I'll do this myself when I have time to read this more closely. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have made another set of revisions including adding general cites and citations for some of the major characters, as well as some new text. IMHO the demand to remove part of the article is not appropriate at this forum per WP:NOTCLEANUP . That part of the article has considerable merit even if it needs editing. As it stands the article has adequate sourcing for notability which should be enough. Oblivy ( talk ) 09:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Agree that cleanup is needed but this is, like siro pointed out, a cultural touchstone with (IMO) sufficient sourcing. At risk of being a WP:WHATABOUT offender... there's an entire article for the Busytown Mysteries spinoff. Crunchydillpickle🥒 ( talk ) 17:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess work done by Oblivy to improve this article. I look over dozens of AFDs daily but I never thought I'd be reading an assessment over one of the U.S.'s most important children's authors. No, I don't have a COI, he's just one of the few authors I remember from my own childhood. Never thought I'd run into him or his work at AFD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion isn't cleanup and Scarry's works as a children's author are clearly notable beyond reasonable doubt. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Siroxo . Drowssap SMM ( talk ) ( contributions ) 13:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It's got discussions in peer-reviewed journals, I think it's fine. Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:09, 14 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

Amy Hannah Adamson: I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt ( talk ) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Schools , and Australia . JMWt ( talk ) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Women , and Education . Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt , Necrothesp is correct. The fastest way to handle this is to withdraw the nomination. Drmies ( talk ) 18:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ANYBIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. 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. As it says, meeting one or more doesn't guarantee inclusion. If you think this person should be included then stop inferring WP:ANYBIO is a slamdunk when the text clearly says it isn't. I am not withdrawing anything. JMWt ( talk ) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] JMWt, no one is kicking your dog. Drmies ( talk ) 19:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve no idea what that means. Discuss this topic or don't. JMWt ( talk ) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll repeat what I've already said elsewhere: Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG . What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not how we do discussions. I can understand your frustration but I'm not entertaining engagement with you where you try to imply guidelines say things they don't and where you imply somehow I'm not acting in good faith. I don't believe someone who has been a teacher and headteacher is notable. I don't believe that simple statements in newspapers would 'normally' count towards notability and I don't believe that we should consider presence in a dictionary of biography as a slamdunk. You don't like it, that's fine. We have a difference of opinion. Either discuss the notability with regard to guidelines and policies of en.wiki. Or don't. That's it. JMWt ( talk ) 12:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am in no way implying that you are not acting in good faith. I am saying that you are arguing against longstanding consensus (which is a policy, by the way). You may not realise that you are, but when several other experienced editors tell you that you are then it's time to concede that you may be wrong instead of trying to tell them that they're wrong. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography . Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [27] [28] [29] . Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 ( talk ) 08:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointmentsin newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt ( talk ) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. I should also point out that the articles in Trove are actually biographies, and are not merely simple statements about an appointment. James500 ( talk ) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC . So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt ( talk ) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The depth of coverage in the newspaper biographies is also substantial. The newspapers may be using a recent appointment as an excuse to write a biography, but each biography is not actually about that appointment. They are about the whole of Adamson's life over a period from at least 1926 to 1949. The sources are not trivial. James500 ( talk ) 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO #3. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as with my keep opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson . — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP: ANYBIO . Basically appeared in a National Dictionary proves notability. All the Best! Otuọcha ( talk ) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe ( talk ) 01:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC) . [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Almaany: No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two references, one is a link to their own website and the other does not appear to even mention them much less cover them. North8000 ( talk ) 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Websites . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is THE most important online dictionary of Arabic, even though there are few sources. For the source published by Springer Nature , a simple command/ctrl + F search will reveal mention in section 5.4: A table of synonyms is built as a prototype for testing the proposed method. It includes synonyms from different linguistic resources: the Arabic WordNet (AWN), Almaany (2014) and Parkinson (2005). Although there is a paucity of sources, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia. إيان ( talk ) 23:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] إيان please drop whatever sources you do have in here, so we can better make up our mind. Drmies ( talk ) 01:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're in the article. Do you want to copy and paste them here in this AfD discussion? إيان ( talk ) 12:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What? Whoa, hold the horses. The nominating editor really should look into a subject before nominating a new (June 2023) stub article concerning it for deletion. His not knowing anything about the subject doesn't make it non-notable. I've added more info and cited several academic sources. It is a very notable subject in morphological and lexicographic research. I presently see nine high-quality academic sources, if the predatory journal bot doesn't read it as a false positive and remove the last one I added. ;-) Carlstak ( talk ) 03:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note the "New" in NPP (New Page Patrol). Ideally happens a a few months, in this case it was at 6 months. North8000 ( talk ) 14:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] addendum: Oh, I see in the edit history that Headbomb (an appropriate username;-) has already removed the source I added last once before. His bot is not infallible, and many of the assessments made in the list it is based on are quite subjective with notable scholarly dissent. He sometimes deletes worthy sources. Carlstak ( talk ) 03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've left the info but removed the cite because the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications does look a bit sketchy, even though the paper is good and by respectable academic researchers. Note that Headbomb's removals are based on Beall's List , whose compiler, librarian Jeffrey Beall , has retracted the list. Carlstak ( talk ) 04:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Commenting . For me, at first glance, it appears significant, but a thorough analysis of sources and local books is necessary. It possible the subject is worth being on Wikipedia. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 14:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning towards keep Weighed in below as keep. Much material and many sources have been added since I nominated. Also if @ إيان : 's overview is accurate then I think there is an WP:IAR argument for keep......could إيان or anyone expand on that? North8000 ( talk ) 14:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almaany is cited as a source for translations by many dozens, if not hundreds, of scholarly works published by academic publishers in English and Arabic, as a simple Google Books search shows. Seems odd to question its notability, and an assessment of such is worth more than a glance. Carlstak ( talk ) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point it's obvious that the nomination for deletion is null and void. The article has 9,461 bytes and 14 citations of scholarly sources, including Cambridge Scholars Publishing, John Wiley & Sons, and Routledge. It should have been clear from the get-go that an article subject cited as a source by many scholarly publications would be likely to have reliable sources for its notability. WP:NEXIST says: Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. That clearly didn't happen. One wonders if there is some bias operative here, unconscious or otherwise. Carlstak ( talk ) 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What a ridiculous insulting interpretation. You're complaining that the 50 overworked NPP'ers trying to handle 600 articles per day during their limited wiki-minutes didn't go find sources that none of the millions of editors didn't bother to find and put in the article? And that even at AFD nobody has produced? And the explanation for that is bias? North8000 ( talk ) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mind your temper. It's part of the guideline that you yourself cited. A 30-second Google Books search would have sufficed to indicate the possibility that supporting sources might exist , just as the guideline says. I don't see how it could be clearer than "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." It's not about temper. I was criticizing you doing "inventing bad faith" instead of AGF, especially when the AGF explanation is much more plausible. North8000 ( talk ) 15:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Quite a stretch. You've transmogrified "One wonders..." into a conspiracy theory. Creative, though. Carlstak ( talk ) 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see how there can be a conspiracy with only one person. I've made my comment about some things that you wrote and stand by it. I feel not need to take it any further. Maybe what I said after that regarding the practicalities of who to expect to to put in references might be interesting. All of that aside, I wish you the best and thank you for your work. North8000 ( talk ) No problem, and thanks. It was a joke, and I was laughing when I wrote it, meant to add a wink face. I do all my editing while quite high. ;-) Carlstak ( talk ) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Cool. All is good. North8000 ( talk ) 12:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'd lay odds that I found two usable sources in less time than it took to make the nomination. Carlstak ( talk ) 18:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as there is clearly an abundance of sources. Mccapra ( talk ) 22:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep IMO, based on input above, this is based on a bit of Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works and within that the extreme enclyclopedicness of the topic, or a bit of WP:IAR if one does not acknowledge that. I still want this to be decided; This is not a withdraw of the nomination. North8000 ( talk ) 23:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously. "Extreme enclyclopedicness"? That's a new one; whatever it's supposed to mean. Gotta say that the "How Wikipedia notability works" essay is perhaps the most muddled and fuzzy essay I've ever read on WP, or anywhere, for that matter. Carlstak ( talk ) 23:51, 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

Fyodor Chernozubov: Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , History , Military , and Russia . Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Ck references on his article in ru.wp . Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . General who appears to have plenty of sourcing on Russian Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:08, 14 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! 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the awards he received, unless some wants to argue that the ru.wiki sources are not adequate. Mccapra ( talk ) 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If someone can fix the articles and give citations to them, then they should stay. But I don't speak the language, and the current article dosen't cite any sources, and I couldn't find any. Kingsmasher678 ( talk ) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] From WP:NEXIST : "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series: It is also, I fear, a major fail of WP:GNG and WP:OR (and of Good Article review requirements...). No sources cited use the term 'recurring' in the title. We don't have any category for "recurring elements in work of fiction" (the closest concept we have is on recurring character ). The article does not define the topic outside lead (with no references there); in fact the term " recurring element " is used in article just three times: in the very name, in the lead, and in a single sentence in the body ("Twin antagonists, with the second main antagonist being hidden for the majority of the game, is also a recurring element" - a sentence sourced to... errr, an offline game trailer??) No sources I can see in my BEFORE tackling this particular topic. The article is effectively an essay stretching the definition of recurring - it discusses stuff from the obvious ("Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters..." - wow, those recurring elements might be found in any and all works of fiction!), series-specific (crystals, chocobo, character names or specific characters recurring in the series, game mechanics), to irrelevant ("The Final Fantasy series and several specific games within it have been credited for introducing and popularizing many concepts that are today widely used in console RPGs." that have nothing to do with "recurring elements"). Bottom line, the fact that FF series have recurring elements like chocobos or like is trivial, and might merit mention in the article on Final Fantasy media franchise, but it is not an encyclopedic topic that merits a stand-alone article, not until such a time this topic (of "recurring elements in FF" is covered in depth by reliable sources - not offline video game trailers...). Again, this is a major failure of OR and GNG, as I fear the author of this confused Wikipedia to publish an essay on video gaming trivia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a note, this article was not someone's personal essay, but a 2016 merger of Gameplay of Final Fantasy , Final Fantasy character jobs , and Character design of Final Fantasy in an attempt to consolidate these series-aspect spinouts into a more cohesive whole. Those article themselves were the result of a decade of consolidation of minor spinouts like Minigames of Final Fantasy (merged 2011). -- Pres N 13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Video games . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - After my initial skimming of the article, it all looks like valid content that is routinely covered by series articles. Given giant scope of the respective series article , I assume this was more of a WP:SIZESPLIT . I'm leaning much more towards re-titling than deleting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do note that SIZESPLIT stresses that splits should occurr "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia". There is also the OR angle to consider. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I say "retitle" as a means of addressing your OR concerns. It's very clearly reliable source commentary on the series. No one would bat an eye if all of this was just in the series articles, so there's obviously ways to do it while avoiding OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (Or perhaps the better word to describe it would be "split"?) It seems like overall this article is a very excessively-detailed description of stuff that should (and is) covered in the mainline articles via summary style (the series article itself is 43 kB, not exactly in a "dire need of splitting" state, and duplicates some of this content anyhow.) I agree with Piotrus that stuff like Cid and the characters completely veer into trivia; that stuff isn't necessary to understand the series, and it's not integral. The fact is that Final Fantasy has a lot of commonalities, but it's also a very diffuse and sprawling franchise at this point and trying to address everything like it's one big video game development section doesn't seem like it has the sourcing behind it. This fundamentally isn't any different than those "Development of..." articles the VG project has realized are generally not appropriate; it's duplicative and forking of a lot of content already on Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just popping in as the creator of this article to say that, regardless of my feelings on the language used in the nomination, I'll abide by the decision reached. If the decision is to merge/delete, salvageable information can be condensed into other articles. -- ProtoDrake ( talk ) 13:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are lots of mentions of the series' recurring elements, such as this IGN article . I think it's a separately notable topic to discuss, and dispute the claim that it is entirely WP:GAMECRUFT . Let's not throw out the baby along with the WP:BATHWATER . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm open to reworking the information or retitling it, but this is well-sourced, well researched, well-written content. There's ways to fix the noted concerns without resorting to deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – This article would be Final Fantasy 's version of a "Universe of [x]" article, à la Universe of The Legend of Zelda . I don't think it's in good spirit to literally look for "recurring elements" or similar terms in source titles: I'll grand that this title might not be optimal. It would take a dive in the sources to find if there's enough to say about the franchise thematic and universal consistency (or inconsistency?) to form an article. I'm taken aback by how many sources used are tweets or development updates for sequels; in that sense I do think there's a problem here. I also think an article somewhat similar to this one is probably very reasonable, however. The recurring elements and inconsistencies of Final Fantasy 's worlds is quite well-discussed I'm sure. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Shared elements of the Final Fantasy series" may be a better way of naming it. "Recurring" does sound a bit like the writers of the article are looking for anything and everything that is the same in later entries. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Nomination is not convincing here IMO, way overfocusing on if the words "recurring element" are applicable. If you dislike the title of the article, that's cause to go to WP:RM - not for deletion. "Recurring elements" is a descriptive title ( WP:DESCRIPTIVE ), i.e. just a Wikipedia term, and thus isn't expected to be mentioned constantly. If anything, perhaps parts of the article should be split back out again for more coherent topics like in 2016, but this would not be in an AFD sense but rather a content organization sense with no content lost. To get to the topic AFD is more interested in, are there valid secondary sources for all this? Yes (by far the most important criterion!). Would this cause bloat if moved into other articles, meaning this is a valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE split? Yes. Does this also help with repetition so that an element shared across the series can easily be wikilinked so that the general idea of a character named Cid can be invoked? Yes. Not seeing a problem here. SnowFire ( talk ) 14:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Whether or not the article should be retitled to better reflect its content is one discussion, but deleting the whole thing is another altogether. The article contains a spate of in-depth RS coverage on the article's topic. The exact phrase "recurring elements" is unnecessary here, in the same way that, for example, sources in List of Final Fantasy media do not need to use the exact word "media" if the items listed all fit the plain definition of the term. RSes treat these elements as important enough to dedicate sustained coverage to them, and treat them as defining aspects of the series, and that is good enough for an article. Phediuk ( talk ) 14:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The nom's argument that the topic fails GNG and OR is easily debunked by examining the article's exhaustive and extensive sourcing. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:16, 26 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

Aj Diyan Kurrian: Source eval: Mention >> 1.  Zafar, Abdul Hafiz (9 January 2019).  "نوین تاجک".  Duniya News (in Urdu). Mention, "In memory of Wajahat Atre", Not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth >> 2. ^ Nadeem, Inaam.  "وجاہت عطرے کی یاد میں".  Hum Sab (in Urdu). Retrieved 22 April 2023. Database record >> 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Punjabi film Ajj Dian Kurrian".  Pakistan Film Magazine. Archived from the original on 12 November 2021. Name in list, not SIGCOV >> 4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Pakistan's "Oscars"; The Nigar Awards".  Desi Movies. Archived from the original on 31 May 2022. Name in list, not SIGCOV >> 5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Nigar Awards (1972 - 1986)".  The Hot Spot Online website. 5 January 2003. Archived from the original on 25 July 2008. Retrieved 24 March 2023. BEFORE showed database and promo, but nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepthy. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:NFO . The film received 2 Nigar Awards including the "best film award" for the year 1977. Its an older film and more offline coverage is highly likely to exist in old Urdu newspapers and film magazines. Insight 3 ( talk ) 10:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Translated excerpt from the source Duniya News : "... She first acted in Syed Kamal's famous Punjabi film "Aaj Diyan Kadiyan" in 1977. It was a comedy film. In it, she played Kamal's daughter and is studying in college with her five sisters in the film. Late Jamshed Ansari was with him in this movie. In this film, she acted in both Urdu and Punjabi languages. This film by Syed Kamal was the second part of his film "Jat Kadiyan Te Darda" which was released in 1976. Like 'Jit Kadiyan Te Darda', this film of his also turned out to be a super hit." Translated excerpt from the source Hum Sab : "... In 1977, Wajahat Atre composed the music for the film "Aj Diyan Kadiyan". A song from this film "Kaliyan Na Jaana Saade Naal Naal Chalo Ji" became the guarantee of success of the film, the chorus song was sung by Naheed Akhtar, Mehnaz and other singers. This song, made in the style of pop music, is heard even today." Insight 3 ( talk ) 04:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong KEEP - per WP:NFO which states "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the internet, especially for older films . This debunks the idea of significant and in-depth coverage of older films... it's not always possible. It's enough that the film was a commercial success at the box-office, when released in 1977. It received the 'Best Film' award and the film's music director received the 'Best Music' award for 1977... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 20:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Keep voters provide no sources that show notability for the subject, mentions in relation to other topics do not demonostrate notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you even cared to read WP:NFO ? Moreover, WP:SIGCOV does not require the subject must be topic of a source: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material . Insight 3 ( talk ) 08:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 07:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Satisfies WP:NFILM c.3 - winner of Nigar award for best Punjabi language film in 1977. Discussed in Gazdar's Pakistan Cinema 1947-1997 (OUP 1997), p.155: "The other was Syed Kamal's first Punjabi venture Aj Diyaan Kuriyaan ..." Given the time of production and the award, it is completely reasonable to assume there are offline sources (especially in Urdu and Punjabi). Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 13:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources actually demonstrated to be available would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep the film has been shown by one of the references to be a winner of a nationally recognised award, I'm surprised this is still under discussion Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn. This film appears to be notable. BookishReader ( talk ) 17:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I would like to see more discussion on NFO. Keep voters did not explain about GNG, but comments are welcome on this sentence "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the internet, especially for older films". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 07:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems like some people want this discussion to continue for eternity. Will any admin intervene to end these ridiculously absurd relistings? Insight 3 ( talk ) 08:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . This film is obviously notable. It is only the absurd worship of online sources in English that means that this is continually relisted. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Ben Driebergen: Sure, he also appeared in Survivor: Winners at War , but he didn't win the season, and his gameplay hasn't received coverage outside recaps, especially by Entertainment Weekly . Also, he was medically evacuated twice in The Challenge: USA and The Challenge: World Championship . Outside Survivor , I don't see how else he is notable for his other activities, and I don't think medical evacuations from The Challenge would suffice, would it? WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Furthermore, should be redirected to (preferably) Survivor: Heroes vs. Healers vs. Hustlers or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants . George Ho ( talk ) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Businesspeople , Television , Military , and Idaho . George Ho ( talk ) 22:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strongly disagree. I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se, but that in addition to his appearance in 40 perhaps the most important season and on other shows, in addition to being a marine and being a PTSD activist. I will boost article with more secondary sources but BD simply is a notable figure in American reality tv. Volvlogia ( talk ) 23:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m of the opinion that survivor winners are notable per se Sorry, Volvlogia , but at least ten (or more) articles about individual winners have been redirected per AFD discussions. Same for the Survivor: Panama winner. Furthermore, two articles about the winners of Survivor: Island of the Idols and Survivor: Marquesas have been deleted. Also, being PTSD-diagnosed can be already mentioned in the season page that mentions his win. George Ho ( talk ) 00:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree firmly with those deletions and anticipate their reversals. Volvlogia ( talk ) 02:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wanna know the names of admins who made those decisions? You may contact them for reversal. Why anticipating? George Ho ( talk ) 03:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm able to articulate expectations without taking immediate actions to realize them. The long arc of the universe bends toward survivor winners. Why the snarky tone? My focus remains on BD, who is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Volvlogia ( talk ) 18:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize for making you perceive my tone to be... "snarky". That's not my intention. I was frustrated by repeated assumptions from others that being a one-time Survivor winner makes one person notable. Those assumptions were countered by AFD discussions, yet I see one like this lately. If I failed to convince you this time that my tone wasn't "snarky", then... whatevs. Anyways, in this case, merely reappearing in Winners at War has been proven insufficient, which led two articles into being redirected. Furthermore, being medically evacuated from The Challenge didn't save another article from being deleted. I'm not confident that both reappearing and two medical evacuations would suffice, especially for someone suffering from PTSD, but I can't change your mind further. Oh well.... George Ho ( talk ) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All I have left to add is that if the consensus is as you say it is, then I respectfully dissent. Volvlogia ( talk ) 20:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk ) 16:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep article Not only Survivor winner, a controversial one who appeared again and also appeared on other shows (The Challenge for example). He is a notable reality TV personality Thecheeseistalking99 ( talk ) 17:08, 19 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! 23:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation here would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The relevant notability guideline is WP:NACTOR . Our threshold, accordingly, is significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows . I'm not sure that being a contestant in a reality TV show is necessarily a significant role for the purposes of applying this guideline. However, in this specific case, it probably is, considering also that the two shows had only 18 and 20 contestants, respectively. I think we can somewhat safely say that NACTOR is fulfilled. Actualcpscm scrutinize , talk 22:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Actualcpscm. Dfertileplain ( talk ) 19:38, 2 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

Newport Retail Park: Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn ( talk ) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep has attracted significant attention due to its purchase by a local council, including coverage in national broadcaster BBC News. Garuda3 ( talk ) 11:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , for the same reasons as Garuda3. The retail park has attracted wider attention because of its recent pruchase by a neighbouring local authority. Sionk ( talk ) 22:03, 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

Soa Mattrix: WP:TOOSOON Xclusivzik ( talk ) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa . Xclusivzik ( talk ) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . There are a number of claims in the article that might lead to one concluding that this person is notable if they were true, but the claims don't seem to actually be true; the article seems to have substantial errors: There's a claim in the article that the individual's song, "Mina Nawe", was #1 in South Africa. If that's true, the individual would pass WP:NMUSIC #2. However, there's no source, I can't independently verify it, and I doubt its veracity. There's also a claim that the individual has had multiple 2-platinum certified songs; this would pass WP:NMUSIC #3 ( Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country ) if true. The sources for this are TimesLive ( Wikipedia article ) , ZaTunes , and RISA . The TimesLive piece doesn't actually support this claim, and the RISA website notes that Soa Mattrix was one of 3 featured artists on "Nomathemba", a certified platinum song by DJ Givy Baby, but I don't think that this sort of credit is qualifying for purposes of NMUSIC#3. And, RISA doesn't actually support the 2x platinum claim for any of the artist's own songs. Meanwhile, ZaTunes is not listed at WP:A/S , and it doesn't really appear to be the sort of site that can be used to establish claims of music certification. Then come the claims regarding music awards; the article notes that the artist has been nominated multiple times in the South African Amapiano Music Awards. Given the relative recency of the Amapiano genre, and the lack of an apparent established awards series, I don't think that this would help meet the bar set in WP:NMUSIC #8 (i.e. [h]as won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award ). Overall, I'm not seeing anything that's indicating notability due to something subject-specific, but I don't have access to non-English publications that might have covered the artist significantly. As such, I leave the bold as a comment, but I'd lean towards deletion if WP:SIGCOV cannot be found. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per below; it's not clear to me why the one RISA source that's cited in the article is wrong, but the link provided below is fairly convincing that "Mina Nawe" is certified at higher than gold ( WP:NMUSIC #3) and that Soa Mattrix is the primary artist for the song. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Subject has a Double Platinum certified record and was also featured on a Platinum record certified by RiSA . It states here on a green source that the subject was nominated for two awards. Haven't done a full research but I believe that they pass #3 and #8 of WP:MUSICBIO , and here is the lengthy and in-depth detailed coverage. The subject also released a collaborative studio album with DJ Maphorisa titled Tintswalo (2021) through SME Africa with guest appearances from Kabza de Small , Boohle and Blxckie just to mention a few, they also released Finest (2022) also under SME Africa, of which I believe pass #5 of WP:MUSICBIO which states that: " Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). ". dxneo ( talk ) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dxneo : Can you provide a source that verifies the double platinum certification? I'm having trouble finding it in the source cited in the article for that claim, and I'm a bit doubtful as to the claim. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Red-tailed hawk , Here is the link to the official RiSA website, I also don't know why it does not appear when accessing that template generated source (which leads to the older version of the site). Alternatively you can: go to that cited source , then go to the hamburger option on the top right corner go to Certifications , then Gold & Platinum search " Soa Mattrix " I believe you'll now find two certified records, one certified Platinum and the other Double Platinum. Note that the subject already passed notability through #6 and #8 per WP:MUSICBIO . dxneo ( talk ) 11:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election: No opinion polls for the next election have been held since then and are unlikely to be held for a while. A case of WP:TOO SOON John B123 ( talk ) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom . John B123 ( talk ) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Given that the UK is a large developed country, the first opinion polls for this topic are bound to be published in less than two weeks. Castroonthemoon ( talk ) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have been viewing these UK opinion polling pages daily for a long time, including periods a long way before a general election. I am interested in long-term trends and (polling) reactions to events. For example, I would like to see polling reacions in the first weeks AFTER the general election (now!) to get an idea of the public's reaction to the election result. Please keep these pages and allow them to be updated as they were up until the general election. This page is very useful. Hill Vista ( talk ) 09:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Hill Vista ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic [ reply ] Keep If you look at the first polling following the 12th December 2019 General Election, it took place within a month of the election. It doesn't make any sense to delete this article merely because there haven't been any polls within the first nine days. There were also several polls within the first month after both 2017 and 2015 elections. LarryJayCee ( talk ) 20:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Opinion polling has begun and is on the article (party approval rating and leader approval rating). If we delete this article now it'll only be recreated in a week or two anyway as wider polling resumes. I'm not sure I see the point in deleting an article that will inevitably be recreated soon after. — Czello ( music ) 08:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] At this stage party approval ratings and leader approval ratings are a reflection of peoples opinion of the last election not the next election. -- John B123 ( talk ) 08:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This sounds like WP:OR , especially given that the polls took place after the election. — Czello ( music ) 10:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Also the sooner that the page is put in place, the better as this will ensure that early opinion polls after the last election are included and therefore any trends in polling from that date will be better defined for viewers looking for the data in a few years time. Crdent ( talk ) 08:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG , which is what is relevant here. Traumnovelle ( talk ) 09:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's a bizarre statement. There are such articles for every general election going back some time. 2601:5C6:8180:BAD0:D093:4127:6C22:827C ( talk ) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. Redtree21 ( talk ) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect Per Redtree21 It will take a while before there will be enough data to merit a standalone article, until then it should be merged into Next United Kingdom general election#Opinion polling N1TH Music ( talk ) 10:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , no point in deleting it when it will simply be recreated again in a short while. G-13114 ( talk ) 14:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fish and chips condiment if it keeps getting remade WP:TOOSOON ? This sounds like it shouldn’t be too hard to drum up a draft, and convince a mop to give it the go ahead, when the time and resource is right. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 22:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested above until there are polls to include. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Keep now that an election opinion poll has been released and added to the page. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are already four polls in there. — Czello ( music ) 09:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But none of those are opinion polls for the next election. As the article clearly states: As of 12 July 2024, no voting intent opinion polls have yet been published since the 2024 general election -- John B123 ( talk ) 09:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page isn't titled 'voting intention opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election'. Approval rating polls are on the page, since it is a page about polling related to the next election. All of the polls on the page are opinion polls. Benocalla2 ( talk ) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page is entitled Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election . None of the polls are related to that. -- John B123 ( talk ) 14:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So then your argument should first be we shouldn't include approval polls (which talk pages would reject, since they are polls relating to opinion), before you argue we delete a page which will be recreated soon after. Talk pages exist to weed out these debates, you can't just nominate a page for deletion because you disagree with what's included Benocalla2 ( talk ) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've nominated the page for deletion firstly because there are no opinion polls for the next election yet. The polls you mention are supplemental to the main subject of the page. Secondly, as there are no opinion polls for the next election, there can be no references for them to establish WP:GNG (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Without GNG there can be no article. The fact that almost certainly there will be polls in the future is irrelevant, at the present time the article does not meet the notability requirements. John B123 ( talk ) 17:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the topic of GNG, as it's been brought up more than once now – on a technical level that could be argued, but realistically it's simply not true. Yes, opinion polling will always be notable, even if the 'main' opinion polling, (rather than approval ratings) has not begun yet. It's difficult to argue this fails GNG when we all know the article will be recreated in a week or two anyway. Deleting it on this technicality seems to run afoul of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY . — Czello ( music ) 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Benocalla2 Generally, there is a separate article for leadership approval polling. But that’s besides the main point, there’s all of 4 polls, there is no reason this can’t be merged into the also small article for the general election itself until there are at least a couple dozen voting intent polls. Its simply easier to manage. N1TH Music ( talk ) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy redirect For goodness sake, do not create articles that have literally zero content about the actual subject just to have an article. This belongs in the main article until actually warranted. Reywas92 Talk 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is not "literally zero content". Four polls are already in there. — Czello ( music ) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But those 4 polls are not Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election which is the page title, so in relation the the page title "literally zero content" is a fair comment. -- John B123 ( talk ) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as suggested above by G-13114 , there's very little reason to delete this article when in a matter of days it'll probably have more poll entries on it than your typical NZ election would have in total by the end of their government's 3 year term. This in addition to the fact that despite not being any post-election voting intention polls as of yet, there already exist a handful of leadership rating polls conducted after the election on the page already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahnamate ( talk • contribs ) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : article will obviiously become more important over the next 4-5 years (after which it will becone a historical record) - why delete something that would inevitably have to be created and why waste other editor's time? Roy Bateman ( talk ) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Keep, there's little reason to delete the article since it will be recreated within a week of its deletion. The article shouldn't have been created before any VI polling was done, however that isn't justification to delete it. There are still opinion polls on the page (party and leadership approval) and such it still fulfils the title purpose. This discussion is a waste of time, and it is preventing editors from actually contributing to wikipedia. Opinion polls aren't just voting intention, they are polls asking for public opinion. Benocalla2 ( talk ) 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election for now and recreate article when more polling has been completed and the results published. 217.79.149.203 ( talk ) 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as it's abundantly clear that it won't be long until this is definitely a justified page to have. It's not as if there's a chance that there will never be justification for this page. 146.90.4.163 ( talk ) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Almost certain that this will change within the next fortnight, not to mention other means of polling, if not approval data, listed upon the page; Having acknowledged that there are no apparent documents of official opinion polling as of yet, it is suffice to say further shall become available shortly. Temporarily deleting the article until recreation after opinion polling is published is simply beyond futile. TheRevisionary ( talk ) 13:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : this article will be relevant later; there is no point deleting this, as polling will appear within 4 weeks. This would be better rather than deleting this and creating this again. Gordonltycall ( talk ) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Gordonltycall ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic [ reply ] Keep. There is now national VI polling and there will be more in the coming weeks. CipherRephic ( talk ) 17:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Dclemens1971 and CipherRephic : The WeThink poll recently added to the page is a poll on the last election not the next one. As far as I'm aware there are still no polls for the next election. Whilst at some stage in the future, when several relevant polls have been carried out, this will be a valid article, at present it fails the WP:GNG notability guidelines. From WP:CLOSEAFD : Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments . Arguments such as little reason to delete the article since it will be recreated within a week of its deletion are not policy based. So the work editors have already put into the article is not lost, I would suggest the article is draftified until sufficient polls have been carried out to enable it to pass WP:GNG . -- John B123 ( talk ) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Scroll down halfway on the WeThink poll. It was fielded July 11-12 and included a question on future voting intention. I had no problem with this page existing once polls were available to include on it so I see no reason not to keep now. And of course the work on the article would not be lost with a redirect, but that expedient is no longer necessary. Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 23:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The WeThink poll is not, in fact, "a poll on the last election." The fieldwork was conducted on the 11th and 12th of July, several days after the election, and while it asked some questions on the intricacies of voting behaviour going into the election, the section used by the article - the VI polling - covers the next election. CipherRephic ( talk ) 23:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dclemens1971 and CipherRephic : Thanks for the clarification, I only read the first part of the article which is about the last election. -- John B123 ( talk ) 06:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. The first poll has already come out at this point. If it was deleted, it wouldn't be long before it was recreated anyway. DarkHorse234 ( talk ) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is no reason to delete an article for the small period of time in between the last election and the first poll. SportingFlyer T · C 10:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Never too soon 82.2.138.124 ( talk ) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. As polling companies are starting to conduct opinion polls again, the article is already to take shape. — Paul1337 ( talk ) 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I see no reason for deletion whatsoever 82.33.38.15 ( talk ) 13:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There has already been one poll conducted and published per BPC rules. The argument is thusly null and void. DogTwo ( talk ) 12:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It's obvious that this isn't going to be deleted, it's just wasting people's time. Isn't it time to put this to bed now? This should never have been reopened. G-13114 ( talk ) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Frankly, it is ridiculous to suggest deleting this. Likewise any other such pages which show op.polls for a national election. 2.68.82.235 ( talk ) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We already have polling for the next election coming out. This AFD was TOOSOON. FOARP ( talk ) 10:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election . Both articles are small: "Next United Kingdom general election" is just over 14000 bytes large and "Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election" is just over 13000 bytes. Compare those to this AfD which prior to my edit stood at 18000 bytes, and infact the AfD would have 1000 more words than the just under 1500 words a combined election and opinion polling article would have, and therefore it would be better for the time being to have one article covering both of these related topics, and there is no reason to WP:SPLIT them (with the words count being less than a quarter of the 6000 suggested as a baseline to start splitting articles based on length), rather it is inconvient to do this because it means we are separating out the two topics. To my knowledge, there is not enough notable information about either topic that would significantly lengthen either article. Some editors have commented that other elections have separate opinion poll articles, but WP:Other stuff exists points out this is not a good argument by itself, and the argument fails to recognise that other opinion polling articles have hundreds if not thousands of opinion polls and other surveys described in them, while the one in question has 1 opinion poll and a few surveys. Another point being made is along the lines of "there's no point deleting it now because it will just be recreated in the future". This argument seems a) to suggest it's difficult to recreate articles, which it isn't and b) to be an argument focused entirely on what will be best in the future, and not what is best now. So, for the short term, it would be best to have one article with all the verifiable information about the next UK general election, as there is not enough information to merit needing two articles. This will almost certainly change (although probably not as Czello says in a week or two as only a handful of polls would be published by then most likely), but I'm thinking about the here and now. To summarise, a list of a handful of opinion polls/surveys does not merit being a separate article. -- T ed E dwards 16:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Camp El Tesoro: A google brings up nothing but a couple of blogs and a press release, and a search of the newspapers.com archive only brings up advertisements in local newspapers, nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions . Devonian Wombat ( talk ) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk ) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems notable in particular for their program for bereaved children. See e.g. [22] [23] , [24] , [25] , ProQuest 390323292 , ProQuest 235247096 . One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award : [26] . Jfire ( talk ) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I've added sources. This is a very well-known children's camp in Texas. — Maile ( talk ) 23:47, 24 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

Alma Junction, Colorado: At best this could be covered by a single sentence in Alma, Colorado . – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado . – dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A single sentence doesn't cut it, as this one is in the history books. If only editors had consulted them instead of stupid fact-free entertainment news articles about South Park . Uncle G ( talk ) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per rewrite performed by Uncle G ( WP:HEY ) and WP:GEOLAND . RecycledPixels ( talk ) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per excellent upgrade that establishes notability. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) . [ reply ] Keep : coverage which establishes notability has been added to the article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 15:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Good job. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Bearian ( talk ) 00:31, 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

2023–24 A.C. Milan season: Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON , but currently fails WP:GNG . Onel 5969 TT me 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy . Shellwood ( talk ) 12:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Hi, probably is just a case of WP:TOOSOON , but is it worthy to remove now if, in just few days, new information will be available and then added and referenced? Actual season is about to end by May 2023, when info on new season will start to be avavilable. I would keep the page, maybe placing templates asking for new references/information to be added as soon as available. Keep also in mind that, in the same timespan, also other teams' 2023-24 season pages will start to appear... Riktetta ( talk ) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Upcoming season of one of the top leagues in Europe is for sure notable. Quite standard to set them up at this stage of the year prior to the beginning of the season. Another bad nomination by Onel5969 , wasting everyone's time. -- SuperJew ( talk ) 08:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Another waste of time AfD, article will be needed. Govvy ( talk ) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SuperJew, and agree this is yet another flawed AFD from the same user. Giant Snowman 22:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I'm not sure what lead to this nomination for this bog-standard subpage - which is at worst a week or two early. Nominator needs to stop these disruptive FOOTY nominations. I'm asking User:onel5969 to please withdraw it, so as not to waste any more time on it. Nfitz ( talk ) 05:13, 26 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

Razboishte Monastery: All of the sources I've found either mention it in passing or are just blogs. Flux55 ( my talk page ) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions . Flux55 ( my talk page ) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Geography . Shaws username . talk . 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose . It's a notable monument and attraction in the area. Several articles mention it as a protected national monument of culture or an archeological monument of culture, although I can't find an official list online. Here's a article dedicated to the monastery's heritage and here's a passing mention in another one as one of the few cave monasteries in the Balkans. And this is a book about the monastery's history. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Assuming GF on its notability. This is possibly an English translation of the sourced Bulgiarian Wikipedia article . This site is all over the internet, but I am not sure if these are tourist listings, or otherwise. Is it possible to get an English translation of the Bulgiarian article? This site is all over YouTube in various postings. — Maile ( talk ) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep arguments from Todor Bozhinov above are convincing Arved ( talk ) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to easily pass WP:GNG when searching in Bulgarian? SportingFlyer T · C 12:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sources cited appear to satisfy GNG. Djflem ( talk ) 12:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Unfortunately the online list of heritage listed sites in Sofia Province is a work in progress and Godech has not yet been added, but this will undoubtedly be on it and therefore meet WP:GEOFEAT . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst ( talk ) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep

Amsvartnir: The article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the threshold of significant coverage for a separate article. Jontesta ( talk ) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . Jontesta ( talk ) 03:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As with just about every other place or thing in Norse myth, the article could easily be greatly expanded with this or that mention or line of inquiry. It also contains discussion unique to the location. There's no need to merge it into anything else and it shouldn't be deleted. :bloodofox: ( talk ) 09:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This may be a rather short topic, but I think there's enough coverage in secondary sources to establish stand-alone notability. The Encyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Places , p. 19, has an entry and so I think we should, too. This has about half a page of etymological analysis, and this has some more. Both being very old, I expect that there is more up-to-date scholarly analysis out there. Daranios ( talk ) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be helpful for the nominator to evaluate the sources brought up in the discussion to see if they are acceptable to them. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I find the other encyclopedia's coverage of it more convincing. PARAKANYAA ( talk ) 09:20, 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

Mikhail Komelkov: -Lemonaka‎ 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia . -Lemonaka‎ 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:1E does not apply to this article, he is not notable for a single event, but for earning the title, Hero of the Soviet Union and fighting in numerous air battles. Through a quick search on Google Books, I found he is mentioned in the following sources [25] [26] [27] . He is also mentioned in this webpage about the P-39 Airacobra in the USSR, [28] . There are also some sources on the Russian Wikipedia article about him . — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk • contribs ) 08:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The Russian Wikipedia article mentions entries on the subject in this biographical dictionary and this history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . An air ace, who we usually keep, with the highest award of his country, which we usually keep. Consensus is definitely to keep. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Person is awarded by one of the highest award of USSR. There are many references to him in the literature, although it is not shown in the article. It's easy to google and check. Kursant504 ( talk ) 12:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.

keep