The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am unconvinced that
WP:BIO is met. The only source present in the article which goes into any detail on the subject is
this and my searches have not found any others. If that is the only in-depth coverage, we are short of having multiple sources which provide in-depth coverage.
SmartSE (
talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. Nothing in this article suggests real notability. It looks like weakly written self-promotion.
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 22:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete in addition to Hurst being non-notable, his organization the
Taproot Foundation may not be notable either given it appears to mostly be referenced by paid for press and press releases. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing to establish notability.
TheLongTone (
talk) 16:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fast Company article may be good, but there aren't enough coverage to keep this one.
Royal88888 (
talk) 09:59, 5 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This isn't appropriate for soft-deletion as the primary contributor is still actively editing the article. Relisting to form consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Significantly expanded since nomination with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Easily meets the GNG and has scope for further expansion.
Philafrenzy (
talk) 16:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears to have been appropriately expanded.
Whispyhistory (
talk) 21:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I hope recently found sources can find their way out of this AFD discussion and into the article itself. LizRead!Talk! 05:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:ADMASQ for non notable periodical. Fails
WP:GNG.
WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. Refunded after soft delete at prior AfD, and renominated for a fuller discussion. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep — per my reasonings for contesting the soft deletion: While I doubt anyone thinks the page itself is fitting, even a cursory glance at the actual The Africa Report site would show that it is clearly notable — interviews with heads of state, interviews with business leaders, analysis on politics across the continent, mentions in the The New York Times and other papers, etc. This seems like a case of a bad article for a notable subject getting just deleted instead of flagged and fixed.
Watercheetah99 (
talk) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Watercheetah99 Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to
be bold in updating pages, because
wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always
preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the
sandbox. If you need additional help, check out
our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at
the Teahouse. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment overall I oppose since per comment above it seems notable, however there is urgent need for better citations.
Homerethegreat (
talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. "Seems notable" isn't sufficient, there needs to be some actual new sources brought to this discussion to address concerns in nomination statement. If this journal is "clearly notable", finding reliable sources shouldn't be difficult. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep. The subject lacks notability.
Micheal Kaluba (
talk) 15:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Micheal Kaluba, this opinion makes no sense at all. If you believe the subject lacks notability, why are you arguing for a Keep? And a Procedural Keep at that. I don't think you are taking participation in AFD discussions very seriously, investigating the article and reviewing the sources. LizRead!Talk! 05:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Liz, there is no need to be hash to me. With Procedural keep, I mean more work needs to be done to the article or pushing it draft other than deleting it, someone dedicated their time to write that article. So don't think that I am not taking this serous, I personally have other things to do but here I am because I believe in this okay?
Micheal Kaluba (
talk) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
And yet you are doing nothing but offering nonsensical rationales that provide no help whatsoever.
Uncle G (
talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The article cites a press release and no independent sources. Looking, I can find no independent sources. This is clearly not a language problem, as this is an English language publication. This is a problem that no-one outwith the publishing company has documented the publishing company's magazine. Moreover the vaguely handwaved aforementioned "mentions in the The New York Times and other papers" simply do not exist at all, as far as I can determine.
Uncle G (
talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Kindly, there is no possible way you actually looked if your takeaway was that the mentions "simply do not exist at all" — there is a button with "NYT" in the find sources parentheses above, there are three recent mentions right there. More in
Foreign Policy,
Africanews, the
BBC, the
Washington Post,
DW,
The Economist,
The Guardian,
Mail & Guardian, and more. You could’ve genuinely just asked for the other mentions and I would've replied with them instead of pretending to have looked and found none.
Watercheetah99 (
talk) 04:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per @Watercheetah99 (above), the AR gets mentioned—and recently—as a source in many
WP:RS/Ps, such as New York Times123, BBC12, and Washington Post1. Here is one of the Editorial Board members of the notable African Affairs journal,
Nic Cheeseman, noting in his bio that he also writes for the
African Report. Here is the African Report appearing as a source in papers on
JSTOR. Sympathy with the nom as it is not an obvious case (my initial searches were inconclusive), but I do think that very high-quality global news sources (and academics) have regard for this publication, and it therefore should be kept (and improved hopefully).
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
And obviously, it is a part of the world that has proportionally fewer quality news sources, so when we find one that is well regarded by developed world quality sources, we should protect and help it—as sources is our thing :)
Aszx5000 (
talk) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources presented by Watercheetah99 against our GNG guideline. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: per
Aszx5000's well stated !vote. Here's to hoping they update the article to reflect informaiton from the sources they list. -
UtherSRG(talk) 17:18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the show itself is clearly notable, it's not clear that the list of individual episodes is necessary. At present, this page (as well as those for other years) uses only primary sources: one for the WW...DTM archive and one to Twitter.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 23:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - You've only nominated the list of lists, and not the lists themselves. After two relistings, it's too late to add them all to this nom if that was intended. A list of lists is just a navigational aid and isn't required to be independently notable. My mistake. I must've opened both the nominated article and the one linked by the first commenter and got confused. Still, I don't see a reason to delete just 2023's episodes when these exist for every year (or at least many years). We don't have a great guideline to determine when we should list out radio/podcast episodes (and then whether to distinguish between fiction, variety, interview, etc.). I guess it'll come down, in some fashion, to "would the ideal article about the show include a list of episodes if it didn't skew the size/npov of the article?" If yes, then a spin-off list may make sense, and I guess that's where I land here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Rhododendrites: I decided to nominate one article instead of every one of them despite knowing that most of them have the same issue. I wanted to see how people would respond. This feels a bit like
WP:WHATABOUTX.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment why not take a page from
WP:TVSPLIT, this doesn't seem too long and could be kept on the main article page, and just leave a redirect?
microbiologyMarcus(petri dish·
growths) 15:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - the page needs sourcing, there is no denying that - but it would be too large to merge into another article. Additionally, it does not make sense to delete this page and not the other lists; where would all this information go, or even a condensed version? I understand that the intention was to see how editors would respond to deletion, but I think deleting this page would just put huge holes in the project without fixing anything. I would recommend working on sourcing and expanding this page OR, if it must be merged, merging some of the lists together (perhaps by decades? e.g. List of 2010s Wait Wait Don't Tell me! episodes)
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 01:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as the subject is definitely a notable journalist and editor.
Batagur baska (
talk) 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
comment: Please provide a reason as opposed to saying the equivalent of "It's true because I said so".
AriTheHorse 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
If you read the article, it clearly indicates the journalistic and editorial notability of the subject. The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done. I do not have to state a rationale, only my opinion, and please do not try to misrepresent my opinion.
Batagur baska (
talk) 03:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Batagur baska The article has no secondary sources. All of them are primary sources. If you have secondary sources that can prove him as a
notable, please provide them. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (
🧾 -
💬) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV. The piece in The Hindu is a press release announcing an event he spoke at, not IRS coverage.
Comment: Bal is the editor-in-chief of
ESPNcricinfo, which, per The Hindu, is "the world's most widely read cricket website" (
link). It is perhaps no surprise, then, that a simple Google search for his name turns up tens of thousands of hits—not just the numerous bylines, but articles citing him as an authority (
examples), articles directly about him (e.g.,
1,
2), and interviews of him (e.g.,
1,
2). Whether judged by the
general notability guideline, or by
WP:JOURNALIST—cited by the nominator, which asks whether The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors—the standard would appear to be met. Incidentally, while the two editors who have voted to delete have claimed, respectively, that The article has no secondary sources and that there is No evidence of SIGCOV, neither indicates what efforts—if any—they undertook to actually look for sources. As
Batagur baska correctly states, The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done.See generallyWP:BEFORE. --
Usernameunique (
talk) 05:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So,
Usernameunique, are you voicing an opinion to Keep this article? I see your criticism but not your opinion on what should be done with this article. LizRead!Talk! 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Usernameunique Please, This is definitely not a widely cited.
The reference to The Hindu is just a press release.
India Times has a category with six news items. His name is not even in one of the titles. Only mentioned once or twice in the news.
India Television, E4M and Afaqs are not independent or notable sources.
Cricket Couch is just a blog. who also writes for ESPN as well.
Since he's written extensively for ESPN and other magazines for over twenty years, it's no big deal to have his name prominent on Google. His own writings do not prove him notable.
The Indian Television and E4M links are the same press release announcing new roles for Bal and another journalist. The "sources" are clearly marketing tools: IT: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. E4M: exchange4media was set up in year 2000 with the aim of publishing niche, relevant and quality publications for the marketing, advertising and media professionals.JoelleJay (
talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Subject does not pass the GNG due to a lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Blogs and press releases just won't do.
Let'srun (
talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Article creator here - I have no opinion either way so I won't argue whether these sources meet SIGCOV/GNG, but I was able to find mentions of the game in quite a few places:
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. I'll leave it up to others to decide either way.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs) 19:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Was unable to find any SIGCOV on this. A short lived preseason venture that lasted two games.
Alvaldi (
talk) 10:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. LizRead!Talk! 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – if this should end up being deleted, my request (as author) is to have it be redirected to
Hammond Ciesar All-Americans while keeping the redirect in some of the current categories. Specifically: 1917 births, 2007 deaths, Chattanooga Mocs men's basketball players, and Hammond Ciesar All-Americans players. We don't want to lose all history of this player's tenure in the NBL, and I think it'd be a fair compromise to allow the redirect to populate the applicable categories.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 22:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
He was more
known for being a professional player than a college one, not particularly arbitrary.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 23:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. When no sources have been uncovered to meet SPORTSCRIT, the article should be deleted. Does not appear to meet GNG.
What encyclopedic info do we gain from that? The only material would be this particular reporter's very subjective personal opinions on his candidacy for a spot on the team. We can't write an article entirely around quotes.
JoelleJay (
talk) 02:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It's pretty much impossible to come up with a sensible inclusion criterion for this article (and others in the series). The current state of the selected inventions is a joke.
Dicklyon (
talk) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - The selected inventions seem perfectly reasonable, and inclusion criterion is nowhere near "impossible" to come up with, if it is determined to be necessary. Deletion would be pretty extreme for this article.
aaronneallucas (
talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The annular blowout preventer and Tupperware and Gilhoolie, sure, but some of the others, not so important.
Dicklyon (
talk) 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Doubts over criteria can be made clear on this AfD but so far, I am inclined to believe that this article is better than most of other articles.
Raymond3023 (
talk) 05:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment How many thousands of inventions would go on this list? You got significant advances in technology, as well as things like the
Lint roller. Different lists could be made. Tools, machinery, and factory equipment on one list. Computer related technology on another. Clothing, kitchen, and cleaning things on another. Does the time period or nation someone lived in when they invented it, make a difference though?
DreamFocus 11:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict)Comment -- This is essentially a list article. There might be some merit in a split by decades to provide articles of more manageable size. In some cases, such as spreadsheet and computer mouse, the inventions were unimportant at the time and only became important much later. However rigorous inclusion criteria are much less important for a list than a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: neither the arbitrary choice of time period, nor the classification of inventions by the nationality of the inventor, seem particularly encyclopedic. The article mentions "Cold War" as justification for the particular choice of period, but most of the items listed have nothing to do with the Cold War. I can't help but see this as non-notable listcruft.
Owen×☎ 14:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There was a poorly executed split into time periods that left this and the others in this semi-broken state.
Dicklyon (
talk) 20:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Reasonable criteria for the entries are difficult to formulate and would probably constitute
WP:OR. The sheer randomness of the current list bears this out: waterproof diapers and transistors???
Clarityfiend (
talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per nomination. An arbitrary time period with no possible-to-discern criteria that includes fishing lures, supersonic aircraft, and beer on the same list. If anything they should be categorized - I.E. "United States Military Inventions during the Cold War" or something, but everything on one big list is rather nonsensical and this could easily fill up with 1,000 unrelated items.
StreetcarEnjoyer (
talk) 21:48, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No significant coverage of the band to be found anywhere. The article only relias on primary sources. The only argument for notability is that their albums were published by a notable indie label. In my opinion not enough to meet notability criteria.
Broc (
talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
'Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but did find an AllMusic staff written bio
here together with album reviews
here,
here,
here, and
here,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Atlantic306: one single review still does not make the subject notable, as it is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Unless we find additional sources, I think the page should still be deleted. --
Broc (
talk) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There are four album reviews at AllMusic but I agree more is needed,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 13:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep moving to full keep in view of these additional sources: Pitcfork
here and
here, San Diego Reader
here, Exclaim
here and
here, PopMatters
here, and
here and Denver Post [
here to go with the four AllMusic sources. The music specific sources are listed as reliable at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Overall there is enough coverage to pass
WP:GNG in my view
Atlantic306 (
talk) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for finding this sources! I would agree that it is sufficient coverage to fulfill
WP:GNG. Would you like to move the sources over to the article, so that the effort was not in vain?
Broc (
talk) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Let alone
WP:OTHERSTUFF, Hulewicz recorded over a dozen albums between 1969 and 2013, a way longer and more productive career than that obscure and short-lived punk band. He was a
Meritorious Activist of Culture, an
Order of Polonia Restituta Knight's Cross and a
Gloria Artis Medal recipient. He is featured in books about the history of Polish music. If your argument was intended to help the band, it is not.
Cavarrone 09:25, 5 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete – Zero references, and his club career seems to have gaps.
Svartner (
talk) 17:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: As happens often in Eastern Europe, one has to get creative in finding sources. The Russian version (over 40% of
Bălți residents are Russian speakers, according to the 2014 census) of his name gives a few hits from sports media in Moldova, these two being on the extensive side:
[13][14]
Apparently both are linked to an incident where he injured another footballer during a match.
Here he is briefly mentioned as missing next game due to having amassed too many yellow cards, while
here he is listed on account of having scored an own goal. By this time he was playing for
FC Grănicerul Glodeni in the Moldovan second tier.
Furthermore, he appears to have had a parallel career in local politics, which included alleged death threats from the mayor of the town, a former political ally:
[15][16][17][18]
There is likely to be more, but I don't have time to look around, nor have I looked at these in depth. I do not know if this enough to save the article, either, and while I'd say it might be worth keeping, it would take someone to be willing to add information to the article, as well as filling in the gaps in his career using stats sites. Cheers.
Ostalgia (
talk) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It's probably enough to build a biography from, to be fair. I'd have said his football coverage probably just falls short of GNG but the politics stories seem to be enough. Since only 4% of Moldova is Russian and his name looked Romanian to me, I just presumed he was of Moldovan ethnicity, so presumed he wouldn't have much in Russian, but I was wrong clearly.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
No shame there, it was a reasonable assumption - you are most likely right about his ethnicity after all. Cheers.
Ostalgia (
talk) 08:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The two pure Q&A interviews
12 contribute nothing. The politics articles have very little info either--his picture among many
3; a story mostly about accusations from his wife towards the Balti mayor where the only secondary independent coverage is In 2015, Vladimir Keptenari entered the Municipal Council on the list of Our Party. On January 15, 2018, he even took part in a hunger strike , which was then announced by PP advisers in protest against the pressure on advisers from the ruling PDM party.4; a blurb on his municipal councilor candidacy alongside 26 other candidacy blurbs
5; and another piece on his wife's accusations that has no coverage of him
6. Nowhere near enough coverage to meet GNG, let alone NPOL (which considers a lot of candidacy coverage routine).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject, a Trinidadian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet
WP:GNG. All I have found in my searches is
this interview.
JTtheOG (
talk) 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 11:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 11:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep
Represents National team and more rerences are available.
Davidindia (
talk) 12:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable location. In a previous AfD, this article was converted to a redirect to
El Dorado County, California, which in my opinion was a mistake as there is absolutely nothing to be said about this place and it is not mentioned in the county article at all. No mention of a Tylers Corner or Tylers was found in any of three histories of the region that I was able to access online:
[19],
[20],
[21]. It's first labeled as Tylers Corner on the 1952 Aukum and Camino USGS topo maps:
[22], but that's the only mention of this place I can find other than the cited sources, which are insufficient for notability. This is just an intersection that once had a few houses; that is not a community, as required by
WP:GEOLAND.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I also searched for sources and found none.
Jfire (
talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Could have left mass-produced junk as redirect instead of clogging up afd.
Reywas92Talk 00:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Run of the mill bureaucrat. As best I can tell, the subject is vice-president of "HR, IT and regulations" within the state-owned oil company.
Thenightaway (
talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:NBASIC. I was only able to find brief mentions of, and quotes from, the subject in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 12:01, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I don't see any links to Wikipedia articles in there, just links to external sites.
DreamFocus 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
XOR'easter, improving the list to cover (some of) the programs appropriately does not seem practical. Keep. According to
WP:NLIST, individual items in a list need not be notable, while the category the list is about does. As the category is already covered in its own article and is criticized as spammy/
indiscriminate, less notable entries should be culled as per
WP:LSC.Holzklöppel (
talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Propagation of uncertainty isn't about the software. No software is mentioned at all.
Category:Lists of software shows how the many other lists of this type work, they list notable software that has its own Wikipedia articles. This list is old. Has any of the software listed on it gotten its own articles yet?
DreamFocus 00:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The software listed implements the concept described in the article and should probably be wikilinked there. If lists of software on Wikipedia were just lists of Wikipedia articles covering software, deleting would be in the interest of consistency, but a cursory look at
the categoryindicatesotherwise.
Outdated information should be corrected by editing. I don't know if any of the programs covered are notable enough to have an article.Holzklöppel (
talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete in the absence of sources that indicate this particular feature to be a noteworthy thing to organize software by, and the lack of secondary references to support the claims being made on behalf of these obscure tools/packages/scripting languages.
XOR'easter (
talk) 21:01, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as content fork of bilateral relations article. All relevant text here was already merged into that article during the previous AfD. Dan •
✉ 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete content fork of bilateral relations article. Created during a spree of US embassy article creation.
LibStar (
talk) 09:49, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is nothing that indicates the subject is notable. This is purely sourced to Azerbaijani government sources or sources that are not independent of the Azerbaijan government.
Thenightaway (
talk) 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Effectively a puff piece for an authoritarian government (which is not surprising when one looks at the edit history of its creator).
Number57 12:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Those editors who want to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article or even a disambiguation page are free to do so. LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Article substantially falling afoul of WP:OR, with no sourcing to demonstrate the core concept and is simply rampant author description of the term. Only sections sourced are three lines about the Obama administration's foreign policy that referred to "America's Pacific Century" and would therefore be relevant on article's about his presidency.
Rambling Rambler (
talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Asian Century. This appears to be simply an alternative term for the same concept preferred by some Obama administration officials. Dan •
✉ 21:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: after reading both cited sources, I realize I've given this article too much credit. There isn't even a single mention of the term that isn't qualified by "America's," so the unqualified term "Pacific Century" is completely concocted by this article alone. The sources cited are not really notable and are about US policy, and don't fit into
Asian Century as I initially proposed. Dan •
✉ 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Asian Century per my arguments in last AfD (the term is mentioned there, redirects are
WP:CHEAP). The current version of the article is a crappy OR mess that can be TNTed, so I don't mind if there is hard deletion, although why bother? Soft redirect will do. In prior AfD there was a claim of a good source, but the link is 404, and the editor who added it did not provide full bibliography, nor, obviously did anyone try to rewrite this mess. PS. I see Mx. Granger did try to clean that up, but I fear it was just a waste of time. Washing trash does not make it less trashy, this needs to be written up from scratch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, or maybe replace with a disambiguation page for
The Pacific Century,
Pacific Century Motors, and
Pacific Century Cyberworks. I agree that this is not a notable topic, but it may be a reasonable search term for those topics. I don't think it should be redirected to
Asian Century, because I don't know of any sources indicating that the term "Pacific Century" is used in a similar way to the term "Asian Century". —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:GNG. Even if remedial action was possible, it is simply not notable enough to warrant a page.
Spinifex&Sand (
talk) 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or redirect to
Asian Century. As I mentioned in the last AfD, there are a number of Google Scholar results for the term "Pacific Century," many independent of the term "Asia-Pacific Century." The term goes back to at least the 1980s. The
article by Rosemary Foot and Andrew Walter includes a useful definition of the term and some history. --
Enos733 (
talk) 04:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
One of the earliest articles I could find was this editorial in
Science from 1987, titled "The Pacific Century." The term may have been offered by Professor
Robert Scalapino of the University of California Berkeley's Institute of East Asian Studies. -
Enos733 (
talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has been around for a while but does not indicate any notability. (The founder apparently "
worked with" HGTV, there's not much about it.) The sources are all PR material and I cannot find much in the way of third-party discussion of the company in reliable sources, beyond listings in seller websites, and promotional-type interviews or blog postings. ...discospinstertalk 19:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment the creator is also a blocked sockpuppet.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:NCORP. I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in reliable secondary sources. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 14:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A redirect makes sense, yes; the two paragraphs can easily be merged.
Drmies (
talk) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment after being unable to use the BL catalog I googled and found the NYer article and "How to Lose a Library" which both gave the distict impression that this was a signal event in the history of what used to be called the Information Age. The attack seemed independently notable distinct from the institution at large (like
Notre-Dame de Paris &
Notre-Dame fire) but maybe I overestimated the significance of databases being offline.
jengod (
talk) 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into BL then delete redirect while the information herein is noteworthy, its independence from the British Library is unclear, and the info could just go into a sub-section.
Chumpiht 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Why delete the history here? This is a reasonable redirect.
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 02:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair point. Redirect is good. Altered previous !vote.
Chumpiht 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep having been swayed by
Jfire's arguments below.
Chumpiht 01:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to British Library. The article is short and would fit well under a subheading
PARAKANYAA (
talk) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - the subject is notable and could be expanded. Otherwise, merging the information into BL would not be a bad idea as it means the information can be kept and the article can be remade again in the future.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 12:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is certainly a notable issue and it will only get more important (to BL users and the rest of the world) as we learn more about what happened and how they responded. Having this as a separate article means there is a special place for information on this significant event to be collected as news reports, magazine articles, and - eventually - the Library's own incident post mortem report - become available. Why is this article important? Because all similar institutions around the world need to learn lessons from it.
ZoneAlarm5 (
talk) 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of articles about this—not just one-off articles that appeared when it happened, but later-in-time articles that talk about its impact and implications. Examples:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12. It's also not necessarily an isolated event; the
Toronto Public Library suffered a similar attack not long before (
see here). Whatever the state of the article now, it could easily be built out into a healthy standalone article. --
Usernameunique (
talk) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:NEVENT, which says that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. All three of these prongs are met: this event had widespread national impact in the U.K., with the national library being taken offline for several months; it was widely covered in mainstream international news outlets such as the The New Yorker and New York Times, IT and cybersecurity-focused media such as The Register and Infosecurity Magazine, and museum and library journals such as Museums Journal and The Art Newspaper; and many of these articles contain detailed analysis or commentary about the wider impact of the event, e.g. Museums, galleries and archives have been urged to tighten their cyber security following the massive ransomware attack on the British Library and what can arts bodies do to combat ransomware threats?.
Jfire (
talk) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Well argued. I've changed my stance above.
Chumpiht 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jfire and Usernameunique. It is essentially a stub right now but it turns out this isn't "just" your every day cyber attack – the implications for other libraries, museums, and arts organizations worldwide is significant, and the fact that the British Library still isn't back online, months later, tells you it's BAD. That said, some of the coverage is still so recent that it's understandable why it was kind of hard to see what it all looked like in aggregate. All our energy now should be directed toward expanding the article and incorporating the many sources that have been identified in this discussion, also to provide readers with vital information they are looking for.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 06:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per sources substantial reliable sources found that demonstrate the lasting impact of this event. This is much more than a simple outage and newer sources show that. As an aside, I only found this AfD because my research for another article was disrupted by the attack.
Schminnte [
talk to me 15:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This is more of a procedural Keep because after going to a lot of trouble editing this article and putting together a source table, the nominator twice said they wanted to Keep this article.
Please do not start an AFD discussion unless you are seeking to delete an article. It's not an appropriate vehicle to encourage other editors to find new sources for you. LizRead!Talk! 22:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been editing this page for a couple of days mostly removing excessive external links to the organisation's website, boldly removing unsourced or improperly sourced content, verifying what I can and tagging what I can't verify. Then, I tried to improve the page by incorporating some secondary and tertiary sources but I've drawn a blank. I am confident that at this point I have explored
WP:ATD but after putting together the source assessment table below it's become clear to me that there isn't actually enough significant coverage in independent secondary sources to form an objective overview of this British charity. I contemplated doing prod but doing so would have sent other editors on a wild goose chase for reliable secondary sources which I don't want to do. So I've arrived at the conclusion that AfD is the only way forward.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
In this interview
https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/us-005578-irn504457-irn507288 this book's author discusses joining the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry". Therefore, this source isn't independent because she's writing about an organisation that she was a member of.
I've had a good flick through the book and it's very well written, very thorough and well citated.
The book goes into a lot of depth about this organisation's formation. It's just a shame it's not independent.
I added this source because it's easier to verify than checking Gottlieb's book out of a library but when I researched the author I realised that the author was part of the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry"
I'm not disputing this historian's research skills and literary prowess. It's just a shame it's not independent because WP requires independent secondary sources to verify notability.
It's incredibly detailed and very well-referenced.
✘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}}.
Keep While the subject's current iteration fails
WP:CORPDEPTH there's probably been enough written about this organisation's earlier iterations in pre-Internet sources to rescue this article and turn it into a C-Class article.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: per source assessment table and
WP:TNT, given it was tagged for conflict of interest for over a year.
बिनोद थारू (
talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
CommentHi
बिनोद थारू thanks for your contribution. Your
WP:TNT idea is viable. However,
WP:AFD discussions are to determine whether there is enough coverage, independent of the subject to create a coherent encyclopaedia entry about the subject. Anything else is off-piste. Therefore, I have struck through the last part of your contribution because it isn't relevant to this discussion. Thanks for understanding.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Update I've struck through
बिनोद थारू's entire contribution because it doesn't address the
WP:NCORP issue that we're here to discuss.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment If
बिनोद थारू doesn't wish to strike out the parts of their comment that aren't relevant to this discussion then would they please expand their comment a little bit? We're trying to determine whether there's enough coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources to justify retaining this article. I struck through your comment to elicit a more detailed response from you and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
As shown in the source table above, none of the sourcing used to build this article is
WP:INDEPENDENT, prompting a
WP:TNT delete. Also, I struggle to find significant coverage on Google that meets
WP:ORGCRIT and
WP:CORPDEPTH.
बिनोद थारू (
talk) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I just wanted to check to see if you are aware that I created the source evaluation table above when I took this article to
WP:AFD? Hence why I am encouraging you to base your comments on your research, not mine.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Neutral I will admit that independent sources about this subject are hard to come by by simply Googling the subject. However, I find it hard to believe that this orgnisation previously known as Central British Fund for German Jewry has no significant coverage. We're talking about an organisation that played a significant part in helping (and I'm choosing my words wisely) establish the state of
Israel and save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children before and during
World War Two many of whom became notable people and made notable contributions in their own right. Now it may be that World Jewish Releif is the wrong namespace and perhaps Central British Fund for German Jewry might be a better location for this entry. I just find it hard to believe that an organisation with so much historical significance hasn't had anything written about it by any historians.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep I'm sure we can find pre-internet sources.
No Swan So Fine (
talk) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong KeepI agree. I'll go to the library and see if I can find something a bit more independent than the Gottlieb book and thanks for your help here
No Swan So Fine. I wonder if a
WP:SNOWCLOSE is possible now? I feel there's a consensus in the air.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 06:24, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails NLIST. List was split from main article without discussion on Aug 30, 2023. This is an unneeded CFORK, much of the content violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. No objection to restoring properly sourced material to main article. //
Timothy ::
talk 17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This is indeed a superfluous CFORK.
TH1980 (
talk) 23:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete CFORK created without any consensus.
Lorstaking (
talk) 15:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Green Entertainment. The main article is so short, this will fit it in just fine.
DreamFocus 07:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Over the past two days, an IP address did the merge, so everything is there now.
DreamFocus 22:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think that there is anything to merge, and I'm not sure if the redirect would be useful, but I'm not against it per
WP:CHEAP.
Deltaspace42 (
talk •
contribs) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is nothing to merge that isn't already on the main article and a redirect would serve no useful purpose. Bungle(
talk •
contribs) 18:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. There is no coverage of this organization from sources that are independent of the Azerbaijan government. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with
Corruption in Azerbaijan.
Thenightaway (
talk) 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify.
Daniel (
talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Added other independent sources. The easiest solution would be to keep this, as it seems notable, but if a redirect is decided, then I guess it should be to a new section in the main Maldives article....-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Context not found in any of the cited references. The battle name is not recognized by any of the historians. Seems like source manipulation
Imperial[AFCND] 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
And which ones actually pass
wp:v, or (come to that)
wp:rs, a snippet, really?
Slatersteven (
talk) 10:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Deltaspace42, Certainly. I removed it after reviewing the references but couldn't locate the contexts used by the creator. The article appears to involve citation manipulation, and there is no mention of "Battle of Mundamala Ghat" anywhere. I encountered a source in what seems to be a local language, possibly Bengali, where not even the author's name isn't provided. How could I access and examine the verifiability from that source? After examining the snippets from the provided links, none of them reference "Mundamala Ghat" or the belligerent's name. If you have the information, please verify it by assessing its reliability and notability.
Imperial[AFCND] 11:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete based on
WP:V and
WP:SYNTH. If there are no solid, secondary sources that discussion this event specifically as the 'Battle of Mundamala Ghat' (and I can't find any), the article is a synthesis of sources and thus invalid for mainspace. An AtD of Draftify would be possible, but I just don't see any sources on which to build an encyclopaedic article. Cheers,
Last1in (
talk) 13:09, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Recently restored after a previous deletion, but without improvements. The article on this topic on Turkish Wikipedia has now been deleted ten times for lack of notability. Can we call it a day now?
Mccapra (
talk) 13:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was a tourism initiative launched by the Saudi government in February 2019 and which a likely COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for. There is nothing to indicate that this is notable. It has not been covered by reliable sources. It has solely been covered by sources that are not independent of the Saudi government. This Wikipedia article appears intended to promote a non-notable subject.
Thenightaway (
talk) 14:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as a fine example of client journalism.
Mccapra (
talk) 20:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage in sources independent from the government of Saudi Arabia. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see no case made for draftification within the last !vote StarMississippi 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Non notable musician.
Jax 0677 (
talk) 13:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This musician has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, a major encyclopedia of music. Why would this encyclopedia not cover what other major encyclopedias cover?
Chubbles (
talk) 14:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly a notable jazz musician.
Ghmyrtle (
talk) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Obituary in USA Today and entry in Grove -- clearly notable.
Jfire (
talk) 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: The subject's broad career (from June Christy to Roland Kirk, Sam Rivers, Eddie Lockjaw Davis, Dave Holland) is summarised in Rick Mattingly's article in the New Grove and in the USA Today obituary. I would prefer to see more - which the references noted on the Talk page could begin to provide - but the existing encyclopaedic coverage in the New Grove is indicative of biographical notability.
AllyD (
talk) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep for all of the reasons mentioned above, particularly The Grove entry. Jazz musicians don't get a lot of coverage, and drummers get even less. ("What do you call someone wo hangs out with musicians? A drummer.")
JSFarman (
talk) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability. Mentions in Google Books seem to be trivial and not
significant coverage. I can only find
one source, and that's only about a data breach. I doubt one article about a data breach that happened to a website makes it notable. —MATRIX!(
a good person!)citation unneeded 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A product of the times when notability guidelines was lax, no source for it either. Non-notable like most forums.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 15:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable due to no significant coverage -
WP:GNG. Only found an outdated post on a Wikia/"Fandom" page and a reddit article.
StreetcarEnjoyer (
talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree, not seeing much by way of sources. No results in my newspapers.com search and basically nothing of quality in the first few pages of Google search.
Crunchydillpickle🥒 (
talk) 00:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article's subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NWEB. I also could only find trivial coverage of the article's subject. -
Aoidh (
talk) 04:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Not notable, and a Google search only shows trivial mentions of the site. There is also only one reference in the article which is something about a data breach. FlutterDash344 (
talk) 23:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 16:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Played a single game in the second tier of Russia about 3 years ago before disappearing. I am not convinced that this passes
WP:SPORTBASIC and
WP:GNG and the current article only uses database sources, which fail to confer notability. The best Russian sources that I could find were
Redyarsk and
FCDM, both of which were only passing mentions of the subject. Given that he seems to have disappeared, I don't think notability in the near future is that likely either.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure if it could pass notability criteria then either.
NavjotSR (
talk) 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was not delete. There is no consensus about whether to merge the content instead, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable interactive fiction title. The article currently contains significant coverage from one secondary source. A
WP:BEFORE yields one more reliable review from GameTrailers[23]. But even with that considered, the article unfortunately falls short when taking a
WP:THREE approach - if there is something else out there that is pretty clearly reliable significant coverage, happy to withdraw this nomination.
It may be said that the article inherits notability from its one award and IFDB status. The article's reliance on the IFDB is not in my view significant as a
WP:USERG source. Even putting that aside, the cited #1 listings are based on an all-time poll of 223 users and a 2023 poll of 59 users - this is not particularly wide or significant.
It is hard to gauge the significance of the game receiving a XYZZY Award in 2012. It does have some clout. It seems to be a legacy community-voted award started by a defunct interactive fiction e-magazine and continued on a Wordpress blog by what I assume were original affiliates or community veterans. But the website lacks information and it doesn't seem to generate much external coverage outside that community, although I'm no expert in this space. I think the Wikipedia page overstates the importance of the awards based on how its sources are being quoted, but it's probably a needless rabbit hole to get deeper into that side of things. Open to views on whether these sort of awards do create an inheritable sort of notability of their own absent other coverage.
Thanks for any thoughts.
VRXCES (
talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Emily Short#Works per
WP:ATD. I don't believe the game is notable, but it's worth a mention on her article.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Obviously I'm more supportive to merge in this case. I am probably ignoring a separate AfM process for this sort of thing. Putting to the side whether
WP:THREE is satisfied or not, do you have any views on whether community awards like XYZZY have a relationship to assessing subject notability?
VRXCES (
talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I think a community award would fall under something like
WP:USERG and would just be inadmissible to prove notability for anything.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 14:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Thanks for the GameTrailers link. I also added a 1h review as source, which goes into depth about the game. If that is not enough, I suggest adding {{Expert needed|Video games|talk=|reason=|date=}} at the top to attract further attention from experts in the subject. Counterfeit Monkey seems to be one of the best, perhaps the best, regarded game in its form interactive fiction. --
Bensin (
talk) 13:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that sounds good. I'm not familiar with the expert needed template but always welcome second opinions, especially from those that have more experience. Like in the Eat Me nomination, I get that this is probably disappointing and does enter a space of pedantry on my part so appreciate your patience and help with finding more sourcing.
The pretty heavy reliance on the Short Game citation is fair as it does seem to be significant coverage, but it is not clear to me that it's
reliable coverage that helps the notability debate. The 'About' page of the site says that it's an in-depth podcast made by four interactive fiction fans, with the bio even light-heartedly joking that only one of the four hosts has any real credentials in video games.
I don't think anyone can deny that this game is clearly very highly regarded by people in the interactive fiction space, but it seems to be mostly community-led
popularity, and that hasn't translated to a lot of coverage outside it. This is not to minimize the value of the interactive fiction community or assume that their commentary is unreliable or they don't generate notable games, but the sourcing does not reflect the imputed reputation if only two reliable reviews and a fan podcast can be found.
VRXCES (
talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. Besides, The Short Game has made content close to 10 years, and has produced almost 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. --
Bensin (
talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The only hits I'm getting for "The Short Game" are an unrelated movie, and the site brags that one of the people there is "the only one on the show with any real credentials". That strikes me as pretty blatantly unreliable. Therefore the game still fails
WP:GNG, which is totally unrelated from whether it's a high-quality or fun game, which I don't doubt.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 15:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The RSS feed to the show and its close to 400 episodes is
here. This is the source that goes into the game to the greatest depth of all sources. If TSG lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. (Yes, I said most of this already. You did not reply to the core points of my answer.) --
Bensin (
talk) 00:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
On the first part, two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form implies that the threshold for notability is context-specific. Source analysis to determine notability is certainly context-specific, which might be relevant when thinking about The Short Game, but as I understand it, the approach to general notability is not within a given medium. The rigidity and inconvenience of this approach is offset by the need to draw the line to ensure articles can be supported by reliably sourced rather than user-generated or enthusiast content, which is unfortunately where a lot of the imputed significance of this work currently lies.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there a reliability issue with any of the three sources in question? If so, what is it? What I'm saying is that interactive fiction is a niche form. Counterfeit Monkey appears to be the most appreciated work in that form. That is a strong indication that there should be an article about it. Current sources support everything that is in the article, and no sources contradict each other. --
Bensin (
talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion about the The Short Game is about its reliability. The depth of content and volume of output by a podcast is relevant, but not in itself a strong indicator of reliability.
WP:RELIABILITY raises factors such as whether the source has good editorial oversight, or has recognized notability of its own or recognized expertise in a field, which isn't the case here. At the end of the day the source leans to enthusiasts chatting about their favorite interactive fiction titles. It's comparable to
WP:USERG sources such as enthusiast blogs or YouTube channels.
VRXCES (
talk) 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
When asking about reliability issues, I was wondering if there is any evidence that they have published false or incorrect information. --
Bensin (
talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Against Deletion: I can find several scholarly books that mention this game as important within the interactive fiction genre. Even if they do not give detailed coverage, the volume of mentions leads me to think it is probably notable: The Cambridge Companion to Twenty-First Century American Fiction (pg. 111) (
ISBN9781108838276), Creative Writing in the Digital Age: Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy (pg. 144) (
ISBN9781472574091), and Electronic Literature (pg. 124) (
ISBN9781509516810). However, I do not know how well these paragraphs will suffice for a full-length article. I would not be against an
WP:AtD, such as merging.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Brilliant! Thank you for looking for academic sources. If there is significant coverage it would put an end to the hair-splitting over a third reliable source. I'll take a look shortly.
VRXCES (
talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
All three can be found from Google Books. This is a great sourcelist that clearly illustrates that Short is clearly notable, but the game is mentioned much less. The game is cited neutrally in a sentence as an example of Short's work in the Cambridge Companion and the Creative Writing in the Digital Age. There's about a paragraph's worth in Electronic Literature that describes the game and has one evaluative statement: This work highlights the fact that whatever else IF is, it is mostly text, and that the imaginary it invites us to inhabit is one that is almost exclusively produced through language games played by the interactor through conversations with the author, the software, and the platform. The significant coverage is the operative thing here; I'm not sure assimilating brief mentions creates notability in itself. Would the Electronic Literature coverage be significant?
VRXCES (
talk) 01:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
"Volume of mentions" is not part of the notability criteria, see
WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. It must have several pieces of significant coverage such as reviews.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree on that.
VRXCES (
talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The article could use a clean-up. I would also support a merge as
WP:ATD, but I believe the RPS and scholarly sources provide enough reception for a notable article.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 04:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Emily Short#Works, 2 reviews are not enough to pass GNG, especially when one of them is so brief (RPS). --
Mika1h (
talk) 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep based on currently available sources
Totalibe (
talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the best
WP:THREE sources from this discussion. The GameTrailers Review
[24] addresses the subject directly and in detail. The Rock Paper Shotgun Review
[25] is multiple paragraphs (which I don't consider brief or trivial), and is reviewed by a notable game designer,
Porpentine. The paragraph in Electronic Literature also seems to describe the game and its mechanics in detail, although I can only see a part of it on Google Books preview. For a piece of literature in a very niche medium, I think this is enough to pass
WP:GNG. Especially along with the other small mentions in academic sources listed by Why? I Ask above. -
Whisperjanes (
talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Popular Resistance Committees. I find the rationale for redirecting more strong relative to our policies & guidelines than keep, and more numerous in support.
Daniel (
talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no
WP:SIGCOV of him beyond the report of his death. I also tried searching for him on google before Oct 1, 2023, and found nothing on him. Given that sources only mention his death, I'd have proposed moving the page to
Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal, but even that would not meet
WP:GNG. VRtalk 21:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I was supportive of a similar deletion last week, but this individual was a leader of the major attack that initiated the current conflict.
Thief-River-Faller (
talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The supposed criteria that only coverage before death qualifies does not exist. There's ample and diverse well-cited
WP:SIGCOV of the article subject, the leader of the third largest Palestinian faction during the [[2023 Israel-Hamas war]. The individual's role was substantial, well-documented, widely-covered, and confirmed (including
by his movement.
Longhornsg (
talk) 00:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep He has a prominent role in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.--—
Osama Eid(
talk) 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted following a contested "keep" closure per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 22. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Popular Resistance Committees - Where he is already mentioned. The reports of his death are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability. Are there any secondary sources that discuss the signficance of this person? Longhornsg adds one source but this is just an obituary put out by the popular resistance movement. It lacks independence, and, in that form, is a primary source. It is also very brief and has nothing from which an encyclopaedic article could be written. Without some secondary surces describing why this person is significant, I would suggest an encyclopaedic treatment is not possible. All we have is that he was the head of PRC's armed wing and killed in an airstrike, and we have that on two pages. Unless significance beyond this can be shown, redirect is the appropriate
WP:ATD.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 09:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect per @
Sirfurboy Redirect to Popular Resistance Committees - I agree with @
SirfurboySirfurboy🏄's assessment.
The subject's mention in the context of the
Popular Resistance Committees, where he is already noted, seems sufficient given the current sources. The primary sources reporting his death do not establish notability, and the lack of secondary sources discussing his significance suggests that an encyclopedic article is not warranted at this time. The obituary provided by the popular resistance movement is a primary source and does not offer the independent, in-depth coverage needed for a standalone article. As such, a redirect to the Popular Resistance Committees I think would be appropriate action per
WP:ATDCray04 (
talk) 11:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Plenty of reliable sources. Per WP:GNG. Had prominent role in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
BabbaQ (
talk) 13:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you actually provide reliable sources that give him SIGCOV? VRtalk 18:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and selective merge to
Popular Resistance Committees. Falls slightly short of GNG and not enough sustained/lasting coverage to warrant a standalone article. FrankAnchor 19:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per Sirfurboy. Assertions of
WP:SIGCOV don't establish sigcov, and I don't see any actual links to sigcov here.
Levivich (
talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fictional D&D city with major GNG issues; the article's only claim of notability is that this city has inspired the better-known fictional city of
Ankh-Morpork. I don't see any SIGCOV sources in the article or elsewhere (although I could not access Bryce 2008 cited in Further reading; Lovett-Graff 1996 cited there as well mentions the city in passing but does not provide any in-depth analysis. I wouldn't hold much hopes as the source was found in the prior AfD, nobody could access it and that AfD which ended with keep verdict was sadly influenced by claims that I can at best describe as incorrect if not misleading (ex. "Covered in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction." - false, as can be seen from the entry
here). I suggest redirecting to
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (merge is not necessary, the Ankh-Morpork reference is already there; that article probably should be renamed to the
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series - I started a discussion at that article's talk about refocusing it, feel free to comment there) or perhaps
Lankhmar – City of Adventure. PS. See also related older AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehwon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (the naming question of the target notwithstanding) following
S Marshall's opinion, or keep as there are secondary sources which are borderline with regard to establishing notability in my view. As an aside, this is not primarily a D&D city, but rather an important city of fantasy literature also adapted to D&D and other RPGs.
This PhD thesis by Schneider already has a number of bits of commentary throughout, e.g. p. 129. It does refer both to the mentioned essay by Bryce 2008, as well as
Waugh: The Word and the Wild: The Problem of Civilization in the Works of Fritz Leiber from the same monograph(?). I also cannot access either to see how much there is on Lankhmar. Can anyone else? One relevant question with regard to notability/
WP:WHYN here would be if the gods of Lankhmar should be considered a subtopic contributing to the content of our article here or not. Schneider has more commentary on that, as does
this paper by Lovett-Graff, which also has a bit of commentary on Lankhmar itself, like Lankhmar being a fantastic reflection of our world.
Daranios (
talk) 14:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I think a holistic look at how we depict 1) the works of Fritz Lieber, and 2) the game elements that derive from them, is in order. We don't need a bazillion different articles, but nor should the foundational elements only be reflected in the well-marketed game supplements which were based on them.
Jclemens (
talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
keep this is a bit tricky because we have an article on the D&D setting, a board game, and lots of other places where this is referenced. Sources like
[26] discuss both the setting and the city itself.
[27] is mostly about one of the books set in the city but again covers the city quite a bit.
[28] is an academic paper which dwells on one part of the city in pretty great detail (in fact that writeup makes me realize that Glen Cook's work took the same ideas of in a city). But yeah, we should certainly keep this. Just do a google scholar search on the word "Lankhmar". Once you get past the first few pages of just books by Leiber, you can see the massive trove of papers that reference this fantasy city. I was shocked. I seriously think there is a featured article in here with enough work.
Hobit (
talk) 01:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I think all three I linked to were pretty good. The third one spends a fair bit of time on a specific place in the city and also on the nature of the city and it's people.
[29] is a review of a game based in the city, but it has a ton of details about the city including maps. And while it's no academic paper, it is reliable and independent. I'll go with those two--one academic and covering a small part of the city and it's nature and one a review of a product about the city that goes into deep detail about the city. Neither is perfect--I'd love to find an academic paper focused on the city itself. But both are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the city. And there are at least dozen or so that are also over the WP:N bar. (I linked to two above, check out the article itself and the last AfD for some more). There are very few fantasy topics that have anywhere near this many academic papers about them...
Hobit (
talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per agreement with the arguments made by Hobit.
BOZ (
talk) 01:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep in light of the above sourcing, with no prejudice against article reorganization as per my earlier comments.
Jclemens (
talk) 22:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep notable plot item (city) covered in series of books, a boardgame dedicated to it, and ttrpg. Has independent sourcing
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 11:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not a D&D city at all (the fact is is claimed to be so gives me suspicion that the nominator probably needs to do a bit of
WP:BEFORE). The central setting of the extremely significant writings of an extremely significant fantasy writer. Plenty written about it. Clearly notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Soft delete - I deprodded this unintentionally. ~
Kvng (
talk) 15:27, 2 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 00:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no reliable sources in the article. There appears to be very little RS coverage of the subject, if any. The article appears to be intended to promote a non-notable consultant, which is not what WP is for.
Thenightaway (
talk) 11:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems like a resume/promo. Not seeing a pass of
WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independant sources. I've not looked much into if Three Squares Inc itself is notable. -
Kj cheetham (
talk) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:NBIO. I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 13:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While opinion seems close here, those arguing to Keep this article all have low edit counts and limited experience evaluating articles at AFD. I don't always look at the article in question but considering the previous AfD closed as Delete I thought I should look it over and I agree with those editor supporting Deletion about the low quality of the sources in this article. LizRead!Talk! 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Every source in the article is either non-independent (including interviews) or provided no significant coverage. BEFORE searches on Google and ProQuest remain unpromising
Mach61 (
talk) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
These sources are secondary, but not independent; the former source is a university Ezechi was affiliated with, the latter two interviews.
Mach61 (
talk) 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The university is independent and secondary source since she is not affiliated. The institution is acknowledging her notable achievement in the society. Not all alumni gets celebrated except they are making unique notable contribution in the society.
Itomishor (
talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: The subject is supported by secondary sources though the independence of the sources is vague. So, I am voting week keep the article because of its potentials.
Bekilicious (
talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: it has coverage on multiple secondary source.
Dcraigo (
talk) 10:53, 5 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. See deletion discussions:
for artist, and album
Loved One.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – non–notable album (does not meet
WP:NALBUM) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was deleted via AFD.--
☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 14:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable album produced by not notable artist.
StreetcarEnjoyer (
talk) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. See deletion discussions:
for artist, and album
Loved One.
Imaginatorium (
talk) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
For the first award listed as "won" that I checked, the linked cite actually lists it as an "honorable mention" (
[30]).
Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I see they give out dozens of awards and the awards happen every month. On top of that, the one cited is from 2017, before this album.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 10:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reasons as the other AFDs mentioned.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 10:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – non–notable album (does not meet
WP:NALBUM) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was deleted via AFD.--
☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 14:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - The musician's article was deleted because it was full of false claims about his importance and lists of fraudulent awards and honors. Per
WP:A9 all of his album articles could be deleted immediately because he is not notable. Even so, this album article really stretches the truth in its own right. Its every media mention, outside of the usual social media and self-upload services, are in unreliable and blatantly promotional publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-notable album but an artist deleted for being non-notable - said artist page apparently had sockpuppet edits and bogus claims, just like this page.
StreetcarEnjoyer (
talk) 20:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Does not meet the standards of
WP:NALBUM, especially now that the artist has been deemed non-notable and his awards proved to be dubious.
Michitaro (
talk) 04:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG; little if any
WP:SIGCOV. Translator
WVBG-LD can be kept because that station has a storied history (it used to relay a PBS station).
Mvcg66b3r (
talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It may be appropriate to redirect WYBN to the WVBG article or merge, given that this station's existence is needed in that article.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 01:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
WVBG-LD: WYBN-LD might be operated as the "parent" station, but it would appear to lack the coverage (in potential sources; not referring to broadcast coverage) the (older!) WVBG-LD attained in the past. I can't see any separate notability for WYBN; one article for the combined operation is enough. WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - while some coverage of this individual does appear to exist in non-English language sources, my best judgment is that the sources are unreliable or spammy, and their medical/academic career is insufficient to meet
WP:NACADEMIC or
WP:GNG. —
Ganesha811 (
talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is nothing that indicates notability. It's one of many articles spammed to Wikipedia by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting Azerbajain's government and elites.
Thenightaway (
talk) 11:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Thank you for doing the source analysis. LizRead!Talk! 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Being executive head of a region with a population of 64k in a non federal state does not confer notability. Effectively a mayor.
Mccapra (
talk) 08:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment There is a little more in his Azerbaijani article on his career and a presidential award he received, but I don't know enough about Azerbaijan's government to tell if the positions he held were notable.
TulsaPoliticsFan (
talk) 23:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I can’t find the source for his Presidential award, but his public posts definitely don’t make him notable.
Mccapra (
talk) 18:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone out there willing to investigate this article and offer their educated opinion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Based on population, I think this is basically the equal of a rural county executive (imo), so NPOL would not apply and this needs to meet GNG and BLP.
Source eval:
Comments
Source
Annoucement of government appointment, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
1. "E. N. Paşayevin Göygöl Rayon İcra Hakimiyyətinin başçısı təyin edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikası Prezidentinin Sərəncamı". Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
Resume style biography published when they were appointed. Fails WP:IS this is pretty clearly from government sources
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Arxivlənmiş surət". Archived from the original on 2022-08-18. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
Same reasoning as above, article opens with "According to the order signed by President Ilham Aliyev today, Elvin Nazim oglu Pashayev was appointed the head of Goygol District Executive Power" again I think this fails WP:IS
3. ^ "Göygölün 39 yaşlı icra başçısı". Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
1. "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-07-27 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Annoucement of government appointment, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
2. ↑ "E. N. Paşayevin Göygöl Rayon İcra Hakimiyyətinin başçısı təyin edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikası Prezidentinin Sərəncamı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Dup of #2 on en.wp (see above)
3. ↑ "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-08-18 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Dup of #3 on en.wp (see above)
4. ↑ "Göygölün 39 yaşlı icra başçısı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Resume style biography published when they were appointed. Fails WP:IS this is pretty clearly from government sources
5. ↑ "Göygölün yeni icra başçısı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Government annoucement, fails WP:IS
6. ↑ "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-06-22 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Searching under Elvin Nazim oğlu Paşayev in the Wikipedia library showed more of the above. A Google search brought up the same such as
[33]. I'm actually a little concerned my search didn't show more routine news, so if I have missed something from WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, ping me. //
Timothy ::
talk 07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is poorly written and fails to establish whether the subject meets notability requirements.
Thenightaway (
talk) 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article.
Pursuant to the above, the sources I gathered were all company announcements: no significant coverage.
बिनोद थारू (
talk) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Originally a
WP:SPA article in 2015, and substantially unchanged since, despite various IP edits, etc. The given references are routine listings, announcement of the company purchasing software, and several items around the announcement of the opening of a Missouri site which appears to have subsequently closed: none of these are substantial coverage under
WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches also find some coverage of a legal action, but
nothing to demonstrate
notability.
AllyD (
talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge - as per above comment, or delete. Was unable to find significant coverage, especially for an obscure parody artist of an already obscure genre. In addition to the sources on this page I was only able to find a last.fm profile which is just a repost of this article and an interview that was clearly just a joke.
StreetcarEnjoyer (
talk) 20:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No need for a redirect from this specific title. —
Ganesha811 (
talk) 03:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the relevance to the etymology of the English word
Marijuana is already dealt with in that article, and that's the only bit that's appropriate to an English encyclopaedia.
Elemimele (
talk) 14:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The word ma is more than just the root of the word marijuana. Ma is also the root of the word hemp, and the word ganja, and even the word cannabis. In German, ma is the root of the word hanf, etc. -
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge verifiable information, if any, to
History of cannabis, or else Redirect.
Owen×☎ 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm there are
196 mainspace links to the article
Má, which redirects to the article under discussion, so any consensus to delete or soft redirect to
zh:wikt:麻 would involve a lot of cleanup (which I'm aware is not an argument against those outcomes). I note that this article makes no mention that 麻 is sometimes considered one of the
Five Grains.Leaning Merge into
Cannabis in China at the moment, but more looking into is indicated. As per usual, I hope to circle back.
Folly Mox (
talk) 19:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Almost all of those 196 mainspace links come from a single template -
Template:Cannabis. So a cleanup, if needed, would be trivial.
Owen×☎ 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Excellent I was hoping that might be the case and forgot to look into it.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The article Ma is about the word's spread into other countries, around the globe, and so it has very little to do with Cannabis in China. -
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep The history and etymology of ma is important in English language Wikipedia. Ma is an accepted English word, and it's incorporated into nearly every world language. The article is misnamed "Má (Chinese word)" and it should be moved to
Ma (cannabis). -
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
In what way is this not a dictionary entry? If the content of a passage is the history and etymology of a word in itself, that is what a dictionary does, not Wikipedia. 麻 is the Chinese word for 'cannabis'. It has slightly different bounds and connotations than the English word, because that's the nature of them being different languages. Especially with China, I have comparatively little patience in the mystification people insist on blanketing ordinary vocabulary terms with—while some of them are genuinely bespoke concepts and may require encyclopedia articles, the ordinary word for a type of plant does not even come close to those. An article like
Cannabis in China is titled as it is specifically so that we are not misled to believe it's a totally divergent phenomenon that requires a totally different English term. Why should 麻 have its own article, and not the Chinese word for 'water'? 水 certainly has its own interesting history for an English-language audience. But we don't have that, because it is mostly just the word for 'water', and interesting linguistic history can be covered in a responsible way.
Remsense留 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Word etymologies generally belong in a dictionary, as you say. However, once a particular etymology gains sufficient amount of significant independent coverage to attain standalone notability, it qualifies for an encyclopedic entry. Whether this word has cleared that threshold or not is what we're trying to determine here.
Owen×☎ 16:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
OwenX, what is an example of a foreign language term where the etymology alone qualifies it for its own encyclopedia article? That is, where the concept the term describes is not what is actually notable. I can show you dozens of citations regarding the French word blanc, regarding how its etymology is counterintuitively the same as that of the English word 'black', and the various different ways the word appears in culture, French and otherwise. This is interesting, but it's not covered in a Wikipedia article titled Blanc (French word) or Blanc (white). Instead, it's covered in a responsible way that doesn't beckon a new concept mostly out of thin air.Remsense留 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
We have quite a few articles about words and their etymology, both English and foreign, including
Simran,
Allah, and of course,
Fuck. To be clear, like you, I don't think Má should have its own page here. I'm merely pointing out that your claim about foreign word etymologies not belonging on WP isn't based on policy or on practice.
Owen×☎ 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I will accept the latter two examples, as well as
Thou as viable counterexamples. But as far as I can tell, the former is largely about the concept described instead of the word itself, à la
Tao. Thank you for these.
Remsense留 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't see a consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, let's do a bit of a deeper dive then.First off, as Elemimele states above, the etymological material is already covered at
Marijuana, so that doesn't need a standalone article to host it.The term ma, used to describe
medical marijuana by 2700 BCE... "Medical marijuana" is a legal term with no bearing on early China. 麻 just means hemp: all the bits, not just the flowers of the female plant. Further, the statement is sourced to
this:Other sources report that the first known record of marijuana use is in the Book of Drugs, written about 2737 BC by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung...Shennong (the Divine Farmer) is a myth, and no Chinese writing survives from anywhere within a millennium of the date given in the source. I haven't looked into what the "Book of Drugs" might refer to, but I'm guessing purely on subject matter background knowledge it's not attested pre-Han dynasty.History and migration of the word ma: unsourced, and given the statement má has been used to describe the hemp plant since before the invention of writing five-thousand years ago, not verifiable.Ma in poetry and song: Shi Jing mentions using 麻 as a fiber. Ok, this can go in
Five Grains or
Cannabis in China.Use of the word ma in other languages: the Japanese word is fully cognate. So what? Journalists used the word (which? 麻 or 大麻?) when discussing cannabis regulations and law publicly (due to prohibition). When? Where? Which scholars and journalists? There's no source cited. And if there is a source for this, why can't it go in
History of cannabis or
Legal status of cannabis?Root of Mexican Spanish word marijuana: already at
Marijuana (word) § Etymology, as noted above.Variations: belongs in
Cannabis in China.Overall, there's no need for this article in an encyclopaedia. I'm sympathetic to syncretic articles that can exist so people don't have to chase down bits of information from three different articles, but I don't think this one passes muster. There's a deeply incorrect statement in the brief lead paragraph, unverifiable speculation, and the rest is misfiled. Still feeling Redirect.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
To clarify, with my delete I have absolutely nothing against leaving a redirect as per
Folly MoxElemimele (
talk) 15:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Cannabis in China. First, a note on the history: this has been to AfD before. On 9 May 2019
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma was closed as "Merge to
Cannabis in China and redirect title to
MA", and the history of the page was moved to
Ma (Chinese word for cannabis) before the merge. (I'm adding a "Previous AfDs for this article" box to this AfD.) On 16 May 2019,
User:The Hammer of Thor recreated the article under a new title (
Special:Diff/897361195; see
comparison).Anyway, after reviewing where we've ended up, I concur with the opinion that Cannabis in China is the right place for the relevant content, not a separate article. As
Cannabis in China#Chinese etymology is already the result of a previous merge, it should not be too drastic to merge again to sync up any desirable post-2019 changes. If you want to merge some bits elsewhere too, that's also fine with me.
Adumbrativus (
talk) 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, to get more feedback on the latest comment and Merge suggestion to a different target article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect. As Folly Mox notes, the content in the má article is of poor quality and I see little worth saving. Most importantly Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Retinalsummer (
talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see any reason to maintain a redirect for such an unlikely search term ("ma", fair enough; "Má (Chinese word)", surely not). --
asilvering (
talk) 01:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete it's just a non-English word; none of the arguments that there is something more to the topic are convincing. Too awkward a title for a redirect.
217.180.228.138 (
talk) 01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete — the word itself does not seem to be notable; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All relevant content seems to be better covered elsewhere (particularly
Cannabis in China). I don't think redirection would be particularly useful in this case, per Asilvering.
Tol (
talk |
contribs) @ 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NCORP, as it is a private school with no
WP:SIGCOV. Did a
BEFORE (both in English and in Japanese), and all I could find were those websites that list schools' addresses and stuff. Included websites do not satisfy SIGCOV either, I'm pretty sure.
I don't agree personally to be deleted because the university is good enough and has 4025 FTE students in 2023 with 0.5% of international students according to Times Higher Education [1]. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Edogang1 (
talk •
contribs) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep It's a notable school it'll just be hard to find sources for it. Looking at Google Scholar the school does appear to be producing research.
[34]Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Note I've added some more sources. Dr vulpes(Talk) 21:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree with @
Dr vulpes and @
Edogang1 that this is a notable school. Quick search finds some quick hits that, while not enough to build an article on, leave me confident that a more robust search would result in plenty.
[35][36][37][38] This article needs work, not deletion.
DCsansei (
talk) 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I would just like to see further review of sources mentioned in the discussion and added to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, after reviewing the sources mentioned in this discussion and added to the article, it's clear that there's plenty of deep independent secondary coverage about this school.
Left guide (
talk) 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Daniel (
talk) 03:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet another short-lived post office in Kansas, this one is almost completely hopeless: there's no trace of it on the topos, and the GNIS entry is gone so there's no way to find out where that came from. And of course there's nothing there, although older topos show a "Brubaker Sch." a bit to the east of the spot indicated in the article.
Mangoe (
talk) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't even appear on any USGS topographic maps as far as I can tell. GNIS entry is deleted, so we're down to one source that says there was a post office for a year, in an era when post offices could literally be private residences. Yeah, we don't need this article.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete:
There's nothing to see on satellite besides a sand field and a few residences and farms here and there within a mile around the given coordinates. No evidence to suggest this is, or was ever an actual community other than a short-lived post office in the early 20th century. This is not a "ghost town" per the article, there's nothing to see there at all. Fails
WP:GEOLAND.
Streetlampguy301 (
talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete According to the Ottawa Daily Republic 30 May 1901 "Just Found "Coburn"; The amazing ignorance of State House Officials"; the place did not exist and never existed. Apparently, The railroad commissioner in unison with a Topeka reporter noticed a new post office in Franklin county named Coburn. None of them had ever heard of the place, so there was hunt. They found It had been there for year at that point, w/o anyone knowing about it. The long and short of it was that the Secretary of Agriculture, one Mr. Coburn had somehow finagled a post to be named for him and located near a farm where he had worked in the past. It's an Ego stunt. It was clipped earlier today, and based on their clippings it's somebody we know. So I'm not the first on this discovery. Sorry I'm not quite sure how to post it, but it's in the WP library in the Ancestry newspapers database.
James.folsom (
talk) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
So someone looked for the person that I mentioned in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green, Kansas and got back a newspaper reporting as I did that this is a claimed rural post office, but almost a century and a quarter earlier? That is amusing. An AFD rationale pre-supplied by an Ottawa Daily Republic journalist.
Uncle G (
talk) 11:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have access to that sort of stuff from here. So I simply look forward to seeing what you wring out of the source.
Uncle G (
talk) 14:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand, I only have access because of the Wiki library, I thought you used the wiki library too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed at "soft delete", but contested at
WP:REFUND. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Adding to my analysis, the sources cited at REFUND (which have yet to be added to the article), are more of the same.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 01:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete lack of sources with substantial intellectually independent coverage. (
t ·
c) buidhe 04:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria criteria, which says:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Regarding source 1, articles by
Forbes "contributors" are not considered to be reliable sources, under both the GNG and NCORP. Additionally, source 1 is largely based on interviews with people involved with the company, making it not independent of the subject, and it reads as being promotional of the brand. Regarding sources 2-4, NCORP
says: Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Additionally, source number 4 is effectively an advertisement, albeit laundered through a local news entrepreneur-of-the-week segment.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 00:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: per explanation above.
बिनोद थारू (
talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great to hear from more editors. It would also be helpful to review recently added sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit confused by the relist asking for more source analysis since I think I've addressed all of the new sources. In any event, they're all basically sponsored local news posts or interviews with the company. The one keep !vote (from the editor who created the article) hasn't substantively addressed why the sources meet NCORP.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Well,
voorts, I would like to hear from other editors, I think it makes for a clearer consensus, one that is less likely to be challenged at
Deletion review. But relisting a discussion doesn't prevent another closer from drawing this discussion to a close. I think I will let someone else handle closing this one. LizRead!Talk! 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I thought you meant in general, not just from others editors. Thank you for the work you do and happy New Year!
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:NCORP. I agree with
voorts' source assessment. The local sources are also trivial - product launches, expanding into new markets etc. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 13:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources provided in the discussion suggest that GNG is met.
(non-admin closure)Enos733 (
talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Insufficient reliable third-party sources for the establishment of the article/Wikipedia page.
Helper201 (
talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
One of the sources used on the page, The Canary, which is used for two of the four citations is listed on
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a generally unreliable source. Therefore, the only two sources are a news article from the Morning Star and the party's own website, which are used for one citation each. Therefore, we only have two sources, the party's website which is a first-party source and therefore not preferable and one reliable citation with limited information that can be used on this Wikipedia page. It thus does not appear enough reliable information can be sourced to create an adequate page or confirm the organisation's notability for a Wikipedia page.
Helper201 (
talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose the existence of the party is already established by the Morning Star article. And as the party has only been in existence for a matter of weeks, it's hardly likely to have many references yet. Before long it will be officially registered with the Electoral Commission and then we'll have official confirmation of its existence, as far as I'm aware every political party in the UK past and present, no matter how obscure has a wikipedia entry, their very existence is considered notable. So it would be unprecedented for this to be deleted.
G-13114 (
talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per the reasons I noted regarding lack of sources and notability. One news source from the Morning Star with limited information is not enough to make the party notable or to establish a Wikipedia page. Also, per the above oppose comment, not every UK political party has a Wikipedia page. There's no evidence for that. See
List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Local where there are many parties listed with elected representation that don't have a Wikipedia page and nor does the National Flood Prevention Party seen at
List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Nationwide. Transform doesn't even have a single elected representative at any level. The party as seen from the establishment of its website and when it uploaded its first YouTube video has actually existed for over 6 months, it was just officially founded just over a month ago (25 November 2023). However, its recent establishment is not a good reason to justify that it has a Wikipedia page, if anything it’s a reason against it having one until the party gets more recognition.
Helper201 (
talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
You already nominated it for deletion – you don't get to !vote again.
Number57 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep While the Canary isn't a reliable source, GNG coverage met through coverage in
The Voice,
Novara,
Weekly Worker etc.
Number57 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment what evidence do we have of the reliability of the above sources? Multiple appear to be partisan and also only give brief mentions of Transform. Not much if anything we could actually use on the page.
Helper201 (
talk) 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The entire Voice and Weekly Worker articles are about Transform. Regarding the first point, what evidence do you have that they are unreliable? The Voice is a national newspaper and from what I know, is not a partisan source; the other two are partisan sources, but I am not aware of any reliability concerns (as opposed to the likes of the Canary and Skwarkbox).
Number57 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree - Keep... for now. Has most recently started to gain publicity from bigger nationals (
ITV News Online, and
Pink News). Both of which are generally reliable sources and are probably the strongest citations I could add for the time being and will accordingly - unlike Morning Star, which has no consensus at present, and The Canary which has outright been ruled out as unreliable by editors. There is no
WP:CRYSTALBALL to guarantee that it will be heavily covered, but with them
set to register with the Electoral Commission and general elections looking to be coming up later this year, I think they'll get there.
Mechanical Elephant (
talk) 19:50, 5 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Daniel (
talk) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject does not appear to meet the
WP:GNG. This technically survived a bulk AfD earlier this year but there is a lack of sourcing to show this meets
WP:N.
Let'srun (
talk) 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Surviving that
140-plus article AfD was a mere technicality, since it that intermingled a handful of potentially-indeed-notable stations with, for instance, the numerous DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations that may have only actually been licensed for ~five years and barely operated even in that timeframe before the license was turned back in.
This station falls under the latter category. I cannot imagine that the requisite
significant coverage exists here. WCQuidditch☎✎ 04:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It looks like the participating editors disagree with the nominator's judgment about existing SIGCOV. LizRead!Talk! 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is little more than a play-by-play recap of a made for TV Desert Storm doc which, so far as I can tell, won no awards and shows no SIGCOV. If not TNT'd, it may be a candidate for merging into an article about Desert Storm or films related to same.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd argue those fall under trivial/passing mentions and do not constitute SIGCOV.
Just Another Cringy Username (
talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
A whole review in Variety, almost a paragraph in Devine’s book....hard not to call this significant coverage...and none of the books mentioning the film briefly makes trivial nor passing mention only, no, sorry, that’s simply not true. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Update: added review in LAT and other sources including NYT, which does seem to seal the deal.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep in view of significant coverage such as reviews in Variety, and LA Times as well as reliable book sources, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I encourage editors to create that list article for Bolivian players and then this page could be redirected there. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 03:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
All I am able to find on this Bolivian women's footballer are a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage
here, and two sentences from the same publication
here. I do not believe this to be enough in-depth coverage to meet
WP:GNG, though there might be some sources out there that I missed.
JTtheOG (
talk) 03:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment – Due to the number of Bolivian players who have generated an AfD recently, an article
List of Bolivia women's international footballers. could be created. From what I've seen, these lists are the best solution to the individual
WP:GNG problem for female players.
Svartner (
talk) 10:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Hey @
Svartner:, that is very much a possibility and a good
WP:ATD. The "GNG problem" in question lies with a specific user who created thousands of stubs of non-notable footballers, not with women's footballers in general. See my comment
here from a few weeks ago.
JTtheOG (
talk) 21:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 16:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject, a Dominican women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet
WP:GNG. The closest thing to
WP:SIGCOV that I found was
this interview. There's a few quotes from her
here as well, but everything else is just passing mentions.
JTtheOG (
talk) 03:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE and mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. A basic genealogy expanded into a non-notable article. No objection to a redirect to
Kirtivarman II //
Timothy ::
talk 02:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no support for Deletion other than the nominator. LizRead!Talk! 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I am wholly unconvinced that this should fall under
WP:NEVENT, considering the "event" in this case is a two-year legal dispute that has heaps of RS for its entire length. Meets
WP:GNG on its own, and its length probably precludes including it as a subsection of
Apple Watch.
Acebulf(
talk |
contribs) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
InfiniteNexus: You first tried redirecting the page with the edit summary Oh my gosh, not again. This topic isn't notable for its own article. Is there more context to this dispute than what is listed here? .
Acebulf(
talk |
contribs) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Not with this article specifically, but this user has a history of rapidly creating articles about news stories that may not satisfy our notability guidelines. While their dedication is certainly appreciated, others and I have previously asked the editor to slow down and consider the applicable guidelines before creating an article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia being
a lagging indicator of notability? It is unfortunate that AfDs of such articles often end with "no consensus" or "keep" because participants simply observed the number of sources and concluded that GNG has been met.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Given that your vaguely-referenced articles often pass the article for deletion process, it appears as though your critiques of stature are directed towards policy.
WP:VPP may be of service here in resolving your quarrels. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It's not the policies that are the problem, it's that editors sometimes consider only surface-level thresholds such as number of sources and article length when determining whether a topic meets
WP:N, when in fact we must consider whether a standalone article is truly warranted.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
A legal dispute is an event, so it should meet the criteria outlined at NEVENT. Many, many events have attracted "heaps" of RS coverage, which is why we have PAGs such as
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:10YEAR. These events, while "notable" enough to warrant discussion on an article, should be incorporated in a larger article rather than a standalone one. For instance, the deaths of many famous people receive substantial coverage, but only a handful spin out into standalone articles (e.g. where is
Death of Matthew Perry?
Death of Chadwick Boseman?). Same goes for all kinds of corporate drama, celebrity gossip, and so forth.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This is
WP:OSE; many articles exist on Wikipedia that should be deleted, but haven't yet been uncovered. Looking at those three articles, the first can probably be kept considering that it covers a multitude of cases; the second and third do not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SUSTAINED and should be merged into
Smartphone wars,
Apple Inc. litigation, or similar articles.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:Sustained but do agree that the creator of this article has a chronic
too soon article creation problem.
Esolo5002 (
talk) 07:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: media coverage well exceeds our usual notability threshold. Long-term legal, technological and financial impact will more than meet our WP:10YEARTEST based on how similar scope cases went.
Owen×☎ 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While Monarchy might have been notable for the awards its shows won, that doesn't roll up to Kulich, and I see no other path to biographic notability for him. StarMississippi 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Because rather recent decisions have made WP notability criteria incredibly hard to meet for pornographic entertainers, redirect to
skweezme, where sources like
this can be added if needed. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 02:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This article survived two no-consensus AfDs a number of years ago, but the arguments there are not convincing. The only source identified so far that discusses Anwar in detail is the self-published
iUniverseRebel Moms book, which is clearly not a reliable source per
WP:RSSELF. My
WP:BEFORE search found only a handful of non-independent interviews in various outlets as well as a little bit of Atlanta Voice coverage that doesn't rise to the level of
WP:SIGCOV. That's not enough for notability under
WP:BASIC or the
GNG, in my view.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - definitely approaching notability, but most existing coverage is brief mentions or of marginal reliability. Does not meet any current notability standard. —
Ganesha811 (
talk) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails
WP:NBASIC. I did not find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the subject. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 01:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is consensus below for the article to be renamed, but no agreement on exactly what (three variations of the same thing). Any editor is encouraged to editorially move this to the desired target as per normal processes for renaming articles, based on the support of the rename position here establishing a local consensus.
Daniel (
talk) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I assume the part of
WP:OUTCOMES you mean is this: Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Have you checked if this isn't one of those exceptions? –
Joe (
talk) 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
DElete based on quick glimpse I don't think it is notable.
SYSS Mouse (
talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. The page is under construction. It has a higher status than an institute, and has a long history important from the perspective of archaeological research in Poland. Many important scholars have been working there, such as
Kazimierz Michałowski. Give me some time to improve quality to prove the
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Also, look at the category of
Category:Archaeological research institutes.
Nbarchaeo (
talk) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not policy. There was an RfC a few years back specifically about using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale for deletion and the outcome was we couldn't. I'd suggest that if the nominating editor can't give a better rationale, this should be closed procedurally as no valid reason for deletion.
4.37.252.50 (
talk) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, it also fails
WP:GNG. All of the sources provided are primary - they are all written and/or published by the University of Warsaw, its staff, and its students. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - If this page is kept, it needs to be renamed to
Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw (or similar, but that is in line with other faculty pages). Best not to move it until the AfD is complete though.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 13:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The faculty of archaeology replaces the institute of archaeology at the University of Warsaw. This structural change is only 3 years old, and so secondary sources under the name "faculty of archaeology" are limited. They do exist. Plenty of them. But mostly they are not significant mentions, as they are largely papers or staff bios that say that the author or whatever is a member of the faculty. As such it may be TOOSOON to assess SIGCOV for an independently notable faculty. But that is not the only reason to keep this page. There is no doubt that the University of Warsaw is notable. The
University of Warsaw page is a reasonable length. Readable prose is not much over 1,000 words, but the total word count, including all the lists etc., takes it well over 4,000 words. So the question is whether the faculty of Archaeology is a good candidate for a spinout. Apparently the faculty is the largest academic institute of its kind in Poland
[39]. Wikipedia also has other faculty spinout pages of various levels of quality, such as
Faculty of Law of Paris (almost certainly independently notable),
Faculty of Arts, Charles University (not clearly independently notable),
Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University (not clearly notable and not clearly a good spinout). I also searched previous AfDs and found a number of past AfDs of faculty articles, many of which were deleted. E.g.
[40] - redirect,
[41] - no consensus,
[42] - no consensus,
[43] - delete,
[44] - delete.
What I take from this evidence is that we do allow spinout faculty articles, but there has to be a reason why the spinout is warranted. A stub article for an inconsequential faculty should be deleted, redirect or merged to the parent institution (and that may be the case for some existing faculty pages). But where a parent institution's page is large, and where much can be said about the faculty, we allow the spinout. In this case the faculty may be new but the institute isn't, and there is evidence for it being signficant. Its output certainly seems to be significant.
Moreover this page was nominated for deletion hours after it was created, and no questions of notability etc. were raised on the article talkpage. It is already improved from the point of nomination, and this may be a case where
WP:DEMOLISH should have been considered and a talk page discussion started. I therefore lean towards keeping this one (but with the name changed to
Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw).
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well, I've tried asking, but it's been a few days now and no valid deletion rationale is forthcoming.
Asserting that sources aren't there isn't enough; there has to be a
reasonable search (which would, in this case, at least include sources in Polish). Sirfurboy makes a good case that these should exist above. –
Joe (
talk) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Failing
WP:GNG, as stated above, is a valid deletion rational. Particularly as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the University of Warsaw has not been presented in either the article or this discussion. Stating
WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not enough to pass
WP:V. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There are 56 references listed in the article and as far as I can tell not a single sentence is uncited, so this is not a question of verifiability. –
Joe (
talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have searched for suitable sources in English. I have not searched for sources in Polish, as I do not speak Polish and therefore it is not reasonable for me to do so. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The page has 56 sources cited on it. More than twice as many as at its nomination. Some lack independence, and many are primary, but when a source like this one
[45] discusses the Warsaw school of thought, that points to significance. Have you done any source analysis to explain why these references do not demonstrate SIGCOV? Or would you perhaps accept that this one is a candidate for
WP:HEY?
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
When I reviewed the sources in the article, this one stood out as potentially significant coverage. I read the entire chapter. It refers only to archaeology students at the University of Warsaw (and other Polish universities), it does not mention the faculty once. SailingInABathTub~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. It does mention the institute though and seems to predate the creation of the faculty. It also has good evidence for the significance of the faculty in Poland, because, for instance, it shows that Warsaw University produced most archaeologists in Poland in the period 1949-1980 (about 36% of the total) (page 202), and there are other indications of the university's significance. The significance in that paper shows the significance of Archaeology at Warsaw. My other comments above therefore pertain.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
*Comment There are very few sources on the Institute (1975-2020) or the Faculty (2020-), as it was formally established in 1975. Most of the works focus on the development of archaeology in Poland, or Warsaw. There are several archaeological institutions in Warsaw, the history of which is somewhat intertwined. Usually such works are written after an jubilee.
A first work summarizing the history 'Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim' [History of archaeology at the University of Warsaw] was published in 1993. [1]
For more information, I found in the history of the Department of Historical Anthropology, which later became the Department of Bioarchaeology. [2]
A few years ago, the Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary (1918-2018). [3]Nbarchaeo (
talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename
Faculty of Archaeology (University of Warsaw) : The research cited and sources in the article are enough to meet GNG. No objection if a consensus exists for another title, I may have the convention wrong. //
Timothy ::
talk 01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is extensively cited and the topic has significant history; certainly the kind of spin-out article we keep on individual faculties. I think the correct rename is to
Faculty of Archaeology, Warsaw. This is the normal way to name faculty and sub-colleges as far as I am aware. See eg
Keble College, Oxford. --
asilvering (
talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
References
^Mikocki, T. (1993), KOZŁOWSKI, S.K.; KOLENDO, J. (eds.), "Historia zbiorów starożytniczych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego", Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim, Warszawa, pp. 27–40
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Poorly sourced BLP on an Indian men's footballer who played
seven pro games a few years ago and has been playing in state leagues ever since. All I found were passing mentions (
2016,
2018,
2019,
2022, etc.)
JTtheOG (
talk) 00:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 16:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.