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.
Nominated per IP userrequest: Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases.
2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A (
talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by:
UtherSRG(talk) 11:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Does lack of references of a source make it not worthy? New to wiki.
Teddy012 (
talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I think this fails to meet
CORPDEPTH. The non-press releases/business churnalism sources, like the NYT piece, refer to Fort Ross Ventures only slightly and in the context of Russian funding; it's not significantly about Ventures themselves.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Hard to find significant coverage on this particular niche device, but the statement "it is also used in agriculture" suggests the author of the article wasn't exactly splitting hairs.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 00:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as
wholly unsourced (for 16.71 years!) without any evidence of improvability. — Fourthords |
=Λ= | 22:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 14:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 16:20, 10 October 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 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Star Porter's sire
The Porter (horse) is indeed notable but on balance Star Porter doesn't seem to be. Limited sources but taking the following source as reliable, Star Porter is not featured as a notable progeny.
http://www.americanclassicpedigrees.com/the-porter.html. Based on this, I don't believe a redirect/merge is required to the sire and this article can be deleted. Also, the races won by Star Porter in the article don't seem notable as none appear to have wikilinked articles.
Rupples (
talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Keep, possibly tagged because nobody knew how to find the sources. From the AFI (American Film Institute) catalogue, I was able to link the list of his films. Over a period of 32 years, he made a lot of films. FYI, The American Film Institute was founded by a 1965 presidential mandate to establish a national arts organization to preserve the legacy of American film heritage. The problem with searching for sources on the actor Bob Woodward, is that the same-named The Washington Post reporter of the Watergate era keeps coming up. The actor Bob Woodward was indeed in all five seasons of the Gene Autry Show, which I found a source for. Although ImDB is not technically used as a source, a glance at his page will show you that he worked for decades in the medium of television. Hopefully, another Wikipedia editor will find more sourcing.
— Maile (
talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I disagree that he fails GNG and NACTOR. He was in half of the episodes of both The Gene Autry Show and Buffalo Bill, Jr., and had named roles in large number of films. He was a staple in Gene Autry's productions, and a stunt double for Autry, Buck Jones, and few others. He's also in the Hollywood Stuntmen's Hall of Fame.
ButlerBlog (
talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep pass in
WP:NACTOR Criteria, have significant roles in many films or drama
Worldiswide (
talk) 04:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. No comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. LizRead!Talk! 23:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This did not receive enough coverage to justify a Wikipedia page. Some kid made a hoax that got a little press coverage.
WP:ONEEVENT definitely applies here.
Angryapathy (
talk) 16:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Seems well-sourced. Neutral in tone, I think it's ok.
Oaktree b (
talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively to
Mass media in Bangladesh. There's no reason why this one-off event with no lasting effects should have its own article. The target article, on the other hand, could benefit from a few sentences about this as part of a broader coverage of the topic's history.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 location for this "hamlet" given in the article is the local forestry office for the village of Kiedrowice (
see here), the centre of which is located a short distance away and for which
we already have an article.
As such this article is self-evidently just a duplication.
Looking at the 2012 location-names law, this lists a "forest settlement" (osada leśna) called Kiedrowice in Lipnica as well as a "village" (wieś) with the same name also in Lipnica - there is no reason given here not to believe these are not exactly the same thing, included as a clerical artefact in this 1500+ page long document. The relevant content of the 2015 law is identical. The 1746-page-long postal directory lists two addresses called "Kiedrowice" - Kiedrowice and Kiedrowice (Karcz) (i.e., remnant, or "stub", though there does appear to be another hamlet called Karcz in the general area with a different PNA), evidently the same location as they have the same PNA. None of these have any data giving the actual location of these places (which begs the question of where the location in the article comes from), nor their population.
A
WP:BEFORE search is meaningless as results are found for the village. The Polish article is identical except that it identifies it as a "forest settlement".
Normally it would be reasonable to propose merging, but there is nothing to merge here since the details are essentially the same (same post-code, some other details).
This is what happens when articles are generated at speed from sources that do no more than list names in a geographical hierarchy -
the creator spent about 4 minutes on this article and I've now spent ~30 minutes doing this review.
FOARP (
talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This same user has created many substubs on locations in Poland that follow this model, giving nothing more than a generic statement regarding the location, and then a bit of database information in the infobox, all based off one or two census sources.
FOARP, was there some kind of discussion at one point regarding banning GEOLAND articles (or doing something, at least) that are based solely on such sources? I BLAR'd the ones a found at NPP, but
Joe Roe reverted those edits, saying that my reasoning was subjective. Edward-Woodrow •
talk 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
We've argued that one to death and I don't think we're going to see much movement for a while at least. What I'd like to know is where the location data came from, as it's not in any of the sources in the article.
FOARP (
talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Thanks for starting a deletion discussion and doing the research. Could we just redirect
Kiedrowice (hamlet) to
Kiedrowice? Or if you are certain the sources for the hamlet are actually talking about the same place, they could be added to the village, ie merging. Then if someone does come up with a source that shows the forest settlement is distinct and tells us something meaningful about it, it can easily be resurrected.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 21:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There’s nothing to merge here as the content is the same, nor is there any point in a redirect for something nobody is going to search (EDIT: particularly because Kiedrowice is not defined as a hamlet, which in Polish is a przysiółek, but as a forest settlement or osada leśna, so the title is incorrect). The article-content in its entirety is "Kiedrowice is a hamlet in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland, within the Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County.", which is identical to content already in the "village" article except that it says "Kiedrowice [kʲɛdrɔˈvit͡sɛ] is a village in Gmina Lipnica, Bytów County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland." There's a post-code in the info-box that I've added to the "village" article, the references are repetitious but appear to say the same thing as the "village" article, but I've added them all the same, so what's left to merge?
FOARP (
talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I guess we could get into attribution issues if you've taken content from
Kiedrowice (hamlet) and used it in another article?? Not an area I have any expertise in.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There's no attribution issue with taking content from one page and adding it to another, that already recited essentially the same information (i.e., that Kiedrowice is a village in Gmina Lipnica).
FOARP (
talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect. I'll probably start an AfD on pl wiki (if I do so I'll link it here if this is still open) but I don't see how this meets GNG. Per
[2] it is not a hoax (it exists, classified as osada leśna, separate from the village) but what can be said about it? I fear, nothing.
WP:NOPAGE seems to be strong here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of
redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have
hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. –
Joe (
talk) 16:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Membership in
Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Speedy keep. There's no policy forbidding disambiguation pages with titles in non-English scripts. They're a logical extension of
redirects in languages other than English when there's more than one primary topic and we have
hundreds in Chinese alone. Suggest you withdraw this and related AfDs. –
Joe (
talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Membership in
Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles (384) is not a valid deletion rationale. Not sure how else we'd disambiguate names of subjects that are transliterated differently depending on the native language of the subject, but a new process would take a sitewide RfC.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 first source on this page is the magazine's own about page, and the third is a press release on a PR website. Neither of those provide notability, and while the Paisano article (
archived) does, it alone does not show notability for this article. I couldn't find more coverage, though the problems with searching for a news publication with a generic name like this are not lost on me, but if there indeed isn't more coverage available then I'm afraid this fails the notability pass and should be deleted.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Move and redirect , which I will do manually. Please tweak if needed StarMississippi 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
A mass-created article created by
Kotbot, a deactivated bot.
The name means literally "at the top".
From the map it appears to be a farm in the village of
Gliśno Wielkie. Notably the GMaps address given for this location is in that village. The only source given in the article is the TERYT database, but I could not locate an entry for this.
Searching
this Polish postal directory I also could not find an entry for this place in Lipnica, Bytów.
This 2015 law on Polish place names (1500+ pages long) describes it as "Part of Gliśno Wielkie" (część wsi Gliśno Wielkie), not as a settlement (osada), so the article is inaccurate.
Exactly none of these sources describes this place as ever having been a populated settlement, as such it fails WP:GEOLAND. Merging to Gliśno Wielkie is meaningless as no information is included in the article to merge. Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense. That leaves deletion.
FOARP (
talk) 20:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"Redirecting the Polish phrase for "at the top" to a random village in rural Poland makes no sense"? That's the name of the place and it's part of the village. In English such a phrase could be a "random" song or album. There are other places so disambiguation would be more useful.
Peter James (
talk) 12:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Peter, there are 15 different
locations with the same name listed on PL Wiki,
a film, and
a rock-band - why would anyone be looking for this? Not even address of the location is listed as being Na Górze - though the postal directory lists a (similarly non-notable) address in Rybnik. This title falls into at least two classes of un-needed redirect:
1) The title is a Polish-language adjective ("topmost"/"top") with no actual affinity to the subject. See
WP:AFFINITY.
2) The title is
WP:UNHELPFUL since it raises unrealistic expectations - we do not redirect every named location and building in a village to the village.
FOARP (
talk) 13:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Settlements in a parish are typically redirected to the parish if there is not enough content for a separate article.
WP:AFFINITY would only be a reason not to redirect it to an article with no connection to the language or add an article with no connection to that language to a disambiguation page. Whether a place is in a postal directory are not always relevant - in the UK some villages and large suburbs can be missing entirely and a small village can be included three times.
Peter James (
talk) 13:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This isn’t a settlement, though - that would be listed as an osada. This is simply a place-name, one that is essentially an adjective.
FOARP (
talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Move then Redirect. Per pl wiki and
TERYT, this is just part of a village. I don't see how this has a stand-alone notability. Will start pl wiki AFD soon. PS. First, move this to
Na Górze (Gliśno Wielkie), per pl wiki. Note that per pl wiki and TERYT, there is a dozen or so different villages have identically named "parts". The current name should be a disambig like
pl:Na Górze. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:09, 17 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Once SPA input is properly discounted (and given that the SPAs apparently do not understand what constitutes reliable and in-depth coverage for purposes of determining notability), there is a clear consensus for deletion.
BD2412T 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Non-notable book. No (zero) independent sources and apparently available only on Kindle. The article creator and main contributor appears to have a COI as well.
RegentsPark (
comment) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Article lists three independent sources.
Three of the books in the series are available in paperback. One of the books is also being sold by Barnes and Noble.
The Article is linked to by two other Articles.
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Two of the books listed in the Article are also listed on Google Books.
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that this editor has
tried to add a mention of this book to the
George Washington Bridge article without any reliable secondary sources, then called a
removal of this content "vandalism". The fact that I couldn't find any secondary coverage of this book at all, while trying to find a source for this addition, is concerning.
Epicgenius (
talk) 23:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Note that this editor deleted multiple segments of the Article en-mass simultaneously of discrete instances of In Culture which were referenced. Explanation given by editor was only "remove cruft".
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Actually, I retained everything that did have a reference; the only other paragraph that I removed was not referenced, either (it only contains a
inline external link). The point is, I was trying to find a secondary source to justify retaining the mention of Loss of Reason in the GWB article but was unable to do so. In fact, I can't find any secondary sources for this book anywhere (a Google search only uncovers unrelated things which use that exact phrase). –
Epicgenius (
talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There are 5 secondary sources for books in the State Of Reason series (including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason"), listed right at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 00:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: I did find this source:
[3], but that might be a
WP:SPS and I don't know if the author counts as a subject-matter expert. All other sources found were either not independent or were trying to sell me the ebook or a print copy.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books.
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The web pages linked to are independent and offer nothing for sale, but some do offer previews of the books. 68.2.61.80 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:Notability (books), the book needs to be the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Mere inclusion in a list of books is insufficient (see note 1 on the page linked above). Please also review our
conflict of interest guidelines.
RegentsPark (
comment) 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the table below. I couldn't find any better sources.
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}}.
On what basis is Pirate Patty consider "not reliable"?
68.2.61.80 (
talk) 22:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Please add the WorldCat cite above to your table.Pomgrom (
talk) 23:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Pirate Patty is a blog and is thus not acceptable as a reliable source.WorldCat is a repository of bibliographic data. It is reliable for verifying certain data about a book but does not provide significant coverage about books by itself. –
Epicgenius (
talk) 01:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Not true. WorldCat includes the number of libraries, their names, and locations that hold various editions of a book in their collections. It also includes individual reviews. WorldCat is even listed as an acceptable reliable source by Wikipedia.
Pomgrom (
talk) 02:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Pomgrom, your worldcat source and almost all other sources listed merely confirm the existence of this book or series. You need to show evidence of notability and, unfortunately, there is zero evidence for that.
RegentsPark (
comment) 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Pirate Patty is a
WP:BLOG. Blogs CAN be reliable, but it's a high standard. Read
WP:BLOG, Pirate Patty would not qualify. -- Mike🗩 13:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the table below. Two sources that meet General Notability Guidelines required. Six that meet GNG listed.Note: Cite #4 WorldCat (
https://www.worldcat.org/title/929458752) displays a catalog of the series including the first book in the series "Loss Of Reason" which is available in paper and ebook, held in 39 library collections, and lists 109 reviews.
Pomgrom (
talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.
Google Link at top of this article is offered by deletion initiating editor as GNG source of Wiki reference cites. With Wiki limitation removed and searching under individual names of books in series many source instances are returned.
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}}.
Two things that I think is wrong with your table. Firstly, you have two
WP:BLOGS listed as reliable (they're not). Second, WorldCat is a database, it isn't
significant coverage. Think "paragraphs" when determining
WP:SIGCOV. Also, are you the same editor as they IP editor above? -- Mike🗩 14:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Please disclose your motivation, "Darth Mike" for attempting to remove this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Denying coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling professional reviewers "blogs." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. Don't you work?
Pomgrom (
talk) 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I could say the same. Please disclose your motivation, "Pomgrom" for attempting to keep this series Wikipedia page. You seem to have a hidden agenda. Thinking that coverage of WorldCat's many library collections of holding these books as significant coverage. Calling blogs "professional reviewers." Please disclose your personal motivation trying so hard. I won't ask whether or not you work, as it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also, I have stricken again your duplicate keep !vote. You have already !voted, you can't !vote again. Also, learn what
vandalism is before accusing me. If you suspect me of vandalism, feel free to report me to
WP:AIV and if you suspect me of having ulterior motives, report me to
WP:COIN. -- Mike🗩 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Strikethrough vote no longer necessary - have combined "vote" and comments with table.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pomgrom (
talk •
contribs) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
NetGalley would not make something notable. Per their own
about page and
how it works, they just give copies of books to member to review. The review you linked to by Kim C., just states that Kim is an educator. For a review to be meaningful, it must come from a
reliable source. -- Mike🗩 14:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment to Closer: All keep !votes have come from
single-purpose accounts who have had very little to no activity outside of this one topic. -- Mike🗩 14:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NBOOK per the sources discussed here. No plausible merge/redirect target.
Suriname0 (
talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike . . . Member of the band Loss Of Reason?
Pomgrom (
talk) 06:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Remember Closer, GNG are just guidelines, the application of which much is based on opinion and preference. Not hard and fast rules, otherwise more than 20% of the text on Wikipedia would not exist.
Flexibility is important too, taking in the scope and feel and trend.
Hey
User:Pomgrom, no need to worry about a specific citation being present in the article; the assessment that other discussion participants make (and that the closer should use as well) is based on the sources both cited on the page and raised here in this discussion. Relevant citations can always be added to the article later.
Suriname0 (
talk) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"'Strong Keep"' I'm just reading through some of these comments and find them to be out of character for individuals who would truly be concerned about an author's work. But I'm just a reader. All I know is that I have found that I can find almost every one of this series of books in my small local library system in Texas, and that says a lot.
Delete . Fairly obvious, fails GNG. I couldn’t find it in the Bodleian, so I kind of doubt above SPA’s claim even if it was at all relevant to notability. Not much else I can say. Has a notice been made on
WP:COIN yet?
Fermiboson (
talk) 11:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
✗plicit 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In
WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find much in the way of
WP:RS covering this to confer notability onto the car. There appear to be some youtube videos on it, but almost no articles on it. It's very possible there's a number of them I am missing given Trumpchi is a Chinese company and some of the coverage might not be in English, but from what I could find it was sparse enough for me that I didn't think it passed
WP:GNG.
TartarTorte 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify - seems a little premature. -
Indefensible (
talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify - once released, I am sure there will be coverage. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify per the above comments. Note that the
Chinese Wikipedia does not yet have an article about this car - that's not a requirement for inclusion here, but it is telling.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The delete arguments appear to accurately characterize the sources as not contributing to notability. The responses simply assert otherwise. If the assertions came from editors with reputations for solid source analysis, I might think twice, but that's clearly not the case here.
RL0919 (
talk) 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NACTOR. Press falls under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe.
CNMall41 (
talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability. Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per
WP:THREE), this should be deleted.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep- Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion. The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage. Keep per
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
6, and
7.
Andarredot (
talk) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) —
Andarredot (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Yes I agree, I made
few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false. it's my opinion only.
Andarredot (
talk) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only sources are either
WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink!
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - clearly a promotional piece. The nominator hits the nail on the head.
Onel5969TT me 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per sources above which show notability. I found
1 among many many other English and Bengali sources . Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks.
27.56.30.252 (
talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Amazing. Another reference published since this AfD was started. This fails
WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
That source was already added to the article three days ago. And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter. What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name? It's a PR piece.
Largoplazo (
talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep !voter,
1 is clearly advertising.
2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.
3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.
5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece. "Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996"? "He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession."? "He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at."? This is all public relations.
6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.
7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 page was
WP:BLARred by
VickKiang with the rationale all of the refs are non-independent and are from PBR. Refs I can found mention this in a few sentences while covering other subjects and does not pass SIGCOV IMO. I do largely agree with that rationale; however, I am bringing this here (a) procedurally because I don't think that there is a good target for the redirect and (b) if that is the case and this page has contested notability then the page might be best as deleted.
TartarTorte 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and potentially merge anything worth saving to
Professional Bull Riders seems like a good solution to me.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 23:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This album charted at #20 nationally and was on the charts for 6 weeks, per
Oricon, therefore making it likely to meet
WP:NALBUM. I have not tried to find separate coverage online (and for this period in Japan most relevant sources are on paper), but at worst this should be redirected to the artist,
Number Girl.
Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 22:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes criteria 2 of
WP:NALBUM per evidence provided above by Dekimasu.
4meter4 (
talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment With a quick check in ProQuest, I see some coverage of similarly named programs in Ireland
[4] and Canada
[5][6], Australia
[7], Singapore
[8], etc.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 22:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 came here via a blocked promotional sock account which also edited this one. The article was PRODded before, by
User:Onel5969. The BLP is at best a BLP1E, and even that is sketchy because there just is no reliable secondary sourcing to support a claim to notability.
Drmies (
talk) 22:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Individual is quite notable. Keep this page up...
Ah507 (
talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No reliable source available to claim that the subject is notable, Just a YouTuber. He has some coverage after the tongue-controversy with another YouTuber Muhammad Ali Mirza and about other religion. The subject having no proof of being a lecturer at the seminary. He is just known for having 4 wives, and not notable, thus agrees with the Nominator.
Syed A. Hussain Quadri (
talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
While it is true that he is primarily known as a YouTuber, we cannot disregard the impact and influence he has had within the online religious discourse. His notable controversies and debates with figures like
Muhammad Ali Mirza have garnered significant attention and discussion within the relevant communities.
Ainty Painty (
talk) 10:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ainty Painty He has no influence in my view, and if he is an influencer then also, he is not passing the notability criteria. Some websites covered the mouth-fight of Mirza and Masood, this cannot make an individual notable. I really recognize your contributions, but he isn't notable. Thanks
Syed A. Hussain Quadri (
talk) 10:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a shred of notability. Created for promotional purpose. Fails
WP:GNG.
Maliner (
talk) 16:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Agrees with the Nominators view and comment, also at first glance it seems more promotional content. and failed in
WP:GNG. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mrjoegoldberg (
talk •
contribs)
Comment @
Maliner and @
Mrjoegoldberg The criticism of being a "promotional" page should be addressed with improvements in the article's neutrality, rather than outright deletion. Mufti Tariq Masood's work has been influential in shaping discussions on religion and theology in the digital era.
Ainty Painty (
talk) 10:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 merge to
Ex tempore decision. I can't relist this a fourth time, so I am somewhat backed into making a determination on what is closer to consensus here with minimal participation. I find this option as outlined by
James500 to be the best way forward.
Daniel (
talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This is essentially just a list of a certain type of case decided by the Canadian SC. There are no WLs (signifying that none of these cases are particularly important or notable). There are only 3 years, signifying that this is a project someone started and never finished. Ultimately, we do not have any sourcing which would indicate why this list is significant or notable. The mere fact that the SC can decided cases in this way does not mean that we need to have a list of all the times they did so.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify. The editor who started this ages ago has made some edits recently so this is possibly the best option for now for this in-progress list. —
siroχo 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I have no issue with moving to a draft, but the last substantive and productive edit to this page (by anyone) was in 2006. Highly unlikely anyone is going to pick back up where they left off, and even further, I do not see what this list adds to anything. There is no indication that being decided orally is of any significance that would give rise to a standalone list. 16:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 23:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ex tempore decision, which appears to be the parent topic, and merge the first paragraph of the lead (but not the list). Oral judgments of the Canadian courts is certainly a notable topic
[9], but the article would probably need to be extensively rewritten to cover it. Supreme court cases are likely to satisfy GNG, but there is no explanation why oral decisions of the court should be listed separately from reserved decisions, and I cannot think of one. The page is a plausible redirect, and draftification never results in improvements.
James500 (
talk) 06:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to decide between Draftification or a Redirect/Merge combo. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article is completely unsourced and was formerly reliant on a single colonial-era source (
WP:RAJ)as its primary reference. This article should be considered for deletion due to a lack of credible sources and failure to meet the general notability criteria
WP:V.
O chawal (
talk) 07:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 23:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep.
This source has several pages of information about a military conflict impacting the village where the Umar Khel live (the village is also named Umar Khel).
The 2011 source also has brief coverage of a different military conflict involving the Umar Khel.
This 2020 source lists them as an existing subdividsion of the Hotak Khel/Hassan Khel tribe and this
1983 source and
this 2004 source list them as under the Nano Khel. The United States government geo located the tribe in
this 1962 source, this
1922 source includes them, as does this
1914 source. The first source is really the only one with in-depth coverage, but I think that a verifiable people group is encyclopedic. Lastly I am fairly confident that significant coverage exists in J. A. Robinson (1978). Notes on Nomad Tribes of Eastern Afghanistan. Gosha-e-Adab. which is snippet view stated "Umar Khel . - 95 families which are nomadic and have no flocks or land , exist by trade between Kandahar and Dera Ismail Khan . They migrate with the Nasar..." That's all I could see but it appears there was more.
4meter4 (
talk) 16:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Ephemeral publication. The article has three references. The first one (in the Historical Journal) is just an in-passing mention, giving the start and end date of the publication. The other two don't even seem to mention the magazine. Does not meet
WP:GNG, hence: delete.
Randykitty (
talk) 08:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous
WP:PROD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
RL0919 (
talk) 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Being the first periodical published in the Bhojpuri language is historically significant enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. The periodical also appears to have changed names (or rather the script changed), so I am not confident the other sources "don't mention" the periodical. Given the language challenges involved I am uncertain that a proper
WP:BEFORE search could be done by someone other than a language specialist in Bhojpuri and Devanagari. For this reason, I'm inclined to lean keep even without SIGCOV proved for certain.
4meter4 (
talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE do not show WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. //
Timothy ::
talk 22:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Article is very little and is not notable on Wikipedia. This article has only 3 sentences as the article has no references. This article should be deleted.
Geko72290 (
talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
comment This article is going to be kept, based upon the content of the German and French WP articles, which are extensive. There is even a claim to notability (which our article on
Meister Eckhart says isn't true, but...). It has a population in the hundreds, so it's not just a dot on the map. That said, it's a junk stub that could just as well be recreated from scratch as expanded.
Mangoe (
talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is abundant material at German Wiki, some of which I've just added to get things going.
Bermicourt (
talk) 08:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. From the German article, this is a notable village. It could have potentially been merged upwards at nomination time, but thanks to Bermicourt now has enough content to stand on its own. —
Kusma (
talk) 16:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals
(non-admin closure)Atlantic306 (
talk) 01:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, seeing as Burgess Meredith is a known actor, this is the first and only film he has directed...which I think qualifies the film under
WP:NFIC, "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career."
DonaldD23talk to me 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Donaldd23 If what I’m about to tell you is considered
WP:NPA, I truly apologize because that is not my intent (my only intent for sending this article to AfD is out of
good faith). I must disagree per
WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes, the film was directed by Meredith, and it starred notable actors like James Mason and Jeff Bridges. But like I said, I view that as WP:INHERITED.
The Film Creator (
talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I do not believe that your statement was NPA, so no offense taken. I understand your position, but I am not saying that the film should be kept because notable actors are in it. I am saying that a notable actor who had an important role in their career (1st and only directorial feature) is the reason for inclusion. Therefore, INHERITED is not applicable. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
DonaldD23talk to me 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Other than the above, it was also one of the earliest films for composer
Robert O. Ragland and actor
Jeff Bridges. I would suggest that makes the film fall in
Wikipedia:NFIC#Inclusionary_criteria and "significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." @The Film Creator: Thank you for doing
WP:BEFORE. It seems this film may suffer from "significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films." --
Bensin (
talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
The review notes: "Nero Finnegan (Jeff Bridges), a writer who is AWOL from the Army, lives off cynical bar girl Tah Ling (Irene Tsu) in Hong Kong. To raise some money he goes to work for the Fu Manchu type Mr. Go (James Mason), "the embodiment of evil." Go blackmails bi-sexual American Professor Bannister (Peter Lind Hayes), by secretly filming him having sex with Nero, who complains of "rough trading faggots!" Agent Leo Zimmerman (Jack MacGowran from Fearless Vampire Killers), a James Joyce scholar, is sent to befriend and deceive Nero. They bar hop, get smashed, talk literature, and party with three Chinese hookers. Tah Ling is kidnapped, drugged, and nearly raped by Nazi like dyke Zelda (Clarissa Kaye). The Dolphin (Meredith) is Go's eccentric double dealing acupuncturist. A ray from the third eye of a large Buddah statue changes Go's personality and he fakes his own death. It ends with Go and Tah Ling making out inside the Buddah during his big street funeral while a Star Wars type laser defense system is demonstrated. Did I mention that Buddah narrates!? Tsu, who looks great, has several topless scenes. Also with big brawls, chases, a Chinese giant, a monkey, and a (white) drag singer. The light pop songs are by Robert O. Ragland. This odd comedy was shot on location except for CIA boardroom scenes with Broderick Crawford."
The article notes: "The Director of Photography on Burgess Meredith's picture "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," Mr Bob Wyckoff, leaves Hongkong today after quitting yesterday afternoon. Mr Wyckoff walked off the set in a Hilton Hotel room at lunchtime yesterday, together with his operator, Mr. Grady Martin, after only ten days' shooting of the film, which stars James Mason, Jack MacGowran, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ... However, filming will continue without the American camera team, as Mr Cranston has engaged a local freelance cameraman, Mr Ray Woodbury, to work on the production until Mr Stephens arrives.
The article notes: "Anyone who saw John Frankenheimer's film Grand Prix in Cinerama ... They were probably the most exciting shots ever set up for a movie anywhere, and the man responsible for them — cameraman John Stephens — is in Hongkong this week. In fact, Stephens will be here for some time, as he is working on Burgess Meredith's new production, The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, which is currently being made in the Colony. He replaced cameraman Bob Wyckoff, who walked off the set after a series of disputes with director Meredith, and Stephens' arrival has brought a fresh air of enthusiasm to everyone involved in the picture. ... Already, director and cameraman have established the kind of rapport necessary to achieve any kind of success in filming a motion picture. And this obviously has a good effect on the actors — James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Jack MacGowran and Irene. Tsu.""
The article notes: "Champagne bottles were popping together with photographers' bulbs when Burgess Meredith had his head shaven at the Hongkong Hilton last night. The occasion was part of the preparations for Meredith's cameo role as The Dolphin in the picture, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," which Meredith is making here with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. Meredith and makeup man, Marvin Westmore, spent more than an hour completing the transformation from Meredith's long-haired Hollywood appearance to create that of a short-haired Mandarin-moustached aging Oriental. Meredith plays the role of a Hongkong acpuncturist in the film."
The book notes: "Mason then went to Hong Kong for an honest-to-God disaster that couldn't have looked good even on paper. The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go (1969–70) was written and directed by actor Burgess Meredith, going behind the camera for the first time since The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949). Mason is an Asian arms dealer who gets involved with a young American (Jeff Bridges). This international mishmash ran out of money and was officially never completed, though it may have been later patched together and released in Southeast Asia under the title The Third Eye. It can now be found on video under its original name, with obviously fake new scenes featuring Broderick Crawford."
The article notes: "ven in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), Bridges' talent, which in those days fed on his unveiled enthusiasm, was undeniable. ... If you want to mix in a doozy of a change of pace, rent "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," of which there is no record in almost all of the major film source books. It was directed by Burgess Meredith in Hong Kong, co-stars Meredith, James Mason and Broderick Crawford, and mixes espionage with a travelogue of the city, strange sexual behavior and cracked Eastern mysticism, all adorned with a loopy bubblegum-pop score."
The article notes: "His least-known film is undoubtedly "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), a Hong Kong travelogue holding up an espionage and acupuncture plot, written and directed by Burgess Meredith, co-starring James Mason and Meredith."
The article notes: "You may or may not want to recall several jaw-dropping experiences, the foremost of which might be Burgess Meredith's incredibly ridiculous "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), with Jeff Bridges as a hippie in a bubble-gum Hong Kong travelogue about acupuncture, spies and strange sexual proclivities. This one has to be seen to be believed. James Mason and Broderick Crawford are in it, too."
The article notes: "In his earliest roles, at age 20, Bridges' talent was undeniable, even in the cornball and sorely out-dated "In Search of America" (1970), a made-for-television hooter from the hippie era, in which he played a Ken Kesey-style social dropout driving a flower-power bus, and in the loony oddity, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go" (1970), in which he was caught up in Hong Kong intrigue."
The entry notes: "Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go. Alternate title: The Third Eye; Touch and Go." The entry notes: "Hong Kong: Concerned with a half-English, half-Malaysian entrepreneur, who suddenly becomes involved in the legend, whereby once every seven years Buddha changes a person and this enables other people to change accordingly."
The article said of
James Mason, "He is making a film here, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," with Australian actress Clarissa Kay, Jeff Bridges and Irene Tseu. He describes it as "A sort of "Terry and the Pirates' with sociological and religious overtones." One gathers that the picture goes well, though progress and spirits rise and fall with fluctuations of its financing. There is a lavish buffet at noon daily in the Espresso Room of the hotel. It costs less than two U.S. dollars. Barometer of the movie's current condition is the behavior of one of its entrepreneurs. If he eats three heaping plates, making it his single meal of the day, it means things are shaky. Director Burgess Meredith is unperturbed and unquenchable. A highly charged, intense man, he has high hopes for the film. "And give my best regards to Buck Buchwach and Eddie Sherman."
The article notes: "But it's still today and tomorrow that count with Meredith. "I'm in the middle of cutting my latest film. It has been shot and I'm just cutting. I wrote, produced and directed it and I'm also acting in it with James Mason. We rescued a pretty little Chinese girl, Inez Tsu, from Frank Sinatra and she's in it too." The film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," was shot in Hong Kong and takes its title from a bit of Zen Buddhism. According to Zen, the yin and the yang represent the duality of nature or "the sweet and sour of life," as Meredith puts it. ..."
The article notes: "Dong Kingman writes from Hong Kong that Burgess Meredith, directing "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go," had his head shaved and his eyes slenderized to play a Chinese acupuncturist in the movie"
The article notes: "Then there was "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go," a four-month Hong Kong project Bridges greatly enjoyed and for which he got paid, though it was never released. "Burgess Meredith wrote it and acted in it. The story was beautiful.""
The article notes: "But Bridges can describe how he feels about the second film he made. "This is hard to believe but I played an AWOL Vietnam soldier who was writing a Joycean rock opera in Hong Kong," he said. "The movie was written and directed by Burgess Meredith and it was called 'The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go.' James Mason starred as a Chinese-Mexican guy. That's about all I can remember about it except I think it's better than it sounds." "The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go" was never released."
The book notes: "The Yin and the Yang of Mr. Go. Ross International 1971. Burgess Meredith. James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Irene Tsu, Alec McCowen, Peter Lind Hayes. Confused tale of international arms trading. BC narrates sequences that were added without director Meredith's participation."
The book notes: "Top-billed Jim Kelly makes only the briefest appearance, but Burgess Meredith—whose own film The Yin and Yang of Mr. Go (1970) shares some similarities with Golden Needles—gives a bravura performance."
The article notes: "A former radio personality was wounded yesterday when three youths attacked him during location shooting of an American film in Wongneichong Road, Happy Valley. Mr Bill Furnival, a 22-year-old former Commercial Road reporter, was assisting in the production of the film, "The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go," when he was assaulted by the youths, one armed with a knife and the others others with broom handles."
The article notes: "Now Jack MacGowran is hard at work preparing for his role in The Yin and the Yang of Mr Go, with James Mason, Irene Tsu and Jeff Bridges. ..."
The article notes: "At the time of her pictorial in January 1971 Liv Lindeland was developing an acting career for both the screen and age. ... Still, she would appear in popcorn fare such as The Yin and Yang of Mr Go, ..."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and Delete vote struck. LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The review notes: "Hoo boy, this is a bad movie. There’s a fine tradition of powerful boxing movies out there—Raging Bull, Rocky, even Million Dollar Baby come to mind, not to mention documentaries like When We Were Kings. But Sucker Punch is a different critter altogether. It’s a poorly written, poorly executed, cliché-ridden, low-budget snoozer that’s a chore to watch. It’s not even so bad it’s good. It’s just… very tired."
The book notes: "Shiner's Stoney-Mahoney fight footage echoes the environment (and, alas, filming technique) of another hardnosed boxing adaptation, 3 Finger Productions' Sucker Punch (Malcolm Martin, April 2008), which eschewed Shakespeare for a micro-budget British remake/update/travesty of Hard Times aka The Streetfighter (Walter Hill, 1975). In the US original, 1930s illegal prizefighter Chaney was played by Charles Bronson-real name Charles Buchinsky: in homage the similarly taciturn fighter here bears the same name. Sucker Punch relates how Buchinsky (Gordon Alexander), newly returned to London's boxing underworld, is taken up by flash, fast-talking but strictly small-time illegal fight promoter Ray ‘Harley' Davidson (Danny John Jules)—the equivalent of James Coburn's garrulous conman Speed from Hard Times. Accompanied by a soundtrack from the Stranglers' Jean-Jacques Burnel and Baz Warne, Buchinsky progresses to a climactic fight-off against rival manager Victor Maitland (UFC veteran and 2004 Cage Rage world heavyweight champion Ian 'The Machine' Freeman) and the chance to avenge a previous heavy beating: after a ten-minute laboured slog with repeated fake blood-spitting, he does so. Comic cameos from Antonio Fargas, Tamer Hassan and (a pre-fame but subsequent release-prompting) Tom Hardy seek to leaven the fight scenes' dubious brutality, but only accentuate the tonal uncertainty—a match for the film's alarmingly erratic camera focus and lighting. ..."
The article notes: "North-East hardman Ian "The Machine" Freeman is taking a principal role in an independent film about the murky world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Entitled Sucker Punch, it also stars martial arts expert Gordon Alexander, ... He was offered the role after the producers saw him in Sky One show Britain's Hardest, which he co-presented with actor Steve McFadden, former on-screen hardman Phil Mitchell in EastEnders."
The article notes: "The hard-hitting film is set in London and centres around the world of bare-knuckle fighting. ... Sucker Punch tells the story of a wronged man, Bushinski, who, 10 years after being viscously attacked by Maitland, is seeking revenge. The British, Intercontinental and World Champion ultimate fighter and dad-of-three has taken time away from the world's most violent sport to begin filming, which will end this summer. Writer and director Malcolm Martin, who worked with Brad Pitt on Fight Club, hopes the film will be shown in cinemas in 2006."
The article notes: "Lá por 2008, Tom Hardy já tinha feito alguns papeis em filmes maiores como Maria Antonieta e Nem Tudo é o Que Parece, mas seu personagem em Sucker Punch (não o do Zack Snyder, outro filme com o mesmo nome) trouxe de volta seu hábito de metamorfose. No longa, Hardy aparece em menos de 2 minutos como um mecânico, mas mesmo com pouco tempo de tela ele não economizou na transformação."
From Google Translate: "By 2008, Tom Hardy had already made some roles in bigger movies like Maria Antonieta and not everything is what it seems, but his character in Sucker Punch (not Zack Snyder, another movie with the same name) brought back his habit of metamorphosis. In the feature, Hardy appears in less than 2 minutes as a mechanic, but even with a short screen time he did not save on the transformation."
The article notes: "The 37-year-old, from Leadgate, near Consett, County Durham, recently landed a role in the independent film Sucker Punch, directed by Malcolm Martin"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.
Found this Dutch movie magazine review
here,
Atlantic306 (
talk) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for finding that. According to
User:Donaldd23, Cinemagazine is considered reliable. However, I will not withdraw unless: A.) there’s one other reliable or suitable review; or B.) more “keep” votes per consensus.
The Film Creator (
talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I withdraw nomination per reviews by Cinemagazine and Mymovies.it. Passes NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. Excellent work, everybody.
The Film Creator (
talk) 18:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Made when the guideline WP:NBAD was more inclusive, however now that the guideline has been revised to just include Grand Prix/Super Series/World Tour, this article no more passes the notability parameter. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. zoglophie•talk• 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.. I have also lowered protection on the correct main space page title to Extended Confirmed after it was fully protected for 12 years now. LizRead!Talk! 20:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article
Doron Braunshtein is
salted against recreation after being repeatedly speedy deleted. This doesn't quite qualify as a speedy deletion candidate but there's still an absence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources so I don't think he meets
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 could literally find no sources for this temple.
Sohom (
talk) 16:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Google Maps link provided shows a rather modest temple in the middle of the field, while I'm not doubting the temple's existence, I don't see it being notable :(
Sohom (
talk) 16:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 person does not meet our guideline for
WP:ENT. Previously,
WP:PORNBIO was the guide but it was depreciated in March 2019.
Lightburst (
talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No change in notability since the article was deleted at AfD two years ago. Same junk sources and still fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ENT. Independent search finds nothing substantial or reliable.
• Gene93k (
talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not appear to be significantly different from the previous version, which would make this eligible for speedy deletion. Same garbage sources. Note, please do not honor any requests to draftify this article. It appears this was done before, and the person just shoved it back into mainspace with no effort to improve.
Zaathras (
talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 and move to
Urban flight.. No point in a Merge as
Urban flight is a Redirect page with no content but a link. LizRead!Talk! 17:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
AfD is not cleanup. The article has no proper citations, true, but discusses two analyses in named published works and has two "Further reading" sources, so it's clearly notable and probably secretly sourced, just not how we like it.
Urban flight redirects to this article, which is
backwards.Keep and move to
Urban flight over redirect.
Folly Mox (
talk) 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah yes you are right I had not noticed the urban flight redirect. This seems a good solution as even I have heard of urban flight so that must be a more common name
Chidgk1 (
talk) 12:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
By the way
White flight has over 100 cites but not sure how that fits in
Chidgk1 (
talk) 12:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Move to Urban flight per above. Clearly a notable and much-discussed topic in the news and scholarly sources. The article is quite bad, but AfD is not cleanup, and this does not raise to the level of
WP:TNT imo.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The guideline states that in order for a company to be notable, the sources have to be secondary, independent, and reliable. There are three references that cite the "About" pages of companies, one reference citing a Google+ forum, two of them cite the subject's website, and the remaining one doesn't give significant coverage.
TarantulaTM (
speak with me) (
my legacy) 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Absolutely no significant coverage.
PepperBeast(talk) 16:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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: Scattered mentions of the term in Gnewspapers for example, but simple mentions don't describe what this is, beyond an expanded DICDEF I can't find any sources for this item.
Oaktree b (
talk) 19:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Mass-created article by
Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user
Kotniski.
As it says
on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" (nieoficjalna osada). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is a Milczany in Bobolice listed on
the Polish regulation of place-names.
Pl wiki article says it is in old TERYT database, but not new. Franly, I would see this as an error corrected. Also, pl wiki lists this as "unofficial village extension" for
Ubiedrze. I say redirect and merge there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and merge to
Ubiedrze per
Piotrus. Another bogus bot creation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 has earned at least six
caps for the
Antigua and Barbuda national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing
WP:GNG. A few examples of what I did find were
1,
2 and
3.
JTtheOG (
talk) 16:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - couldn't find anything better than what JT already found
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Mass-created article by
Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user
Kotniski.
As it says
on the PL Wiki article, this is an "unofficial settlement" of the village of
Przeborowo (nieoficjalna osady wsi Przeborowo). This is not listed on the TERYT database (despite the TERYT database being listed as the source...) nor is it listed on
the Polish regulation of place-names.
Delete. Not in TERYT. Article claims it is a "woodland area", so was this even a populated place, or just a name for some nearby forest (unofficial at that?). I nominated it for deletion on pl wiki (article there has different sources, but first one does not mention this entity, and I can't access the second one). Just in case, it may be good to wait till pl wiki discussion is closed and monitor it for arguments:
pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:19:Hutniki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
✗plicit 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The film was only covered by reliable sources when it was first announced and has received virtually no mentions since. I could only find three pages that have referenced Lola James since 2022:
Sunday Times interview - Peltz says that she cut her husband's speaking role from the film and that she was making the movie when trying to coordinate her wedding dress. (October 2022)
Daily Mail article - Briefly mentions that Peltz posted "raunchy" set photos and mentions that the film is in post-production, but Daily Mail is
deprecated and was the only publication I could find saying that. (February 2023)
Yahoo News article - Peltz posts a photo wearing a fake baby bump and her fans think she's actually pregnant. (February 2023)
This seems like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:CRYSTALWP:TOOSOON given that all the info available about the movie is its cast and crew, the fact that it's been filmed, and that Peltz cut her husand out of it. Even the "crew" part is fuzzy, as I couldn't find sources for the cinematographer, editor, or composers.
Sock(tock talk) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete seems like there are a few more sources but these just repeat stuff from each other, which suggests there isn't much to say. It's
WP:TOOSOON to say anything about the project.
JMWt (
talk) 15:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per source assessment and the ones I found online, which repeat the same stuff. However, not particularly opposed to draftifying and publishing if the film does eventually receive more coverage.
NotAGenious (
talk) 09:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: I'd also support draftifying the article if that's preferable to deletion.
Sock(tock talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree it seems
WP:TOOSOON, though draftify would be ok in case things change.
Flurrious (
talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 15:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and, as noted in 2018, also fails
WP:NGEO. Only one source from a newspaper story from 1960, which briefly mentions the mall by a former name in passing within a story about another entity. The balance of the article is nothing more than a collection of links to commercial websites for the what purports to be the mall occupant stores.
Geoff | Who, me? 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - WP:NOTPRICE This "retail development " is in reality a shopping complex, and lists every retailer and service therein, with individual article links to each. And those individual articles have a link to their own websites. The few that do not have a Wikipedia article, have direct links to their own web sites.
— Maile (
talk) 15:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, after removing the
WP:ELNO,
WP:CRYSTAL, redlinks, and
WP:TENANTS dreck, there is the bones of a salvageable stub here.
Cabayi (
talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Incredibly generic edge city power center with the expected stores you'd expect to find at one named Mad Libs-style. Nate•(
chatter) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Keep: Rather easy to find RS, these are the first two from Gnews
[10],
[11].
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - as
Oaktree b says above there are long profile pieces which seem to suggest notability. They seem to me to be largely interviews but with sufficient critical editorial to be useable as a RS.
JMWt (
talk) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Probably the most well known school in the city. I have added an academic reference. Pretty sure native Turkish speakers can find more by searching for the previous name - including "Maarif" as you can see at
Anatolian High School. It is a bit irritating that the Turkish article has no cites - if you are Turkish it would be handy if you could add cites for us to copy here, at least for
İsmet İnönü visit.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 15:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 15:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
In as much as Arroyo is known at all, it is for the fraudulent claims of antivaxers that the baby he killed, actually died due to a vaccine. And therein lies the problem. The primary sources for the article were "Medical Veritas: The Journal of Medical Truth" (see also: Badger's Law), and a rebuttal in Quackwatch, which I regard as reliable but others don't.
This was a minor cause célèbre among ANTIVA, but I don't see any evidence of lasting coverage in reality-based media.
His campaign activities as an inmate activist might pass
WP:1E but here, again, the level of coverage is minimal and fundamentally about the campaign, not the man. I don't think we have enough here for a
WP:BLP: a routine crime, a bit of woo-monger conspiracist BS, and some reporting of involvement in a prisoners' campaign. Guy (
help! -
typo?) 14:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass crime notability, coverage I find is all from a site called "Workers World" in Gnews. Kudos for the coal plant thing, but I don't think that gets you an article here.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Workers World is the Communist Party newspaper for the USA, which implies bias. I can't find coverage in any RS otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk) 16:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete falls short of
WP:GNG by the looks of it.-
KH-1 (
talk) 01:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
This article was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. The location of the article is within
Nowe Ostrowy, a village for which we already have an article. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP
in the Polish regulation of place-names. A population of 40 people is given in the article, but no source is provided for it, and I cannot find any listing for Nowe Ostrowy PKP in
the Polish GUS database where census data should be available for locations where it is counted.
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this PKP-related something has stand-alone notability.
TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yet another (another) mass-created article about a non-notable communist-era state farm in Poland by
Kotbot, a bot operated by
Kotniski. Kotbot generated these articles based on articles in PL Wiki, but this one has already been deleted. The location is near
Bzówki which we already have an article about - but you can see that Google Maps, which scrapes Wikipedia data,
includes it as a location despite it not existing.
FOARP (
talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this State Farm (PGR) has stand-alone notability.
TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Yet another mass-created article about a non-notable communist-era state farm in Poland by
Kotbot, a bot operated by
Kotniski. Kotbo generated these articles based on articles in PL Wiki, but this one has already been deleted. The location is in
Suchodębie which we already have an article about.
FOARP (
talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence this State Farm (PGR) has stand-alone notability.
TERYT only lists the main village for that county, no related hamlet or anything else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. There have been two relistings without any additional comments so I'll just close this now as No consensus. LizRead!Talk! 17:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am no fan of pages that are stubs after many years, and neither am I fan of ideas of automatic notability, but I think this is the wrong school to test that on. It is mentioned in one scientific paper and a lot of books. Some of these, such as
[12] confirm the detail that it is one of the oldest (the book says the oldest) in the region. There are apparently notable ex pupils etc. This looks like it passes
WP:GNG to me. It definitely needs attention, and a lot of it, but I can't, hand on heart, say I think this is not notable.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 08:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll add to this that I would like to put it beyond doubt by finding several sources that are clearly reliable independent secondary sources with significant mentions, but many of the mentions in books are passing mentions. There is this one, though,
Survey Report, Part X-B, Series-23, West Bengal - Census 1981 which, despite its name, is a fuller report than just a census and tells us the school dates from the 19th century. For instance, it tells us:
"Again. Bhadrakali High School is the oldest institution in the entire municipal town, having been established in BhadrakaJi in 1824 as a Middle English school by the Christian Missionaries of Serampore. The present schoof was establishment in 1945 and got merged with the former Middle school. The school got affiliated as Higher Secondary institution in 1976. Shri Binod Behari Bhattacharya, an ex-Headmaster of this school, was honoured as a National Teacher. Shri Ajit Bugh. a teacher of this school, was elected as a Member 9f the Lok Sabha in 1982-87. Among other institutions in the town. Kotrung Bhupendra Smriti Vidyalaya has, in recent years. turned out to be one of the best schools in the region, so far as results of the Madhyamick Examination are concerned. A number of students of this school secured top places for a number of years."
This is clearly one source. For GNG we need multiple, but given the information there, I suspect more exist - except maybe not all of them in English. It looks notable to me, even though I haven't (yet) found additional sources.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 11:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 13:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mass-created article by
Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user
Kotniski.
There is no sign that this place actually exists. It was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. The location in the article is simply a street in the village of
Łęki Kościelne. There is no indication what SK stands for. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but with out the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Łęki Kościelne SK
in the Polish regulation of place-names.
FOARP (
talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mass-created article by
Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user
Kotniski.
There is no sign that this place actually exists. It was created automatically on the basis of a Polish Wikipedia article that was deleted some years ago. No location is given in the article, though probably it is some former part or company of the village of
Ktery. There is no indication what SK stands for though. A reference is given to the TERYT database, but withinout the SIMC ID it is not possible to search the database for it - however there is no listing for Ktery SK
in the Polish regulation of place-names.
FOARP (
talk) 12:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. No pl interwiki, no evidence of notability. We don't even know what SK stands for. Peter makes one suggestion above, my first guess would be "stacja kolejowa" (train station), but who knows? TERYT has no entry for anything on Krety that is not a village proper (
Ktery;
TERYT search).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 23:28, 17 October 2023 (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! 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Could not find any sources. Sources from Google search gave me their facebook page, a primary source. The only source is a list that doesn’t even have significant coverage. Just because it has amenities doesn’t mean it is
notable.Brachy08(Talk) 07:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Most sources found via Google search are wiki-like websites, which fail
WP:UGC. Only non-user generated source is this:
[13]. However, a single website probably isn't enough to meet
WP:SIGCOV.
Liu1126 (
talk) 14:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO. Article reads like a resume, only has one source etc. A search for sources turned up primary and unreliable sources.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 10:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. are
Sheriff of Mumbai generally notable? It seems like a prominent position in one of the largest cities of the world, representing the city itself. Or did I misunderstand the position? --
hroest 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hannes Röst, it seems like an honourary position given for one year (typically) per the article. I guess if someone gets the position it may imply local notability but it seems purely perfunctory.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (
talk) 21:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the above comment about reliable sources. When I did a Google search, I found numerous promotional type-profiles (like one would write on a website/to introduce a person) but nothing substantial. Maybe there are some in a language other than English.
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (
talk) 21:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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
Art Blakey discography. If this is not the correct Redirect target article, feel free to discuss a change on the Redirect's talk page. LizRead!Talk! 16:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No refs on the page for many years, notability tag since 2018. Nothing to suggest this meets notability standards for music
JMWt (
talk) 09:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the musician... There is some limited coverage of the song
[14] is an NPR-interview/review long talk thing like they do...
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Art Blakey discography. Actually the title of this article is wrong because the disambiguation for a song title should be to the performer, not the songwriter. See
Children of the Night (Richard Marx song), which has the same title. (For kicks, see also the ridiculous list of songs at
Hold On). In any case, the recording was by Art Blakey, and if someone searches for the song title with the reference to Shorter, they can be redirected there. Another possibility is to redirect to the disambig page at
Children of the Night, and then remove the resultant internal link. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 14:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect exhaustive search has pulled up little.
Mach61 (
talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a thesis for a Masters degree. We do not usually consider those Reliable Sources for the purposes of notability (I guess because there are large numbers of students who write things on a wide number of topics that would otherwise not be notable).
JMWt (
talk) 05:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC) to add: the relevant section in the RS guideline is
WP:SCHOLARSHIP which says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
JMWt (
talk) 08:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No independent, secondary coverage. The awards and recognitions (Washington Post Leadership Award, Billboard Power List) do not really contribute to notability.
Mooonswimmer 14:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough coverage to satisfy a
WP:GNG pass. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 19:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:BIO,
WP:SIGCOV. Looked at the first blocks of references. Mix of PR, technical papers. Mostly passing mentions, company info or
WP:PRIMARY,
WP:SPS sources scope_creepTalk 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The company he was CEO of, Velocys, Inc, might be notable, but there is no in-depth coverage of Lipski in independent, secondary sources. Mostly passing mentions and PR, as per nom.
Mooonswimmer 15:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete No enough notable references are weak
111.119.189.160 (
talk) 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Does being "the first to develop sentiment analysis AI software" not count as notable?
Stravensky (
talk) 22:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
After examining the references, in my view they (perhaps narrowly) don’t meet the "significant" part of
WP:SIGCOV. While he did get an entry in a biographical dictionary, the newspaper articles seem to be local briefs about how the subject left on a voyage, returned from another, retired, died, etc.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (
talk) 08:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The refs in the article clearly demonstrate that the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Jenks24 (
talk) 20:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Pretty clear that the existing references cover it. 5225C (
talk •
contributions) 02:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No updates or evidence of a campaign
Jebiguess (
talk) 17:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of a true "campaign" in Darfur? This page has been up since the beginning of the war in Sudan, and seldom edited since. There are only two battles mentioned, the battle of Geneina and the battle of Nyala, capitals of West and South Darfur respectively. The other city mentioned is Kabkabiya, which hasn't been edited to even mention a link for
it's page, and the only incident in Kabkabiya was the killing of three WFP staff early in the war.reply
Other Darfuri cities and capitals, such as
Zalingei,
Ed Daein, and
El Fasher are not mentioned in the article, with the latter mentioned in the infobox. Cities like Kutum, Sirba, Misterei, Kubum, and others are also not mentioned at all, likely due to the lack of editing on this page.
While all of these issues can be solved with a ton of editing, what is the big picture here? There is no evidence showing that there is a connected military campaign by the Rapid Support Forces or Sudanese army in Darfur, with goals of capturing one town to move to the next. In state capitals, with the exception of Ed Daein, the pattern has been a siege or attempted siege by RSF/Janjaweed against a garrison of Sudanese forces, with varying degrees of success. This is no different than El Obeid or parts of Omdurman for that matter, so why is Darfur singled out? For non-capital cities like Kutum and Misterei, it's primarily been local militias against the Janjaweed, which are moreso Arab tribal fighters than coordinated RSF.[1]
Essentially, I'm proposing this page be deleted because it was WP:CRYSTALBALLing the War in Sudan, and that there's little evidence of a coordinated campaign by any side, nor is the military tactics used any different than other regions of Sudan (with the exception of Khartoum due to urban warfare).
Keep: Missing updates and not being complete is not a cause for deletion + not sure about if WP:CRYSTALBALL fits/applies here as the article is not what nom propose. In essence, the page refer to the fight in the Darfur region during the
War in Sudan (2023). Many sources use similar wording to describe warring in the region, see
UN Dispatch,
AP,
The New Humanitarian and
Progressive. We might need to start discussing moving the page to
War in Darfur (2023)FuzzyMagma (
talk) 19:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: It just needs updating, thats alll
Lukt64 (
talk) 18:16, 13 October 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, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. We do not have anywhere near sufficient sourcing to maintain this article in mainspace. I am not draftifying because it appears the author cannot even verify the sourcing, about which there is FRINGE concerns, which means TNT is more appropriate StarMississippi 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article as written is an undecipherable mess, but from what I gather from the creator's comments, it's supposed to be about a claimed revolution in the late Angkor period of Cambodian history, albeit one that's only deduced from tangential mentions in historical sources. There are several problems here: (1) The article is very poorly and confusingly written, and doesn't identify the topic it's supposedly covering at all. (2) I can't identify any reliable sources that attest to this claimed "revolution". Those cited in the article seem to only be for specific tangential facts. As far as I can tell, this appears to be
WP:original research. The first issue could maybe be fixed (though I think it's bad enough here to fall into
WP:TNT territory), but the OR issue is the more serious problem that would call for deletion, unless I'm proven wrong.
Paul_012 (
talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it mentioned clearly about the revolution of the Cambodian people against the rulers in that time. From the reference source of the Chronicle of Ayutthaya and the record of
Zhou Daguan is definitely clear on this point and clear evidence to support it. Especially, the Chronicle of Cambodia itself state about this event too. All of the evidence supports the fact that there is the Revolution in Angkor in this period
Platinumshadow153 (
talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you provide
WP:secondary sources that attest to this revolution? Primary historical sources from centuries ago are subject to interpretation, so we need to go by what historians have written. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the one you mentioned is Coedès, George (1996). The Indianized states of Southeast Asia on
ISBN978-0-8248-0368-1. Which is interpretation that not even included the Trasak Paem
However, the one I mentioned is the Chronicle of Ayutthaya that is real historic evidence from Siamese side is one of the primary source. Unfortunately, it is written in Thai mostly. Also even the Chronicle of Cambodia mentioned this revolution too. I understand that many historian who read this Cambodian historic book tell that many events in this Chronicle is more like myth and legend that is the reason I didn't put details on Holy spear or White elephant selection, but only put on only the name of Cambodian King which is most relatable to both Siamese and Cambodian side. This is the secondary source.
,but the global accepted source is Zhou, Daguan (2007). A Record of Cambodia there is a version of English Translated by Peter Harris In University of Washington Press.
ISBN978-9749511244 that said about the revolution clearly which is the main primary source here since it is not interpretion, but the record of real event.
How about you any evidence against the event?Platinumshadow153 (
talk) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you give specific references, please? Which volume of the Ayutthaya Chronicle? Has it been digitised on vajirayana.org, and if so, can you provide a link? Can you give page numbers for the book sources? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 04:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
You could search in British Museum database for the information for the real document. Unfortunately, the picture could not search by words well. The links of other authors may not be redirect to the real evidence
Many people also read the conclusion from Thai author in this book there are some article on this book related to the topic."ภักดีคำ, ศานติ (2011). "เขมรรบไทย". มติชน. p. 37, 272"
Platinumshadow153 (
talk) 04:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The Santi Pakdekham book might be pointing in the right direction, but I'll have to make note to check it next time I visit the library. Meanwhile, even if the topic is verified the article will still need to be entirely rewritten, so draftifying might be an option to consider. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Would support draftifying per the above. Might have encyclopedic value, but cannot be confirmed for the moment and in any case is somewhat unintelligible.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 20:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Seems like original content retconned as sourced content with the name dropping of Zhou Daguan and the Siamese and Cambodian Chronicles without providing any actual sourced evidence. Zhou Daguan's accounts of Cambodia did not even take place during the time period of Trasak Paem's so called 'revolution' as Zhou returned to China in 1297, so I am not sure why he is mentioned. Claims that Trasak Paem is the progenitor of the Norodom dynasty is false, as that was King Norodom (Ang Voddey). As far as I'm concerned, Trasak Paem is a king from legend more than one of history.
MosheeYoshee (
talk) 07:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Why I support deletion - the Burmese Chronicles detail a very similar story of a Burmese cucumber king usurping the throne and predates Trosak Paem. It has been theorized that this Burmese story made its way into the Cambodian Chronicles and that is how the legend of Trosak Paem came to be. Cambodian consensus is that Trosak Paem is a figure of legend. The content on 'Cambodia Angkor Revolution Empire' is not historically accurate and is original research.
MosheeYoshee (
talk) 08:22, 5 October 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, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be very helpful to have additional analysis on whether there is enough material available to make this a viable subject, and indeed if it there is a substantial consensus among sources that it even happened. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 06:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Trosak Paem is often used in Thai nationalist discourse to incorrectly identify the descendants of the Angkorian empire as not being Khmer, but instead as '
Khom'. They do not believe that the Khmer people are the people of Angkor, and instead see current Khmer people as being descendants of Trosak Paem, a mythical figure who is not from the historical Varman Dynasty. This effort to establish Trosak Paem as a real person who had a 'revolution' is nothing more than an attempt to invalidate Khmer people as not being the descendants of Angkor. See also
Anti-Khmer sentiment.
MosheeYoshee (
talk) 18:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: As mentioned above, the author has provided no evidence of reliable sourcing, only a vague allusion to mostly historical primary sources that would seem to fall under
WP:OR or
WP:FRINGE. The only book source put forward has not been verified to contain coverage of the supposed topic at all. If potential closers are reluctant to choose between deletion and draftifying per my above comments, let me clarify that I would prefer deletion. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 06:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. If references haven't shown up during a month on AFD, my inference is they aren't going to.
Stifle (
talk) 15:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Sources on the page and those I find online are simply mentions. There is one in-depth source in the Chicago Tribune I found but on closer examination it is a press release. There is also content on the page (some of which I removed) which is not supported by the references provided. Lots of bold claims as well which I cannot verify from a reliable secondary source.
CNMall41 (
talk) 05:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete No significant coverage, couldn't verify a few claims in the article His film Love and Action in Chicago has received some critical attention and is borderline notable, but I'm not sure it's enough for him to fulfill
WP:CREATIVE.
Mooonswimmer 15:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Subject fails
WP:GNG. The references on the page and what I find online all fall under
WP:NEWSORGINDIA with bylines indicating they are press pieces or have no editorial oversight.
CNMall41 (
talk) 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello Everyone I would like to participate in this discussion on wether to keep this article or not, Firstly I have created this article Harsh Beniwal because he is a popular youtuber in India, and his YouTube channel have more than 16 Million subscribers (including his second channel) and also his views are more than 1.8 Billion, which is a huge number I think and he also worked in a Superhit Indian film
Student of the Year 2. I also believe that he has not proper coverage in Indian News Media, but I think that he may be notable for wikipedia. Thank you
WikiAnchor10 (
talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete no have any reliable source, some source are gossip material
Worldiswide (
talk) 03:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Deleted in previous AFDs so Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not much coverage in reliable sources and views/subscribers don't really contribute to notability. His award and his film roles are minor.
Mooonswimmer 14:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete (and salt). Still fails
WP:GNG.
Edwardx (
talk) 23:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: If "browser synchronization" is not a notable subject then there's no need for this list, and as nom pointed out, it's likely outdated and obsolete anyway.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The technology is effectively a checkmark for most browsers now with few requiring third-party tools to sync settings any longer, and these are for the most part depreciated tools. Nate•(
chatter) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - I take issue with the claim that
Browser synchronization is not a notable subject. The
cited discussion had input from one other editor and they advocated a merge, not the redirect that happened. Here are a few recent sources establishing notability of the topic:
[16]],
[17],
[18]. The fact that the article is out of date is not a reason to delete it. If a list article is not desireable here, the good content in the list could be merged into a restored
Browser synchronization article. ~
Kvng (
talk) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I see the article was actually created to compare standalone software in 2006 when there was no sync feature in browsers but it's evolved into comparing browser features now. The thing is, it's a standard feature now and pretty much same in all browsers and there is not much to compare anymore anyway, it looks useless now.
Tehonk (
talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedy keep — withdrawn. Nominating rationale and other concerns no longer apply after recent changes.
(non-admin closure)—
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as nominator. Searches of all the usual databases turned up nothing that would merit keeping. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 03:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote, your deletion nomination is your Delete vote LizRead!Talk! 03:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC))reply
Draftify - Does not satisfy
musical notability. The only reference is Allmusic, which is not a
secondary source. Draftification will give the originator six months to find real sources if they exist.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article was previously draftified. The creator moved it back to the main space within two hours without making changes to improve the article's quality.
Significa liberdade (
talk) 13:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think I saw this source when I was searching as well, and would not call this significant coverage. Reading into it in more detail now, there's only one paragraph about the album, and it's used more as a comparison against the work of Harry Nilsson, who's the main focus of the chapter. I don't think this is enough to meet NALBUM. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG with the following significant coverage:
Courrier, Kevin (2005).
Randy Newman's American Dreams. Nilsson Sings Newman may have been partly inspired by Rick Nelson's concept approach to Randy Newman on his Perspective album in 1968 (where he also covered songs by Nilsson). In the age of psychedelic rock, Nelson was perceived as an anachronism. A superior rockabilly performer, Nelson nevertheless didn't see himself merely as a washed-up oldies act, so with Perspective, he consciously began deconstructing his rockabilly image. Produced by John Boylen and featuring arrangements by Jimmy Haskell, the record contains a wide breadth of what were then contemporary songs. Besides Newman and Nilsson, Nelson covered tunes by Paul Simon ("For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her") and Richie Havens ("Three Day Eternity"). He also does a lovely rendition of "I Think It's Going to Rain Today" and creates an ambitious medley out of Newman's previously unreleased "Wait Till Next Year," "Love Story" and "So Long Dad/ Love Story (reprise)." Nelson's idea for Perspective was to tell a story about a famous family by connecting a series of songs. In many ways, the record was shaped by Nelson's own memories of his show-biz clan, depicted on TV's The Ozzie and Harriet Show, which painted a serene picture of old-fashioned fifties suburban life. As if emulating Brian Wilson, Nelson incorporated a playful mix of sound effects, which included splashing in the bathtub, cars driving and phones ringing, giving the record the flavor of a radio drama.
Selvin, Joel (1990).
Ricky Nelson : idol for a generation. She not only supplied one of her childlike paintings of a recording studio scene for the back cover of his next album, Perspective, but added a breathy French recitation to a song Rick and Boylan wrote called "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour le Vent)." Boylan returned to California, where he was producing folk-rockers the Dillards and the sleek pop group the Association, who was doing the soundtrack to the movie Goodbye, Columbus. Boylan hunted up a bunch of songs by a relatively unknown songwriter named Randy Newman, along with numbers by the likes of Paul Simon, Harry Nilsson, Richie Havens, and a couple of his own, went into the studio with a typical cast of Hollywood sidemen and arrangers, and recorded Perspective, Rick's only 1968 recording, not released until almost a year later. Rick knew what the album sounded like. "I was lost," he said. "For a while I said 'OK, you get me a song and a producer and I'll do it your way.' For a while, the producer was more important than the artist, which is kind of an unhealthy situation because the production should really enhance the artist. But with me, I was getting buried in it. Beautiful string sections, beautiful arrangements, but I sounded like I was that big," he said, closing his thumb and forefinger into a tiny gap. Neither of the two Boylan albums proved particularly successful in the marketplace, and Rick grew to hate the overproduced records.
Homer, Sheree (2012).
Rick Nelson, rock 'n' roll pioneer. In 1968, Boylan produced one more Nelson album, Perspective. Besides production, he wrote three songs: "Stop by My Window," "The Lady Stayed with Me," and co-wrote with Nelson "Hello to the Wind (Bonjour Le Vent)." Nelson later admitted, "Perspective with those songs was a complete experiment and those Steve Miller type sound effects between tracks were my idea.... I'm not sorry I did those things because, if anything, it made up my mind as to the way I wanted to go." He went back to the basics: "I just simplified the whole thing and went back to the formula of drums, bass, and guitar. That's where I'd always been most effective."
These sources provide significant critical commentary and historical context. In combination with the Allmusic review this meets the GNG standard.
Jfire (
talk) 05:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No need to draftify. I've expanded the article using these sources.
Jfire (
talk) 03:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Awesome, thanks so much for your work on that! Since I believe all the concerns I and other editors have mentioned should be fixed now, I'm willing to withdraw. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 04:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: with the new sources cited above, it's a keep.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 13:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I stand corrected - those book reviews did not show up in my original Google search. I withdraw this nomination.-
KH-1 (
talk) 01:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:AUTHOR#3 and multiple reviews for multiple works; I have added reviews and additional works to the article, and according to her biography at
Encyclopedia.com, additional works and reviews
WP:NEXIST, so this article can be further developed.
Beccaynr (
talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Per Beccynr & Moonswimmer's research, seems to meet WP:AUTHOR.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Speedy Keep - Withdrawing nomination. Many references on the Spanish wikipedia page.
Simione001 (
talk) 03:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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; lacks coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that address the subject of the article directly and in depth. Existing sources are autobigraphical, trade publications (where the presumption is against their use in establishing notability), press releases, or churnalism.
Jfire (
talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails NCORP. References are passing mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable sources. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 06:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:NCORP. References are routine business news, annoucements and some PR. scope_creepTalk 08:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
There is a page for
Stage Front Stadium but the business the stadium is named after is not notable enough for a page?
Stravensky (
talk) 13:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The stadium was recently renamed as the Stage Front Stadium after a sponsorship deal, that doesn't contribute towards
WP:NCORP.
Mooonswimmer 14:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Mooonswimmer I looked through the other companies listed in
/info/en/?search=Category:Ticket_sales_companies before submitting this. Stage Front has more news references and exclusive partnerships and sponsorships than half of them. We can try to find more in depth profiles, but it feels arbitrary to just go after this one especially if you compare it to any on that list aside from the big 3. Like
Brown Paper Tickets and
Bookitbee are the first two I clicked on and have nowhere near the notability as Stage Front.
Stravensky (
talk) 23:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
"Other stuff exists" is an
argument to avoid at AfD. The relative notability of these companies is debatable, and even if Stage Front is the most notable of the three, that needs to be demonstrated with sources showing that it meets the standards set by
WP:NCORP.
Jfire (
talk) 02:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” This article does not meet any of these criteria: not multiple, not reliable, no significant coverage.
Topjur01 (
talk) 16:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. The consensus here is to Delete this article. LizRead!Talk! 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Unsourced article. I was not able to find any collection of heroes from the Anglican Communion nor from its associated denominations. This list seems redundant as the concept of hero in Anglicanism was already covered in
Saints in Anglicanism, and the function of cataloging theologically important figures in Anglicanism was covered by
Category:Anglican saints. Since the title of this page is not a likely searched term, deletion seem more suitable than redirect.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk) 01:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete as this seems to be an attempt to provide of list of people venerated as saints in Anglicanism, a topic not comprehensively covered by
Saints in Anglicanism but certainly not described in an NPOV fashion in this list. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 02:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I think unfortunately delete makes sense, as the whole subject is too fuzzy. The Anglican communion is already a large and not entirely unified selection of people who will all have different figures they admire, and the concept of "hero" was almost intended to avoid the formal approach of the Catholic church (a formal approach that makes it easy to define who's on the list). So a list of Anglican heroes is doubly undefined, and if done properly, potentially very long. It's likely to degenerate into a list of influential religious people with no clear boundaries. Many of the individuals on the heroes list are already in the Saints in Anglicanism article, and it might be more helpful to readers to concentrate on the latter rather than have a nearly-forked article.
Elemimele (
talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not only is this unsourced, but how were these individuals picked as saints of that church? There's a separate
Category:Anglican saints, which also varies. This is just a long unverified list.
— Maile (
talk) 23:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Just a list of names. No clear list inclusion and no references to validate each entry's inclusion.
Ajf773 (
talk) 20:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I still don't see how this "hero" is different from "saints". The article you cited use the term "hero" in a generic descriptive sense instead of a distinct concept that somehow qualifies for a whole article, and it does not verify the list of names included in the nominated article. Again, the Anglican concept of "Hero" is already covered in
Saints in Anglicanism, unless sufficient evidences exist to prove that "Hero" and "Saint" are different categories in Anglicanism, there is really no point retaining this unreferenced list.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk) 16:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete -- in/exclusion depends solely on the editor's whim. That is not an appropriate basis for an article. It comes close to
WP:OR.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
BEFORE does not bring up anything, current sourcing is only 1 press release and 1 primary sources neithier of which show notability.
Sohom (
talk) 02:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No reliable reviews. I removed all questionable sources (no wiki link). Remaining 8 sources confirm that the film released and nothing else. Could redirect to Dil Se...
DareshMohan (
talk) 05:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
weak Keep because production has attracted relative attention (I am not sure all sources removed from the page were not appropriate, but maybe that's just me); if not, redirect to
List of Telugu films of 2023. The film is not a remake of Dil Se.., is it? Why would we redirect the page there, if it is not?-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: I agree with your vote but I feel the article will be stronger had it had two reliable reviews. It is not a remake like you said. The name is a common misspelling of Dil Se. However, I had to remove unreliable sources because of the promotional tone.
DareshMohan (
talk) 17:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 00:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Please add newly found sources to the article. LizRead!Talk! 01:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Article is sourced to the subject's website, YouTube, and other sources like press releases which lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes
WP:GNG or
WP:MUSICBIO.
4meter4 (
talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to be notable as a composer/musician/conductor, I think something like
WP:MUSICBIO,
WP:COMPOSER,
WP:NCREATIVE should be satisfied, possibly
WP:BASIC. It's likely most of the coverage will not be in English language here.
There's quite a bit of SIGCOV of his music direction for in this German
De Gruyter book Die Interaktion zwischen Dirigent:in und Musiker:innen in Orchesterproben:
[21]
Not sure on how independent this is, but there's a bio credited to a Cecilia Farinelli in the
Barilla historical archive (yes that Barilla)
[26], also seems to be in one or more books put out by that company
[27]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep sources above seem ok, I'd incorporate them into the article.
Oaktree b (
talk) 13:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 No significant, independent coverage of the tournament itself.
Mooonswimmer 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.