The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails
WP:GNG, a search for sources only came up with the usual unreliable sources such as allmusic, discogs, etc. in fact a google search only came up with 9,690 results.
Lavalizard101 (
talk) 21:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect Not much found for the band, the song that Springsteen covered seems to have much coverage. I'd redirect there.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect per above. Seems appropriate.
Darkfrog24 (
talk) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep AllMusic is a reliable source as per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources so we have the short bio there but it doesn't have the usual byline so thats a problem, then there is the Rolling Stone piece in the article and a link to the LA Times archive which suggests there is coverage there but without a direct link so its a weak keep and I haven't done a full search yet, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 23:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per Atlantic306. The sources found indicate coverage and passing of GNG.
TailsWx 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The Havalinas were active in the early 1990s. There is substantial offline coverage. Proquest search returns 329 results in publications ranging from the Chicago Tribune to USA Today.
[1]. (The Wikipedia Library is an amazing resource.)
JSFarman (
talk) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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.
He also has a fairly robust entry in
Wikidata. Looks like he made a couple of album covers.
WomenArtistUpdates (
talk) 01:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Lots of mentions in Google Books - he seems to have been prominent in the
Black Consciousness Movement ("the ultimate exemplar of black radicalism") and as an artist was widely exhibited and his art seems to have been sought after by collectors. The reason why he hasn't been covered extensively on the web could be due to the political marginalisation of the black consciousness movement, which wouldn't have benefitted newspapermen trying to curry favour with the ANC. [1].
Park3r (
talk) 02:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
There are lots of mentions in gbooks, but are they
WP:SIGCOV?
LibStar (
talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets
WP:BASIC/
WP:GNG. Seems to meet
WP:ARTIST as well given the depth and breadth of coverage in academic journals more than a decade after the subjects death. Here's a non-exhaustive search that demonstrates N. There's a lot more I didn't pursue in TWL, Google Scholar, and Google Books.
Several paragraphs of coverage along with a gallery of subjects's artwork published in Hill, Shannon, 2018, Nka Journal of Contemporary African Art.
[2] (on TWL)
Note this book verifies some biographical details as well such as year of birth and death.
A small fraction of this coverage is noted in an in-depth review of the book by Ciraj Rassool in African Arts[4] (on TWL)
Here's a paper from 2016 by Frieda Hattingh in Afrikaans language in de arte journal that seems to have SIGCOV as well including coverage of artistic style and the influence the subject has had.
[5] (sadly not on TWL, had to snippet-hunt and then go through Google Translate to get a sense of the coverage)
A couple paragraphs of coverage in Steven C. Dubin, 2010, Art in America magazine.
[6] (on TWL)
Some coverage in Judy Peter, 2015 Third Text[7] (on TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. LizRead!Talk! 23:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is nondescript and listed to require citations Dec 2018; little to no changes have been made since then.
MicrobiologyMarcus (
talk) 23:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete the place exists, but I can't find any sources that talk about it.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a bad article, but it appears to be a genuine settlement, so meets
WP:GEOLAND. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: No sources, fails GNG. Per NGEO,"populated places without legal recognition" must meet GNG. BEFORE did not show any WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. //
Timothy ::
talk 19:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Can't even be sure it exists. Hence the exit. -
The Gnome (
talk) 14:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Last AfD was no consensus, but my previous analysis showed that sources were either not indepth or third party. A number of keep !voters tried to argue inherent/automatic notability of ambassadors which is definitely not the case. Still fails
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete for lack of notability. None of the sources listed in the article support notability, and the article subject does not have automatic notability under
WP:NPOL, which confers a presumption of notability only on [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. I have reviewed the !keep votes at the previous AfD and have found them unconvincing. Best, KevinL (aka
L235·t·c) 02:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 23:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: No extensive sourcing for the ambassador. Same as last time, could be notable with sourcing, but we have none... Simple confirmation that she held the post doesn't cut it.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non-notable former NFLer who played in 3 games during the 1987 strike. no significant hits on newspapers.com. no significant hits on google. non-notable.
Therapyisgood (
talk) 22:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not even a significant hit in the Times-Picayune (GenealogyBank).
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 23:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I wonder if an article on
1987 New Orleans Saints replacement roster would work, that way we can merge biographies of those who we haven't found GNG-coverage for rather than just deleting them which gets rid of what is useful information in my view.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I would estimate that probably half of the replacements do not have articles, so I think a league-wide list with biographies of over 1,000 players wouldn't work. I think team-specific ones would be better, though I would only want it to be for those who played only as replacements (i.e. not getting rid of stand-alones for multi-season players who also had a decent amount of playing time as non-replacements just because for a time they were replacements).
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Of course. If a player has significance outside the 1987 replacement context, a stand-alone may still be appropriate if
WP:GNG is satisfied.
Cbl62 (
talk) 15:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
BeanieFan11Cbl62 The correct way to treat the replacement players was a puzzler for me when I was working on the
1987 Chargers. I went with an in-article table but found it awkwardly large; I like the idea of a separate article with a table listing the full team followed by further detail on players without articles. For the record, 20 of the 50 replacement Chargers currently don't have articles.
With regard to Ted Elliott himself, I can't find anything mentioning him on newspapers.com except simple rosters of players.
Harper J. Cole (
talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
FWIW, in case I wasn't clear, my suggestion wasn't redirecting to a plain roster list like that, but having a stand-alone page (New Orleans Saints 1987 replacement roster) where we include biographies of all those who we haven't found GNG coverage for (similar to e.g.
List of Geneva Golden Tornadoes head football coaches).
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 15:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I like your idea, but no such list exists currently, and it is therefore not a viable redirect target. It makes sense for now to redirect to the existing 1987 Saints replacement roster. Later, if someone decides to create the more enriched version, the redirect target can be adjusted.
Cbl62 (
talk) 15:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
That makes sense to me.
Rlendog (
talk) 15:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This appears to violate
WP:BLP1E. The only secondary sources provided are about a single event, her claiming she will file a suit against students, and do not show the event was significant or lasting (sources are dated late April or early May 2008) and the subject is a low-profile person. In addition, The Dartmouth Independent appears to be a student publication which no longer exists so a weak source (
WP:RSSM), the WSJ is an op-ed so also a weak source, The Telegraph is a brief mention as is The Chronicle of Higher Education.
S0091 (
talk) 22:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Only media coverage is for a similarly named individual doing polio research. Nothing found for this person. Events described seem trivial, could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah, it's odd this all happened in 2008 but the article was just created last month.
S0091 (
talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I wrote the article because it was on the requested article list and the requester had included quite a few sources - maybe it had been added to the list years prior and no one had written it yet. I wasn't as familiar with BLP1E as I am now that this has been discussed, so I probably should've looked at that more before writing the article :P (Not !voting because I am far too tired to have coherent thoughts on this right now thanks to IRL stuff)
Suntooooth, it/he (
talk/
contribs) 17:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Suntooooth thanks for the information. I do see you posted a
WP:NPOVN to get guidance regarding the subject's complaints but I think deletion is probably best in this case. Live, learn and get some rest.
S0091 (
talk) 17:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is the subject the author of the NICE guideline on long Covid (cited 376 times)? It's the same name but there's no affiliation. There's other well-cited papers on Covid and other topics but they seem to skip around topics, and I'm not sure whether they are all by the same subject.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I note that the subject
Priya.hays has tried to edit the article, including starting and reverting an AfD nomination, and has attempted to get the article edited on the talk page. Perhaps they would care to comment directly here?
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I believe the author of the Lancet items is a Priya Venkatesan who got a PhD in pharmacology from Imperial College London
[8], while the subject of this article got a PhD in literature from UCSD and was using the last name "Hays" by the time of
NICE guideline on long COVID (2021). See the
GS profile for "Priya Hays".
XOR'easter (
talk) 17:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that does seem correct. Delete, as no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, and no lasting impact of the incident described.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 20:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete unless some cause of notability emerges.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 03:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC).reply
Delete: I agree with the nominator.
JFHJr (
㊟) 03:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete A minor dust-up a decade and a half ago that seems to have sustained no lasting interest is not a solid foundation for an article, and I'm not finding a
WP:PROF pass apart from that.
XOR'easter (
talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: no evidence of notability.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 01:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete outright. She threatened an action to which she eventually did not proceed and she must be considered
notable for that? If only
sources would support such inanity. Thankfully, they do not. The text needs to be dismissed with prejudice. -
The Gnome (
talk) 13:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 21:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
A list of video games that use a particular style of controls. x feature in x type of media is
WP:SYNTH at best. Not needed, trivial.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi! I created the thing you seek to delete here. I gauge its chances of inclusion to be low, but I am excited to interact here and learn more about how Wikipedia functions. Thanks for all the time and effort you put into Wikipedia.
Spellbinding Nitwit (
talk) 20:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep "PS1-style" is maybe not necessary, since the main article is just called
tank controls, but this falls under
WP:CSC as a "Short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". It's not synthesis when individual articles say a game has tank controls, all meaning the same thing. Synthesis is when you make conclusions about the subject matter that aren't stated in the source material.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete not an appropriate list for WP. Having discussion of tank controls somewhere is fine, but we don't break down games by their control scheme.
Masem (
t) 20:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, alternatively merge. The list is certainly verifiable, I do disagree it's SYNTH, and the concept of tank controls is notable, but I don't think this list is appropriate. Any particularly significant examples, as determined by what games have been discussed in relationship to this, can be covered at
tank controls in a history of the concept, especially any "modern" examples and any examples that have been updated in newer remasters (as I see Grim Fandango is mentioned in that capacity). ~Cheers,
TenTonParasol 22:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:LISTN failure in my view. Yes, I know LISTN is unclear on "list of x of y". A list of video games with tank controls, or a category, would be different. However, none of these sources that cover the concept as a group appear to focus on "PS1". In fact, neither of the currently in use sources for a grouping of tank control games mention PlayStation at all. --
ferret (
talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, though I also wouldn't be opposed to merging a lot of the relevant information if this list were to be deleted. I do agree with
ferret's point that having "PS1-style" in the title muddies the point of the article. If we were to keep the list, I feel it would be best to rename it to simply "List of video games with tank controls". Nonetheless, I agree with
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's reasoning that this is not
WP:SYNTH. The sources being cited ARE saying that these games have tank controls. There is no synthesis of different sources being used to make an entirely new argument that would make this
WP:SYNTH.
IAmACowWhoIsMad (
talk) 08:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
IAmACowWhoIsMad I don't think anyone is challenging that individual entries in the list pass
WP:V on the mere fact of having tank controls. The question is whether the topic passes
WP:LISTN,
WP:N/GNG. Even taking "PS1-style" out of the title and treating it as "List of video games with tank controls", we're left with two sources. PCGamer is reliable, so that's good. But Gamerant, part of Valnet's suite, is considered unsuitable for WP:N questions. So this entire list, from a LISTN view, is anchored to a single source, and no one is providing/finding more. I also did some digging, and it seems this started as a category, which was deemed non-defining at CfD but for some reason was suggested to listify instead. If this is not a defining trait for the games on the list, I don't understand why anyone suggested creating a list without evidence of LISTN suitable sourcing. --
ferret (
talk) 13:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:LISTN. Also shows a complete lack of understanding of how search engines work. Why have an arbitary list of this type, when it could easily be generated. It is unsuitable for Wikipedia and is non-encyclopeadic. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 21:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Yeah, no. One reliable source in the entire article (unsure about the usability of "Young Posts" so best to not use for notability in my opinion) makes this a blatant GAMEGUIDE. Something like this should only exist if it's a list of in-game characters that are actually notable or if the game's competitive scene is of incredibly large scale (ex.
List of Super Smash Bros. series characters).
NegativeMP1 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: While I don't mind the listing by rarity, I was unable to find any sources that significantly covered these characters outside of routine announcements. There is also not really any information included to justify it as a spin-off from the main article.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 20:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 20:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Brawl Stars: Seems to be fine to include in the article about the game. No discussion given in this list, just a long wall of text.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi
Oaktree b, I don't think there's anything to merge. A list of non-notable characters are to be avoided in video game articles.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete is ok too if it goes that way.
Oaktree b (
talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is a game guide.
Brachy08(Talk) 04:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - per
WP:GAMECRUFT, we generally don't even want this as a section, let alone a stand-alone article.
Sergecross73msg me 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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
Legacy of the Roman Empire. A merge result does not mean that all content needs to be merged, nor that it needs to be merged as it is currently written. If there is a concern that supposed low-quality content would be introduced by copy-pasting the text (with attribution), I think there's hardly any barrier to copyediting or rewriting whatever's worth salvaging before merging.
(non-admin closure)Actualcpscmscrutinize,
talk 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:HOAX Dude here and I rarely think about this or like digging holes at the beach for that matter.
Americanfreedom (
talk) 18:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Legacy of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the newness of the trend has not proven to be sustained enough to stand as a full article, but in-depth sources from the New York Times, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post are nothing to overlook. (Plus a
Forbes article just released an hour ago, among many, many other sources). I oppose an outright deletion. Delete the redirect of Gaius Flavius, though.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 20:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge as I don't think this specific TikTok trend is much more than WP:NEWS buuuuuuuuuut I do think there is space (and reason) for Wikipedia to cover how the Roman Empire lives in modern perception and continues to be a subject of interest for many people. Rome lives in many hearts and minds!
★Trekker (
talk) 20:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
And as a woman I would like to add that I do think of the Roman Empire at least once a day!
★Trekker (
talk) 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Why delete instead of merging clearly notable coverage?
★Trekker (
talk) 21:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to a brief section in the tik tok article. We don't need to say much more than it exists.
Oaktree b (
talk) 22:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a hoax, but it's just a trend. In the case of long-term notability, no this does not fit that case. It is a meme that can be maybe be included in the
Legacy of the Roman Empire, but it will die by the end of the week.
Conyo14 (
talk) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to Legacy of the Roman Empire per above as article creator; also @
Americanfreedom:, I wasn't alerted of this AFD. —
Knightoftheswords 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of lasting significance, and it's for that reason that I'm not supporting a merge/redirect, either. Wait to see if there's more than a single news cycle's worth of "check out this meme" before putting anywhere. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep/merge. Definitely not a hoax; I saw something about this just yesterday—didn't read it, but suspected it might be some sort of debate about hypermasculinity/hyperconservatism. Not sure if it's going to have long-term significance, but evidently it's got a lot of coverage and probably can be noted somewhere. Not sure if it really belongs under Legacy of the Roman Empire, but that's a possible target if not kept at this title. I note that this was nominated for deletion only a few hours after it was created. Since it's not a hoax and neither libel nor inherent copyright infringement (if there is any offending text, it should be easy to rewrite), shouldn't we give the article creator, and anyone else interested in the topic, a reasonable opportunity to expand or otherwise improve the article before deleting it?
P Aculeius (
talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete (or Draftify) - Nothing to indicate that this has any lasting impact beyond the single news cycle in which it was trending. And I disagree with the argument that the fact that it may have further sources in the future to indicate lasting notability means that it should be kept until then. The exact opposite is true - an article on a topic that has not been proven to be notable should not be left in the mainspace of the encyclopedia until it has demonstrated that it passes the notability requirements. I am also against merging it anywhere at this point for the same reason - there is no indication thus far that this trend will actually wind up being notable enough to even be covered in an other article without giving undue weight to how much importance it actually wound up having. That said, I am perfectly fine with sending this back to Draftspace, so if lasting notability is eventually shown for the topic, it will be easy to either restore the article or merge it to an appropriate broader topic.
Rorshacma (
talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete votes should just support merging because otherwise we are likely to have no consensus and the article will sit there as-is. -
Indefensible (
talk) 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose merging with
Legacy of the Roman Empire. Looking through that article, it does not have anything like an "in popular culture"-section, so if we merge there, such a section will have to be created. These sections are problematic in general, and adding one to that article would not be an improvement, especially not if it had to include even TikTok memes not mentioned in any secondary sources about the topic. Even a one-sentence mention of this meme will give it as much weight as Italian fascism's obsession with the Roman Empire, which is plainly
WP:UNDUE. (I have no preference between keeping, deleting, draftifying or redirecting.)
Jhvx (
talk) 19:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't really see the sources highlighting it as a fun TikTok meme, but rather a look at how a supposed male obsession with the history of Rome in particular represents how the empire supposedly represents hypermasculinity. That point (not the "meme" per se) is the real encyclopedic content. (See also this
Rolling Stones article or this
CNN article.) I agree that most "in popular culture" sections or articles are absolutely freaking terrible. But for the Roman Empire, I could see something working.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It would really just be one sentence with a source: "In September 2023, males were asked how often they thought of the Roman Empire in a popular TikTok trend" or something similar. It doesn't require much analysis.
Conyo14 (
talk) 20:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree with Conyo14, the subject is really a modern extension of the
Roman Empire and hence
Legacy of the Roman Empire is the most appropriate location for the content. Not much sociological analysis is needed, although it can be included with any supporting references. Just because it happens to be a meme on social media does not mean it should be discounted. That is just how it works: history in the making. -
Indefensible (
talk) 22:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Legacy of the Roman Empire. While the trend seems to meet GNG and could possibly be kept, I think the merge is a good suggestion, per
WP:NOPAGE. A merge also prevents us from returning here if SUSTAINED is not met in a month or two. —
siroχo 05:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete No indication that is notable. Its off the moment and has no meaningful historical value. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Why is there all these "merge" entries like its a reasonable conversation. The
Legacy of the Roman Empire is a well-written academic article. It will completely destroy it, putting this trash in. scope_creepTalk 09:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
You should reconsider your uncivil attitude, something isn't "trash" just because you don't like it.
★Trekker (
talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in
WP:NCORP and
WP:ORGCRIT. The majority of citations are press releases masquerading as legitimate sources,
WP:ADMASQ.
Charlie (
talk) 18:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. as, except for the nominator, all editors advocating for Deletion have one edit to their accounts. LizRead!Talk! 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Pursuant to Ms Torresblanco coming on help chat re: some allegations that were dismissed with prejudice 15 years back, I've combed through the article (a
BLP) and its history, and I don't think she met notability criteria in the first place. Although she's been involved with multiple projects of definite notability, she herself hasn't been the topic of all that much independent coverage. There's a lot that's not independent, and there's a lot that's surface-level mentions of her name, but... these are the best sources I could find:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141024135806/http://voxxi.com/2012/02/21/frida-torresblanco-latina-mother-and-hollywood-success-quebulla-voxpopuli/
Apparently The Hollywood Reporter ranked her as "the 34th Most Powerful Latino in Hollywood, and 13th on the magazine’s list of Latino Women Power 25" at one point, which feels a little... hyperspecific.
Any one of those would be enough to make me think "Hmm... maybe she should be the topic of an article?"
And then after I spent a while searching, and that was all I found, I would decide otherwise.
Thoughts?
DS (
talk) 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: She's been involved with Pan's Labyrinth and other notable projects. This [
[9]] talks about her.
Oaktree b (
talk) 18:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Torresblanco is s not the projects and they are not her. What does that Variety piece say about her:
Braven is a company run by her and her partners
her "resumé is packed with big-name talent and titles"
she had a recent production that was nominated for a couple of awards
her "slate involves projects with international superstars"
an executive at Viacom - a company with which Braven was joining forces - called her 'creative'
she has an impressive-sounding goal.
And that's it. Notability is not a halo.
DS (
talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. It seems
WP:BASIC is likely met here based on the sources presented. It would be nice to have a source that establishes some biographical details, but it's not strictly required for BASIC. Regarding the above discussion. A subject's resume does not contribute to notability (outside of SNGs that don't apply to movie producers). However, Variety in it's capacity as an independent reliable secondary source, writing about the subject's resume does contribute to notability. The Lang article has a bit of SIGCOV, and it contributes to
WP:BASIC. I think the combination of sources we have suffice for
WP:BASIC. —
siroχo 20:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I see one reliable secondary source mentioned here. And she apparently has film credits as 'producer' for multiple WP:notable works, including some award-winning ones. So I think
WP:NBIO#Creative professionals is satisfied (note that WP:PRODUCER points there). To wit:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film...)
The person's work (or works) has...(c) won significant critical attention
Although "notability is not inherited", the main thing that makes a creative professional notable is the size and especially value of their creative output.
DMacks (
talk) 04:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Variety posts around 25 times a day and they've only written one or two articles about her in the past 15 years and they're about her work, not her personally. She is very clearly not a public person. She doesn’t have Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, or any of the major social media sites. To my knowledge she only has a LinkedIn and IMDB page, which is probably for business use and not personal. Since she is not famous, I don’t think she meets the criteria. It's not like she is Jennifer Lopez, so let’s let her have her peace of mind and give her the opportunity to stay off the internet (if she so chooses).
DulanDeckay (
talk) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
DulanDeckay has made no other edits.
JBW (
talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I've added a few more references for upcoming series. I realise not all projects are eventually released. I will keep looking to see if I can find more references for her.
Knitsey (
talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Although she has been involved with many notable projects, she is not a famous person herself. The projects are, she isn’t. If she wants her account to be deleted because people are bringing up allegations from 15 years ago, then I think that’s totally fair. If I was someone who had a bit of notoriety, I would probably try my best to remain out of the spotlight to avoid my name being drawn through the mud by random people online. So, if that’s what she was trying to do and random people are messing with her anyways, then I think this is all pretty understandable and shouldn’t require much debate of whether or not she has the right to have her page deleted.
WebstersParadise (
talk) 18:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
WebstersParadise has made no other edits.
JBW (
talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. If you are considered famous, then your name is your brand. This woman seems to be making money not off of her name, but off of work behind the scenes. If her name has appeared in a couple of variety articles, the articles would have to be about her and her accomplishments, not about a business or project that she happens to be involved with. Due to the fact that none of these articles are centered around her and her name, no truly reliable secondary source supports the fact that she could be considered famous, herself.
Vrumteam67 (
talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Vrumteam67 has made no other edits.
JBW (
talk) 21:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 only claim to notability that I can see is the painting in the
Gallery of Beauties, which I do not think sufficient; a redirect to the article seems quite enough. And the same proably holds for some at least of the other women listed.
Keep (as Cornelia Vetterlein). She seems to have been a significant figure. The article could be expanded with other biographical material such as
this.--
Ipigott (
talk) 11:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Anything else? I get an error 404 when I try your link
TheLongTone (
talk) 13:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:BASIC considering sources linked in this discussion:
[10] and
[11], and another source here:
[12]. —
siroχo 05:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Film canceled in production without hitting
WP:GNG-level coverage. There is a little bit of significant coverage in
this article about the film's cancellation, but otherwise coverage does not rise above quotes attributed to the cast and other PR. I considered redirecting to the director
Yasra Rizvi as an ATD, but this has already been contested before and it seems unsuitable given the lack of information about the film at that page (nor is it clear to me that it would be DUE, necessarily) signed, Rosguilltalk 14:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge as a few line mention in the director's article, nothing otherwise notable about this film.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Yasra Rizvi where the significant coverage mentioned above has just been inserted (by me). Is suitable like that. ...Other sources exist, fwiw.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited 9/12)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since a Redirect as suggested has apparently been contested, I'd like to see if there is more support before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge as above. Seems merge is basically completed at this point minus the redirect, and I think a paragraph of verifiable coverage of a canceled potential directorial debut project from a notable writer/actress is not UNDUE. I agree this likely should not be kept per NFF. —
siroχo 05:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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
Jason Hamacher. This will leave history in place, so anyone interested in doing a merge can do so.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 05:37, 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! 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, no reliable sources found.
Brachy08(Talk) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge a sentence or two to
Jason Hamacher where it is already mentioned, as ATD. —
siroχo 05:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, seems to have some coverage in the Isle of Wight press,
[13]. Few other mentions here
[14] and
[15] and here
[16].
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge into
Newchurch, Isle of Wight. Preliminary spinout from the community article. Per sources identified, the topic is notable, just creates excessive fragmentation. The rationale of this nomination defies
WP:NEXIST.
gidonb (
talk) 07:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Agreed with Oaktree b. Many articles in the regional IoW press on this festival - and also coverage in national press, with further articles such as
[17] and
[18] and
[19] and
[20]. Resonant
Distortion 22:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 17:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Sources found above seem to demonstrate GNG. Not fundamentally opposed to a full merge as recommended above, if it can improve things for both subjects per
WP:NOPAGE. —
siroχo 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 meets NPROF 6 as president of Saarland University from 1979-1983. See the German version of the article.
Jahaza (
talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, meets NPROF #5 as the chair of biogeography at Saarland University. Meets NPROF #6 as the President of Saarland University between 1979 and 1983. Meets NPROF #6 as President for Research of
German Rectors' Conference. Meets NPROF #5 as head of biogeography at the University of Trier between 1999 and 2006. All that was just from one paragraph on the German Wikipedia article.
RecycledPixels (
talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. My German isn't up for reading the de version but in addition to the above, there seem to be several notable awards, plus a species named after him, and what looks to be an obituary cited. Looks like an aborted translation of the de article on a notable individual, that was incorrectly tagged for notability.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. There is no indication that this relatively minor feature is notable independently from its parent programme.
Actualcpscmscrutinize,
talk 20:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I find a few mentions about the publisher but nothing that meets
WP:ORGCRIT. --
CNMall41 (
talk) 19:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Very little secondary source coverage apart from the two already cited and another article by Macworld
[21]. Most websites produced by a Google search on "Money by jumsoft" are user review sites which fail
WP:UGC.
Liu1126 (
talk) 10:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. This is basically a procedural close; the page has already been deleted by an admin under
WP:G5. There is consensus here that the subject is not notable, though, which was independent of the G5 issue.
(non-admin closure)Actualcpscmscrutinize,
talk 20:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject is yet another "businessman and politician" and the article created by a contributor who "likes to create Articles about Politicians, Businessmans and other famous personalities" from the same region as Kataria. The ground is already unsteady. The
dearth of sources (we only have routine listings, announcements, etc) hastens our work. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for deletion per
WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of
WP:G5.
Kuchi Kopi (
talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. As I said in my comment on
the AfD for
The Answer (Steven Universe) and
the AfD for
Cry for Help (Steven Universe), the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.
Historyday01 (
talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a
proxy or
meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree. I don't know the circumstances of Pokelova being banned, but I'd also argue that the article is notable enough, and the spirit of G5 can't apply here either.
Historyday01 (
talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
What I know of the circumstances surrounding the block, at least up to the point of the
Foundation GBAN, there isn't a valid application of BRV or the spirit of G5 to be made here. The only circumstance I can think of would be if Pokelova was acting as a proxy or meatpuppet for another blocked/banned editor, but if the evidence for that is all off-wiki based, that's something only
ArbCom can handle per
other policy.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 17:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Makes sense. Additionally, considering that Pokelova has a global ban and these articles were created before the ban, I don't believe that BRV can apply here, nor can the spirit of G5, as you point out.
Historyday01 (
talk) 18:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is on a notable topic and no relevant reason for deleting it has been mentioned.
AJD (
talk) 20:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Steven Universe episodes. Perhaps I need to stop jumping into low quality nominations to identify "the actual issues", since they're kind of doomed from the start, but this is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article (ouch, my afdstats :) ). We already summarize it over in the list, and all the remains are obscure fan blogs and a couple TV/entertainment blogs that recap/review basically everything. I suppose if absolutely every episode of a popular TV show is notable, so is this, but I don't see anything exceptional here. This is the purpose of the episode lists -- to summarize them in one place, without sprawling out to individual articles.
WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Is it so unbelievable that "every episode of a popular TV show is notable"? Wikipedia already has individual episode articles for every episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Game of Thrones, and The X-Files, and all but six episodes of Succession, to pick a handful of examples. If an episode is discussed in detail in multiple independent mainstream sources, doesn't that meet the notability criteria?
AJD (
talk) 21:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for deletion per
WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of
WP:G5.
Kuchi Kopi (
talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. As I said in my comment on
the AfD for
The Answer (Steven Universe), the reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.
Historyday01 (
talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a
proxy or
meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comment on the other recent AfDs by this user as well.
Historyday01 (
talk) 17:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article is on a notable topic, and no good reason for deleting it under Wikipedia policy has been suggested.
AJD (
talk) 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep as well as the other articles put up for AFD by the nominator. Nonsense nomination.
★Trekker (
talk) 07:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. AfD is definitely not the right place to discuss suspected sockpuppeting or UPE, and no valid reason for deletion under
WP:DELREASON has been identified.
(non-admin closure)Actualcpscmscrutinize,
talk 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this article for deletion per
WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of
WP:G5.
Kuchi Kopi (
talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. The reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.
Historyday01 (
talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a
proxy or
meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 16:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep due to clear notability and lack of warrant for deletion. There's no precedent for this deletion under BRV.
777burgeruser talkcontribs 17:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. The topic of the article is notable and no good reason for deleting it under Wikipedia policy has been explained.
AJD (
talk) 20:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Comment There is a list of sources without in-line citations. If someone with access to these articles could evaluate them, a clearer determination of notability could be made.
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 01:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Comment: Older topics like this are harder to source given pre-internet sourcing, doubly so Azerbaijani pre-internet sourcing. That said a blog post from a now defunct blog from 2008 probably isn't enough. On a topic like this (pre-internet) I would be happy to recommend keep with at least 1 reasonable source of any kind but right now I couldn't call for keep.
BHC (
talk) 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. The text has been up since 2010 without any improvement in
sourcing. The lack of sources in even the subject's
native-language Wikipedia is telling. This is no more than a
fan's page about a non-notable artist. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I disagree with the respected @
The Gnome that the artist is non-notable; however, the article is in a disastrous condition. Someone has to give it a new life with the proper content and sourcing.
Though a negative (my "no sourcing") is rather difficult to formally prove, it is trivially easy to disprove. All one needs is the proferring of sources. Simple assertions
"this is notable" won't do. -
The Gnome (
talk) 11:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - or perhaps draftify? I can't find anything, but maybe the sources are not in English. It would be nice if someone found something in a non-English language which met the GNG - and whilst I accept that there has been a lot of time for someone to do that, I'm open to draftify for a while to give another try.
JMWt (
talk) 07:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Fails notability. As per nom.
Lethweimaster (
talk) 12:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I don't think 18 days is necessarily too short to re-open a discussion, but as has been pointed out by numerous participants, the subject matter has not changed substantially since then.
(non-admin closure)Actualcpscmscrutinize,
talk 20:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Was kept at the last vote, I can't see that notability has changed in the last month. Famous for being with a famous person I suppose, coverage is there. I wouldn't consider her "notable", but my opinions aren't what we use to establish notability in wiki. GNG is met.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous AFD.
GiantSnowman 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep She is written about in a fair bit of tabloid, although wikipedia is against such media that does not discount it. There will be stronger sources that can go in the article, the article could look better, it's not very well written or a great read.
Govvy (
talk) 13:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per above. Clearly notable figure with many sources. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk) 08:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per recent AFD.--
Ortizesp (
talk) 17:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Semi-advertorialized article about a film festival, not
properly sourced as passing
WP:NEVENT. The article claims that it's one of Pakistan's most important film festivals, but fails to provide any properly referenced verification of that -- except for one news article about the 2013 event, this is otherwise referenced entirely to the festival's own
self-published content about itself. The article, further, has not been updated with any content about the festival ever taking place again after 2013, and a Google search failed to find any significant coverage to suggest that any post-2013 events were overlooked -- and the article appears to have possibly been created at least partially to drive traffic to streaming copies of short films that were screened at it for promotional purposes, as the 2012 "featured shorts" section included an offsite link to Vimeo for every film listed in it until I stripped those just now as
WP:ELNO violations. There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of third-party coverage.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Redirect to
Nicke Andersson. I happen to be familiar with Andersson's work. Imperial State Electric was one of his many short-lived projects, and they released a couple of non-charting albums and did some touring before Andersson moved on to something else. The Imperial State Electric project is already introduced briefly at Andersson's article, and it did not generate enough media notice to justify a separate WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 16:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect or merge to the Nicke Anderson article seems the best choice, this "project" doesn't meet GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
WP:BLP of an activist, entrepreneur and podcaster, not
properly referenced as passing notability criteria for activists, entrepreneurs or podcasters. As always, people regardless of occupation are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass
WP:GNG on third party coverage and analysis about their work to externally validate its significance -- but five of the six footnotes here are
primary source content
self-published by organizations she was directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability at all, and the only independent third-party source is a glancing namecheck of her existence on one page of a book about her country's fight for independence, which isn't substantive enough to single-handedly vault her over GNG all by itself. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she actually has enough of the correct type of sourcing, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Bearcat: - I think you're right about this one.
Lajmmoore (
talk) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete RS does not exist at this time.
Lightburst (
talk) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per The Gnome and a lack of notable coverage. Giraffer(
talk·
contribs) 20:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Reliable coverage limited to a bunch of articles discussing his Big Machine signing, all of which restate each other so there's no point in adding any of it. That means the article will not be expanding beyond its current state any time soon, and as is this is a blatant
WP:NOTDATABASE vio.
Article has since been restored and there is one more source than before, but it appears to me that my point still stands. The coverage here still does not support independent notability.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 14:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is based far, far too heavily on
primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, while the media sourcing consists mainly of glancing namechecks of his existence in sources whose primary subject is someone or something else. What's left for sourcing about him is one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person in a publication that would probably not meet
reliable source requirements anyway, and one Billboard article that's technically fine but not all by itself enough if it's the only substantive source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Despite the admirable, last-minute efforts by a
single-purpose account, we still do not have enough to categorize the text's subject as
Wikipedia-notable. Which, of course, is no reflection whatsoever on their musical talent and artistic value. We have routine announcements in the field press, e.g.
here,
here, or
here; one Rolling Stone404link; listings in All Music such as
this; the not-exactly-earth-shaking
report about a contract extension; and so on. Truly very little in terms of
support. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Full reviews from IGN,
Slant (magazine), San Francisco Chronicle, and
Inlander (newspaper) are IMO independent, SIGCOV, and reliable. The Newsday is one paragraph and too short for SIGCOV in my opinion. However, overall, the four full reviews are more than enough for a GNG pass. VickKiang(talk) 01:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Semi-advertorialized
WP:BLP of a journalist, businessman and politician, not
reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for any of those occupations. The attempted notability claim as a journalist is that he existed, with no coverage or analysis about the significance of his journalism; the attempted notability claim in business is that he won an internal staff award from his own employer, with no coverage or analysis about the significance of that; the attempted notability claim as a politician is that he was once a non-winning candidate in an election. None of those things clinch inclusion in Wikipedia, however: people are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia just because they've done things -- the notability test isn't in the doing, it's in the amount of media coverage that third-party reliable sources opted to devote to analyzing it, but this is "referenced" entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as directory entries and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and referenced considerably better than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I see no coverage of this person in Canadian sources, plenty of coverage around the Air India bombing from the 1980s, likely due to similar names...
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination, which, for better or worse, leaves little to add, except to underline the strong aroma of
WP:COI in the article's
curation. -
The Gnome (
talk) 15:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 delete. CSD G5 LizRead!Talk! 00:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
He lost the election and is not elected politician clearly mentions, (lost to ..) he is just a ticket holder of a Party, Hence fails
WP:NPOL.
Syed A. Hussain Quadri (
talk) 14:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at
WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get included only if either (a) they have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. This shows neither of those things, and is not sourced anywhere remotely close to well enough to claim that he was exempted from NPOL on grounds of passing GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Agree with Bearcat. Not elected and nothing notable done outside politics to justify page.
JoinFluffy250 (
talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above, quite to the point, contribution by my honorable colleagues. -
The Gnome (
talk) 15:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bearcat. Also, the article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry.
Wikishovel (
talk) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG. What little there is comes from tiny niche horror websites (and there doesn't seem much of that, either). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, DVD Talk and Horrornews are full reviews and are considered Reliable Sources. Therefore it passes
WP:NFILMDonaldD23talk to me 13:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Neither of those look like particularly reliable sources. Horrornews is a
WP:SPS and DVD Talk ... well, its links to its about page and information about its reviewers are broken, which is not an ideal first impression. It's also stuffed with ads and promotional links. Only information about the reviewer I could find was in the link to his personal page, which does nothing to communicate anything about a reputation for film criticism (it's an artist page). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
These sources have been discussed before and ARE reliable sources. See My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)'s comment below.
DonaldD23talk to me 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the above keep votes on the reliability of HorrorNews based on the concerns I commented on the RSN thread, but have not decided a vote yet. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 about a borough councillor, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NPOL #2. As always, the councils of London boroughs are not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over Wikipedia's inclusion criteria just because the person exists -- it's a valid notability claim for an article that's sourced well enough to pass
WP:GNG, but not an instant inclusion guarantee that overrides any sourcing problems. But the referencing here consists entirely of a mixture of
primary sources (her member/staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own party and the council) that aren't support for notability at all, and a small smattering of
run of the mill coverage in Islington-based community
hyperlocals, with not even one hit of citywide or nationalizing coverage shown at all. Serving on borough councils, even as the leader of the council, simply isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: Upon reevaluation of the article about "Kaya Comer-Schwartz," it is evident that the references provided are from reliable sources. Let's break down the sourcing:
Furthermore, there is another notable article about
Richard Watts (politician), who was succeeded by
Kaya Comer-Schwartz in
Islington London Borough Council. Upon evaluating these articles and citations, it is clear that notability has been established. The presence of a previous similar councillor's article on Wikipedia also supports the notion that politicians in this council are notable. Thank you.
Arhamic (
talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Added some more reliable and independent citations
one from
Islington Tribune which is also about Kaya Comer, another citation from
NewsinCyprus.com, one from
BBC and more.
Arhamic (
talk) 02:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The sources being reliable isn't the only test they have to satisfy — the sources do have to be reliable, yes, but they also have to be covering her in a context that would satisfy the notability criteria for her occupation. For example, every local councillor in every town and city on the planet can always show some evidence of local coverage in their local media — but every local councillor in every town and city on the planet is not always notable enough for Wikipedia. We're not just looking for whether local media coverage exists in a councillor's local media — we're looking for whether a councillor's coverage establishes a compelling reason to treat her as a special case who occupies a special niche of elevated importance over and above most other local councillors, to the point that people on the other side of the world need to read an article about her.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This comment is only generalisation about content, it does not specifically evaluate the sources presented. She's notable because she's being written about with SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources do not focus on her presiding over a council meeting, or reading minutes of a previous meeting (which could rightly be considered routine), they cover her celebrating Irish revolutionaries, being the first black leader of the council etc. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 10:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Every single local politician gets some level of SIGCOV in reliable sources, which is why we've written
WP:NOT...
SportingFlyerT·C 10:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable borough councillor - almost all of the coverage is utterly routine that every borough councillor would receive and while it looks like she was covered in Cyprus, the website says the article was "automatically added to the system." It also reads promotionally, like a CV, and if kept needs to be rewritten, but could also be deleted on PROMO concerns.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The first article is the local paper covering local politics so therefore routine, the appointment is clearly routine coverage, and the latter isn't significant coverage, just an article on an event she attended.
SportingFlyerT·C 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The number of people who do or don't live in the entity that a politician represents is not relevant to our notability criteria for politicians at all. An MP isn't notable because of the number of voters in his or her own constituency, an MP is notable because he or she sits in a national body whose law-making jurisdiction encompasses a whole country, and thus has national authority and relevance beyond just their own constituency alone. You can live in the Shetlands and still have every bit as much need to know and read about
Caroline Dinenage as anybody in Gosport does, because as a national MP she still has equal impact on your life no matter where in the UK you live — so her notability doesn't hinge on how many voters live in Gosport, it hinges on how many people live in the entire United Kingdom. So a borough councillor isn't of equivalent notability to an MP just because the borough's population might match that of an individual parliamentary constituency, because the borough council's area of jurisdiction isn't equivalent to that of parliament.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
To reiterate, that's not the crucial element (hence "FWIW"), it's the sourcing. Nevertheless, population numbers can be a factor when considering notability, it's right there in
WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD". Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)reply
She's clearly not a mayor, though, and mayors of regionally prominent cities are generally kept because they'll receive coverage not just in their city, but outside their city...
SportingFlyerT·C 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)reply
"She's clearly not a mayor" ... can I suggest reading
this and
this to understand the difference between the Leader of Islington Council (primarily political) and the Mayor of Islington (primarily ceremonial). There are sources showing coverage outside of Islington. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 00:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No need - I understand how it works, especially given I'm writing this comment from Islington.
SportingFlyerT·C 09:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Former rate payer myself. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 09:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I had been leery about the possibility of notability for someone in this role, but the reality of the article is that the role is notable and the in-depth independent sources available from national sources demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. I acknowledge that some of the sourcing is drawn from local publications, but in totality the standard is met.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable political leader, valid claim of notability, passes
WP:GNG due to:
Combined with lots of interviews, primary sources, and less significant coverage, this all adds up to enough for me to !vote keep. I recognise number 2 above is open to debate, but
WP:THREE isn't a policy, and even if you disagree with that, I'll invoke
WP:IAR and say the existence of this article about a Council's first Black women leader is a net positive to the encyclopedia, obviously information that people would seek out, not
WP:PROMO and useful content.
CT55555(
talk) 23:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Those are all hyper-local publications. Local political leaders are rarely notable enough for Wikipedia, and we generally require at least some non-local news on them which pass GNG.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
We require a lot more than just
run of the mill local coverage in the local media to deem local officeholders notable enough for an international encyclopedia — we would need to see nationalizing or internationalizing coverage, or at the very least reams and reams more than just three hits of local coverage. As I said above, every local politician in the world can show a handful of coverage in their local media — so we're not looking for just the bare minimum needed to verify that she exists, we're looking for a depth and volume and range of coverage that marks her out as a special case of greater notability than everybody else.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. I'm sorry, but I'm simply not seeing sufficient coverage that isn't extremely local and routine for an elected member of a municipal government. I would be willing to accept the size-of-constituency argument in some cases, but with all due respect, Islington simply isn't large enough for that. The equivalent for all of London might be a different matter. Vanamonde (
Talk) 17:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete The position is of a local councillor and the coverage is ultra local to Islington. There is no national nor intenational coverage to indicate it passes
WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing here that indicates the person is notable. It has been accepted that local coverage is sufficient to satisfy notability. At best it satisfies
WP:V and that is the limit of it. scope_creepTalk 09:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as "no consensus", but I think one more go round, analysing the sources already given in the article, and this debate, would be useful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Routine coverage about her political dealings. Not seeing the required notability. We'd need a heck of a lot more talking about her to be at GNG.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The councillor attended the unveiling of the plaque which likely makes the that particular source
WP:PRIMARY and of no use to establishing notability. It wouldn't be significant coverage. It is also commerating the Irish community in Islington, make it ultra-local coverage. The BBC is just up the road, and does a enormous amount of London reporting on all sorts of stuff that never reported on in the regions, unfortunately. I don't see that significant either. If it was the BBC India covering the event, then yes, that would be ideal. The two of them are confirmation that she not notable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Scope creep (
talk •
contribs) 21 September 2023 7:25 (UTC)
London constitutes around 15% of the UK population, we do live in the digital era and it's not as though the journalists sitting in Broadcasting House are too lazy to do something other than head up Euston Rd to find stories; the scale of news items about London is a reflection of its size and *international* significance. The Irish Post is a *national* news outlet covering issues related to the *international* Irish diaspora and the cited story has municipal, national and international connections. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 06:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The only reason it was reported in the Irish Post was because the Irish Ambassador was there, not because of the councillor. That is the test. If he wasn't there it wouldn't have been reported. It is
WP:PRIMARY. All of it is local to Islington. scope_creepTalk 12:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I see no basis for parsing the editorial decisions of the Irish Post.
WP:PRIMARY is not policy against their use, it is about how they are used: "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense" (see also
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep I feel that enough of the sources are about her and not the position. If this is chose to not be kept I think that there could be a future for this so a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Questions?fourOLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per
WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to
List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters.
Spinixster(chat!) 10:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect and merge per nom. So, you boldly redirected the page in August. Fortunately the reverter didn't have any harsh words. Regardless, this character has no notability outside of the show. Even his actor had very little outside the show. If there are other remaining characters from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation aside from
Gil Grissom and
Catherine Willows, they are probably ripe for redirection and merge.
Conyo14 (
talk) 16:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Restore redirect per Piotrus. Not enough
WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, and no consensus to expand this from redirect.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 13:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. It is too late to say
WP:TOOSOON. The initial performances at the national level have already taken place. The results of voting in the national event are expected to be announced later today (18 September). Similar articles have already been created for other countries. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 12:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep: Everything has already happened, so the nominator's rationale is no longer even relevant.
{ [ ( jjj1238 ) ] } 15:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the nominator meant until the Junior Eurovision Song Contest has been held. Because that's, you know, the topic of the article. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep, per above comments. ihateneo (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. Delete because we're supposed to base this on policy, and when strictly applying
WP:NEVENT, this topic is not notable in its current state; almost all coverage is routine. Weak because in practice I doubt that it's worth actually deleting it. The information in the article is verifyable and encyclopedic, and it can't easily be merged into another article. On top of that, I think many people by now expect there to be an article like this for every single country, and it'll probably be recreated quite a few times anyway. It would also mean we'd probably also have to delete more of these kinds of articles; for example
Ireland in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 and
Latvia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 are arguably even less notable than this. ―
Jochem van Hees (
talk) 19:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Draftify This article focuses on the partcipation and it should be published when the participation is over, in other words: When Junior Eurovision is over. Unlike other countries like Georgia with a comprehensive national selection, where it makes sence to move the article from draftspace when the artist/song is chosen, the amount of information about Germany's participation is currently very low (same thing with Estonia, which currently remains in draftspace) --
David0296 (
talk) 22:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, so the reason for draftifying is to wait until the event has been held?
Are you also planning to draftify
2026 FIFA World Cup while you're at it? ihateneo (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Withraw Nomination: The world has moved on and it is no longer too soon. The voting table has filled with results, and it is now perfectly reasonable for this article to exist. Please note that the AfD process suggests that the discussion continue until its normal end date because there are opinions both to keep and to delete, thus closing it early would be inappropriate. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: Should any prior or subsequent !votes to delete be struck, early closure is likely to be appropriate. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: An article about someone's participation in an event is something completely different from an article about an event in general. Very weak comparison
David0296 (
talk) 21:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
David0296, as per nominator, the norm is not longer relevant at this point. ihateneo (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
keep - Time to close this nom. Clearly notable now. And sourcing is good.
BabbaQ (
talk) 07:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Junior Eurovision is not nearly as popular as the parent competition. While there are many sources here, I'm not sure that the selection itself is notable. The entire article could be summarized in 2-3 sentences at
Germany in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. As it is, the entire background section is already a summary of that article.
Grk1011 (
talk) 21:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Agree on a lack of significant coverage. Mostly business press releases and the like on searching.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO in its current state. A draft for this already exists (
Draft:Abuzar Ghaznawi), so we should delete this premature creation. I would also recommend informing article creator work on the draft until notability is established. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Sourcing is weak.
Shankargb (
talk) 15:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 place is manifestly a factory. It was
previously deleted for exactly this reason. That it is mentioned as an abadi in the Iranian census is neither here nor there. Plenty of factories around the world have dormitories where people live, and would be counted by the census, this does not make them "legally recognised, populated places" - that this is a temporary population is emphasised by the great reduction in population from 5,909 in 2006 to 2,546 in 2011 - they laid off part of their workforce!
Looking at
the satellite photos, I'd love people to tell me where exactly the "village" is supposed to be here.
The relevant standard here, for a business, is
WP:CORP, and the Pars Paper Company does not even nearly pass that standard - all that can be found are passing mentions of the strikes in May this year and their company website.
FOARP (
talk) 08:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate my inclusion in the discussion for deletion of the article. I have no issue with the elimination of the page based on your reasoning; it is solid. There is a link from
Hoseynabad Rural District (Shush County) indicating its status as the largest village in its rural district. I'll update that reference, and if it exists in a list of populated places, I can remedy that at the same time. I don't expect any objections to Pars Paper Company's removal; so absent any objection to the proposed action, carry on. Thank you.
Brightkingdom (
talk) 11:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree with the reasoning above. It is a company, not a village as evident from satellite photos and there aren't any references which meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
HighKing++ 12:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per the above. If anything, there seems to be some confusion here with what the sources indicate... but this is plainly a company that doesn't meet
NCORP.
Bestagon ⬡ 17:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. –
Joe (
talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Couldn't find any significance about the Subject. We can also see the subject's active participation from edit history.
iMahesh(
talk) 08:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not my area but the GS profile
[27] looks very healthy, top citations 590,535,507,428,373 and around 25 papers >100 citations. The edit from what appears to be the subject appears reasonable (clarifying the h-index is sourced from GS).
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd also ask what evidence is provided for the accusation of paid editing.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Conflict of Interest
The
creator of this article, had already received a
Conflict of Interest warning from
Curb Safe Charmer on
27 April 2020 while working on
Praveen Linga Both Praveen Linga and Rajnish S Kumar are associated with the same university, which raises questions about the impartiality and neutrality of the content created by this user, especially when it comes to individuals connected to that university.
Suspicious Timing
The article Rajnish S Kumar was created at 09:35, 18 September 2023, and within just a few hours, Mr. Rajnish S Kumar himself created an account on Wikipedia and made edits to his own article at 12:14, 18 September 2023. Such rapid and coordinated editing activities give rise to concerns about
Paid Editing and conflicts of interest. --
iMahesh(
talk) 01:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The article on Linga is pretty promotional, though the subject is clearly notable.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 02:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)reply
change of voteDelete. Thankfully, the
kamikaze account responsible for this text, like most of their ilk, works clumsily, thus making editors' life easier. In short, subject fails
WP:GNG and both. To wit:
We have a
link to Business Insider that grandly purports to show our subject as someone "featured in the world’s ‘highly-cited’ researchers list," while in fact that's Mechanical Engineer Avinash Kumar Agarwal; the
link to the
University of British Columbia ostensibly supporting the same claim pops up a
404; an uninteresting
Google list of Kumar's publications; one more effort to establish Kumar as a "highly cited researcher" gifts us with a
totally irrelevant text, mentioning out subject precisely zero times; then, a single mention in an
Elseviercatalog about Kumar being on some panel among many about Chemistry awards to young people; finally, a fitting finale as well, we get
the news about Kumar being feted with the NASI-Scopus Young Scientist Award for 2016, but, unfortunately, this too turns out to be about
bioengineer Sachin Kumar.
There is nothing there except for time wasting. -
The Gnome (
talk) 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Changing suggestion to Keep. The above forensics are correct but they're trumped by one single award bequeathed to out subject that allows him to pass
WP:NPROF #2, the
Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology, as pointed out by
Curb Safe Charmer. The article's still a rotten contraption what with all the self-penned adulatory verbiage and the lame-o sourcing but
notability prevails. -
The Gnome (
talk) 09:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 06:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete To be honest, I think this would qualify for an
A7 speedy - there doesn't seem to be a claim of significance in the article. The closest it comes to making such a claim is the assertion that he's the clerk at a county court, but that isn't a position that automatically confers notability. The content of the article isn't even supported by the only source (a local newspaper recording the fact of his appointment) - the article describes him as a politician and a republican, but the source describes him as an attorney, and gives no indication of his political stance.
GirthSummit (blether) 08:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi @
Girth Summit:, can I go ahead and close this as a delete? Or should we be waiting for other's view on this? --
iMahesh(
talk) 08:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Now the discussion has started, better just to let it run out - perhaps someone will uncover a trove in reliable, independent sources giving the subject significant depth of coverage (but I doubt it).
GirthSummit (blether) 11:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'll note that I did just discover that the entirety of the article apart from its one-sentence lead was copy/pasted from
this site. I've removed some stuff and rev deleted the earlier versions.
GirthSummit (blether) 11:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable court clerk, fails GNG. (Please wait for an administrator to close this after a week.)
SportingFlyerT·C 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: Based on A7. Easy speedy deletion based on no information found or any claim of significance in the article.
Nagol0929 (
talk) 12:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, no opinion on whether it's speediable or needs AFD. County clerk is not an "inherently" notable level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself, and one hit of purely local coverage in the local media announcing his appointment is nowhere near enough coverage to claim that he would pass
WP:GNGinstead of having to satisfy any SNGs.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: Only notable on a local level. No indication of notability outside of
Lake County. He certainly fails
WP:GNG.
FatCat96 (
talk) 02:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Given that he holds an appointed position and is not elected, Cooney might not even be notable on a local level. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 19:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Reference link is not accessible, I can't even find any good secondary sources to improve the article. Looks like a local foot ball team, which is not notable per Wikipedia Notability guidelines.
iMahesh(
talk) 08:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Too early to be on Wikipedia and violates
WP:SOAP. Article creator publicly declared COI at his
user page and can be identified as app creator himself. I would suggest to have Protection from Creation.
iMahesh(
talk) 07:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete G11, pure marketing.
Wikishovel (
talk) 07:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I see there's a discussion about deleting the Buzz Chat Wikipedia page due to concerns about it being promotional. I'd like to clarify that our intention isn't to promote the app but to provide valuable information to users.
Buzz Chat is an AI-powered Social Networking app that serves a real purpose beyond marketing. It's not just about selling a product but contributing to the technology landscape.
I understand the need to maintain Wikipedia's standards. Still, I believe the page can offer genuinely informative content to readers without being promotional.
Let's work together to ensure the page provides valuable information while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thanks for your understanding.
Fredabila (
talk) 07:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: Already speedy deleted as advertising. This fell well within the G11 category.
Deb (
talk) 08:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
How may i retrieve my articles source. I need some info from it
Fredabila (
talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 05:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: per
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Yet another faceless private who died of disease before ever getting overseas; there's nothing here providing any basis for notability whatsoever. This is a pretty startling gaffe (as is the one for the co-namer of the town legion hall) from someone with the creator's edit count, and might warrant a look into their other creations.
Ravenswing 08:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge a brief section into his hometown's article, he's got the Legion post named after him. Rest is nothing notable, dying from the Spanish Flu would be considered routine.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
A non notable building by a private organisation is named after him and one other, no reason why this building or this soldier should be included in the town article per
WP:UNDUE.
Fram (
talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
... and merge what, precisely?
Ravenswing 12:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete outright on account of failing the notability criteria and without any merging. Text unsupported by sources should be deleted and not dumped elsewhere. -
The Gnome (
talk) 20:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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! 05:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Not at all notable. Most search results are for "East Lancashire Hospitals". FlutterDash344 (
talk) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment. Being defunct is not the same as not notable. Once notable, always notable. A health organization such as this one is likely to be a major employer in its area of operation and to generate a certain amount of media coverage, both when it starts something new and when it makes a mistake. (We can have a long discussion elsewhere about how the HNS doesn't listen to whistle-blowers.) I will try to add some references. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 07:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We really need some evaluation of expansion of article since nomination and addition of sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 07:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - sorry I did not see the AfD sooner, and for that matter, that I did not catch this article. This is largely an "invented topic" and the sources do not support it as a separate entity. East Meath historically was largely what is now called County Meath, and this other definition requires OR. The idea could be briefly discussed in the Co. Meath article, but I'd question even that.
SeoR (
talk) 21:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Tagged for notability since 2010. First 4 refs are not
WP:IS. Next 4 are about a book produced by the topic, so not
WP:SIGCOV. Fails
WP:NORG and
WP:GNG. -
UtherSRG(talk) 12:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 05:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 05:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. LizRead!Talk! 05:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete: This indeed fails
WP:NLIST as no kind of list based on coverage in multiple high-quality resources; on the contrary, it is basically an aggregation of news, and falls foul of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 06:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Individual tanks and their crews? Let's get serious.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 09:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination
Nick-D (
talk) 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge the history section (I just added this header for ease of execution) into
Armored Corps (Israel), where operations history is missing. No objection to deleting the article afterward, as it was created only in 2022 and probably not a likely search term.
gidonb (
talk) 05:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 02:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSIC. There isn't enough significant, independent coverage by reliable sources to support an encyclopedic biography. Most sources are excessively local blogs, both amateur and newsy, as well as interviews.
JFHJr (
㊟) 01:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete not seeing coverage to meet
WP:MUSICBIO. His name is a common one so many namesakes come up on gnews.
LibStar (
talk) 02:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article claims absolutely nothing about his career that would be "inherently" notable enough per
WP:NMUSIC to exempt him from having to pass
WP:GNG on the sourcing, but with only one footnote he hasn't been demonstrated to pass GNG.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete since subject fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NCREATIVE, a fact that has no relation whatsoever with their musical ability. -
The Gnome (
talk) 15:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 and flag for expansion. Article does admittedly need improvement, but notability is based on the
existence of suitable sources rather than on whether or not they're all already in the article yet — and with over 1,000 hits in
ProQuest the sourcing clearly does exist to improve it with. For an event that's been in operation since 1974, you can't presume that Google tells the whole story by itself, and absolutely have to go spelunking in the archives to check for older pregoogle stuff.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 02:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No cited sources and has been tagged with {{
NOTABILITY}} since 2010. Essentially, the subject is not independently notable outside of their activities associated with the group, therefore does qualify for a stand-alone article. ihateneo (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Someone with his name died recently, but it's all in non-RS. I'm not seeing notability for this entertainer. Sourcing used in the article doesn't help.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Yet another effort to
prop up a new artist through creating their altar in Wikipedia. Thankfully, they keep using
kamikaze accounts, usually a
dead give-away. Also, thankfully, the whole promotional aspect is evident, thus saving time for everyone concerned. -
The Gnome (
talk) 15:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Restore as article title for contents of
Flags of the World (website), with that article's current title to be redirected there. This was the vexillological website's stable title for 15 years, up until the requested move linked by the nominator. I find the rationale of the closing administrator for that evenly-split discussion at the very least questionable, so take my !vote as a de facto review request for that action. I find it unlikely that someone who takes the trouble to type only the final W as a capital letter (but not O or T, or even F, O, or T) to want anything other than the vexillological website.
Flags of the world currently redirects to
Gallery of sovereign state flags, so add a hatnote there for the vexillological website per
WP:ONEOTHER.
Havradimleaf a message 20:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing that out. Following the same logic, I would be in favour of retargeting
Flags Of The World to the vexillological website as well. It is not unheard of to capitalise a proper name title such as this, and it is also evocative of
their acronym. Also, see a
similar discussion that restored a redirect to a disambiguated term which capital letters usage pointed to.
Havradimleaf a message 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Gallery of sovereign state flags per
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is clearly the more likely meaning for the term than some random web site, even though the web site has the exact title and the other article does not. For an analogous case, see
Mathematics in India (redirect) and
Mathematics in India (book) (not primary topic). Also note that "stable title for 15 years" is not a valid rationale for choosing a different outcome; the same thing could as easily be read as "violation of PRIMARYTOPIC that has lasted 15 years before we realized that it needed fixing". —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Merge a much shorter portion of the text onto
Mahabharata#In film and television, since, on its own, the article's subject possesses no independent notability. -
The Gnome (
talk) 14:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.