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.
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are not WP:SIGCOV, and BEFORE found listings, mill game news, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. //
Timothy ::
talk14:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 education program appears to have a very regional focus, only in a specific region in Australia, that does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. According to my online research, there are not enough reliable, independent sources,
WP:NRV, that cover this program in detail.
Chiserc (
talk)
23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Because the claim above that "This education program appears to have a very regional focus, only in a specific region in Australia" is contradicted by the article itself saying "AYCE is statewide..."
HiLo48 (
talk)
00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I couldn't find information that the program was indeed a statewide program with national impact and it's more like "a state-funded high school program in Victoria, Australia".
Chiserc (
talk)
00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have seen this program in operation, but I have no ownership or investment in it. It's just that you made your "very regional" claim a major part of your case for deletion, and it's not "very regional" at all. The main operations of the program occur around 90 km away from the township of Yea, in metropolitan
Melbourne, a city of over 5 million people. It's open to kids from anywhere really, and Victoria is Australia's second most populous state. Maybe you need to reframe your case
HiLo48 (
talk)
23:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, I agree with you, the article along with many other public institutions, are not notable enough to sustain Wikipedia's notability criteria.
Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (
α ɯσɾԃ?)
15:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 article is about an unreleased movie. It exists in both draft space and article space. Maybe some editors think that creating both an article and a draft prevents moving the article into draft space. Articles on unreleased movies only satisfy
film notability criteria if production itself has been
notable. There is nothing in this article about production. The articles are mostly about the schedule for theatrical release of the film including a world tour of theatrical viewings. Do the sources refer to production or contribute to
film notability? No. A check of the references shows that they are mostly just announcements of dates of release.
Keep: This movie is scheduled for release in 8 days. Given that the typical AfD discussion takes 7 days, this would result in an article being deleted and then re-created anew one day later. This feels like a waste of various people's time, especially the article creator. I also note that despite the OP's suggestion of foul play, the draft and the mainspace article were created by two different people who were probably unaware of each other. Also, CBR is not a "fanzine" and is an independent, secondary source.
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Why should it be deleted? There's been wikipedia pages for other films that hadn't been released at the time of the publication of the article why single out this film in particular?
KemKatlAcl (
talk)
23:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Per Toughpigs, deleting the article then re-creating it the next day is just
WP:BUREAUCRACY. This is one of the largest anime series in Japan so any required sourcing is basically guaranteed to be created once the movie releases in 8 days.
JumpytooTalk03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Wikipedia should not be a bureaucratic place where sought after information cannot be found and just frustrates people. Wikipedia should be a place where people can find helpful information, even prior to the release of an upcoming film, because people need to find some basic information about what this film is generally. For instance, I am glad to have found out that this is a compilation film with some new material. If this page is deleted, I would have a hard time looking for relevant information from the web.
M00NS3A5 (
talk)
07:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, the film will be released worldwide in just two weeks on Feb 23, 2024. Why delete it and recreate it again? Who benefits from this deletion? There is a lot to lose and little to gain.
M00NS3A5 (
talk)
07:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't understand why this discussion was relisted given the unanimity for keep but there's little question a movie in the Demon Slayer series is notable, and as others have noted, with its release around the corner, there's no reason to go through this motion just to recreate it a few days later.
DCsansei (
talk)
15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. If a school/college has one notable alumni it probably doesn't lend much weight to notability. If on the other hand there are a few it suggests the institution may be notable. This one is located centrally to one of the major Indian cities,
Kanpur and has been established for 85 years, perhaps making notability more likely than a newer establishment out in the suburbs. Older Indian newspaper sources are not easy to come by online, so it's hard to evaluate whether or not this college was notable in the past, when it may not appear to be so today.
Rupples (
talk)
19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I've been commenting/!voting on a few schools' AfDs recently and this one has been the hardest to come to a recommendation. Sources don't have much depth. This college has notability given its connections, but at the same time notability is not inherited. The institution seems to have a kind of "faded glory", in that it was likely notable 50 or 60 years ago, but isn't so much now. For that reason, I don't think it fits well in the only appropriate locality,
Kanpur#Education because nowadays it's one of many such colleges in a city of over 2 million people. There's not an article on its immediate locality of
Chunniganj, to which I I would have recommended a merge/redirect. As I can't see an AtD, the stark choice is keep or delete and to me it's somewhat illogical for this to have no mention on Wikipedia because of a lack of AtD, when it seems more notable than others which have redirects. Also, I suspect but can't prove, the college would be referenced in offline sources such as Kanpur newspapers from the 1930s to 1970s and other publications, maybe in Hindi, available in local public libraries.
Rupples (
talk)
20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This got caught up in my cleanup of promotional articles and likely sockpuppetry, but after a second look I saw that this article had a longer history so I've restored and sent it here for review. Fails
WP:SPORTBASIC, the only sources are a local blog,
WP:ROUTINE injury report, and a fanzine.
WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would contribute to notability. The WordsmithTalk to me18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Svartner the first source is not independent and likely not reliable. The second source is a bit more than routine, but is still not enough to meet GNG, especially by itself.
JoelleJay (
talk)
23:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not the point - the point is that there are sources out there, and that given the length of this person's career, there are likely to be offline sources out there which nobody has tried to check.
GiantSnowman13:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - clearly notable. This player made over 200 appearances in the Football League (the English professional league), see
this, and also had a career in Sweden. There is online coverage at
here and
here, and there will be offline coverage given he played pre-internet. Pinging @
The Wordsmith and
Svartner: to re-consider.
GiantSnowman19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Appearing in professional league matches no longer satisfy notability requirements, as participation-based criteria were eliminated from
WP:ATHLETE in the big RFC 2 years ago. For your sources, I made reference to those in my nomination statement though not by name. The Your Herefordshire source is significant coverage but of questionable reliability, being more of a community blog than something we'd use to demonstrate notability. The author, Matt Healey, is not a journalist but a party DJ, Sales Director for Your Herefordshire, and (most importantly) Hereford FC Matchday Announcer since 2002 🎤 according to his own website,
[1] making him not independent of the subject. Your second source is a local news source, which isn't necessarily disqualifying but it is a routine injury report. Neither of them are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As far as pre-internet sources, sure they might exist and might give
WP:SIGCOV. But we don't have enough sources available to satisfy
WP:SPORTBASIC and give us the presumption of notability and existence of sources. The WordsmithTalk to me20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I did a
search of the Swedish newspaper archives and what I could find for "Narbett" were clearly just routine passing mentions and match recaps. The full text of the Barometern piece is very short -- "Jonathan Narbett came to Kalmar FF from Oxford in 1994. Here he goes wild in the home match against BK Forward. The question is eagle he was on his feet when he landed; few players in KFF history have fallen over as often as he has. Apart from an extremely unexpected hat-trick away to Hässleholm, he made an exceedingly modest impression and disappeared after the season back to Great Britain, specifically to Merthyr Tydfil in Wales. After a couple of years in Chesterfield and Worcester City, the trail of him ends. Wherever Jon Narbett is today is his 48th birthday." I still don't think this meets GNG, but would like to hear from @
The Wordsmith. Svenskafans is a passing mention.
JoelleJay (
talk)
22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Besides the sources alreayd in the article, I found
4,
5, and
6. Definitly has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro English Football League in pre-internet era. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 - consider G11 speedy deletion as PROMO. This is nothing but a self serving
OR promotional essay on a subject with 0 indication of notability.
4.37.252.50 (
talk)
23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 was moved to draft space by an experienced editor, then moved back to article space by another editor. The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, it's difficult to find sources online because there is a better known glass artist of the same name. Current sources are of questionable quality (one is on a gallery website, another is an interview). The two inline citations were to Apple Music and Spotify, suggesting the article is here to promote the artist.
Sionk (
talk)
23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. An article that has been around since 2010 should never be moved to draft space, certainly not without notifying all the editors who edited it over the years. If the subject is not notable, the article should be deleted through AfD discussion, but lack of inline sourcing or poor formatting are not justifiable reasons to draftify.
Station1 (
talk)
00:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the point I made in my reply to Sionk. This article has been around for years and been contributed to by numerous editors. In my view the artist is notable as attested to by two cited independent reviews and a Swiss newspaper article. The fact that there is another artist of the same name is immaterial. Anyone is free to write an article about that particular subject using disambiguation.
MrBongleton (
talk)
00:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Just thought I'd make my stance more clear. I forgot to input my bold typeface. I've already shared my opinion here in my reply to Sionk.
MrBongleton (
talk)
01:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, it seems to me that the sources are quite legitimate. One is a newspaper review for an exhibition the artist had in Bern, Switzerland, in 2011. There's a paywall for the newspaper in question (Der Bund) but that doesn't make the source any less legitimate. The relevant information is clearly visible in the newspaper article header (see link:
https://www.derbund.ch/kontrapunkte-157989066396). There is also a review from Paris-based Le Musée Privé from 2011 which seems reliable (see link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120402105046/http://www.le-musee-prive.com/expositions/ben-young-locuslux-gallery-amsterdam.html). It's also worth pointing out that quite a few editors have contributed to this article over the past 8 years or more and none of them has seen fit to put it up for deletion. If you look at the artist's resume on his website (
https://benyoungart.com/pages/about.html) you will also see a long list of exhibitions including ones referenced in this article (Group Exhbition: June 8/July 30 2011, Galerie Rigassi, corresponding to Der Bund article source, and Solo Exhibition: May 21/July 16 2011: Happy Nihilism, Locuslux Gallery, Amsterdam, corresponding to Le Musée Privé review). As an art historian interested in contemporary art I have found this article quite useful and knowing of the artist's work have contributed to it over the years as have others, evidently. Clearly the artist is also a recording musician but again that doesn't seem problematic. The biographical details referring to his musical activities are merely statements of fact that readers might actually find useful.
MrBongleton (
talk)
00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, to be honest I'm surprised to see an article I contributed to and that's been around since 2010 being put up for deletion. I think it does what Wikipedia is here to do - inform. I don't think its deletion would benefit anyone. As mentioned by Mr Bongleton, there is a long list of exhibitions on the artist's website that correlate perfectly with the information in the Wikipedia article and indicate that the subject is notable.
Artincider (
talk)
00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep After a cursory Google search using the terms Ben Young artist and Ben Young painter I quickly came across several websites that reference his work including a British art publication called Trebuchet, based in London, that ran a review of his 2012 solo exhibition at Victory Gallery in Portland, Oregon USA. I have now updated that published review on his Wikipedia article under the references section. So there are now two newspaper / magazine articles referenced there that specifically review his work as well as two other online / print reviews of his exhibitions. Here are some of the links I found - bear in mind this was a fairly cursory search:
CU note Artincider and MrBongleton are being operated by the same person. I have blocked both, and have struck through one set of comments - obviously it is inappropriate for one person to attempt to have two voices in a discussion of this nature. I think it likely that they are being operated by the same person behind the string of accounts that have edited this article in series, but the old ones are stale - if any of them reactivate and engage in this discussion or continue editing the article, please let me know.
GirthSummit (blether)14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This artist does not meet
WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --
WomenArtistUpdates (
talk)
02:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject person of the article is a mayor of a small town or municipality in a province, not a city. A municipality can be elevated into a city once the minimum population for a city has been met by a municipality.
AtorniYormeJKLlamera (
talk) 12:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE.
✗plicit23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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
Naga Wrestling Championship. There is nothing to show he is individually notable. He lacks the significant independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG, winning a state wrestling championship in a state of less than 2 million people doesn't meet any SNG, and there's no evidence he meets
WP:ANYBIO.
Papaursa (
talk)
21:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Detailed list spun out of another article last year, but almost entirely unsourced. Nobody at NPP has wanted to mark it as patrolled, and I suppose it would be possible to go through all the claims in all the fields in the table and look for sources, but nobody has volunteered to do that. Meanwhile we have an effectively unsourced article in mainspace, which doesn’t seem satisfactory. Not sure what to do with it so bringing here for consensus.
Mccapra (
talk)
21:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Journalist whose career doesn't appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Roles at Vogue significant, but I don't think enough. Very few internal links. Hard to find external references.
Seaweed (
talk)
20:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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: The team and league pages linked to and from this article are also poorly sourced so contain no useful citations that could be added here. There is nothing much on web searches, some info might be found by exploring archived versions of the Rugby Conference League website, but this would not provide independent or significant coverage needed to pass GNG.
EdwardUK (
talk)
21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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:TOOSOON for a director with no feature films in their filmography. The award received by Food on the Road is not notable. Sources
one and
three are about the film 'E Valayam' and
two is the short film directed by the subject. Unable to find anything on
WP:Before. Looks like the career and Personal life sections are
original research. Fails GNG.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (
talk)
20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per well articulated nomination. I might have gone Draftify, but at the rate films get made, it would probably G13. If the creator wants to hold onto the work, it could be sent to user space. As it stands, though, I concur with the nom, and meeting
WP:NFILMMAKER seems to be a long way off as well without having established clear notability of the films to make up a body of work. -
2pou (
talk)
21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have received the award for my short movie. I have added the image to my Wikipedia. But the news is not available on the internet. The news was published in the newspaper. I have the image of that news. But that image is not in good quality to publish in Wikipedia.
The Indian Cinema (
talk)
11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination: not yet notable per
WP:NFILMMAKER, and from the reply by creator above, evidently an autobiograpy. I can only find passing mentions of him online in articles about films he's worked on.
Wikishovel (
talk)
12:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, for several reasons. (1) The vast majority of CFL players are notable, and
WP:NLIST states that Notability of lists is based on the group; (2) all the transactions, news, etc. that make up these teams are very widely covered; (3) there are independent websites that track all CFL teams' rosters, e.g.
TSN and
footballdb; (4) your citation of WP:TG notes that Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category, list page, or "See also" section list can perform the same function – there is nothing else that can perform this function; and (5) if all else fails, then I think we should
WP:IAR keep this as it is immensely useful to both
readers and editors.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
20:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
A list and topic that I do not believe passes the
WP:GNG or
WP:NLIST. I've done some searches, and I can find no evidence that the topic of fictional brewers or breweries have been discussed in reliable sources as an actual topic or as a group or set. (Though I did learn that there is a real-life brewery named the "Fiction Beer Company"). The sources included in this article are only on a couple of the specific entries, not on the topic as a whole, and most of them are either non-reliable, or barely mention the actual beer brewing.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Unsourced since 2013 and I can't find enough significant coverage that would show they need their own article. The only point in their favour (as far as I can tell, anyway) is that they released albums on
Tooth & Nail Records, a significant indie label, but I'm not sure that's enough.
Suntooooth, it/he (
talk/
contribs)
06:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I see know cause for deletion of the article. A number of bands, roughly the same size from Tooth and Nail Records have their own Wikipedia pages. While there are not a lot of sources available, I think the deletion of the page would be a further loss of information.
Theo1858 (
talk)
16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still not convinced that they're notable enough considering the lack of coverage - Discogs doesn't convey notability in the slightest (and is generally considered an unreliable source due to being user-generated), Concert Archives is at least partially user-generated and doesn't require artists listed to be notable, and the Harley Poe review is only a passing mention. There is the one Punk News review of Dead By Dawn, but I don't think that's enough to convince me. We'll see what others say, I guess.
Suntooooth, it/he (
talk/
contribs)
11:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
At this point I would say Calibretto meets Notability section 1 criterion, with multiple published album reviews in newspapers, print magazines, and punk zines.
They also meet criterion section 5, with two full length albums and 1 EP released on Tooth and Nail Records (A notable independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable, and a significant impact within a specific music genre (alternative Christian punk and hardcore scene)
The band's music was also featured in multiple published works including the Stephen Baldwin produced documentary "Livin It" and the WB tv show "What's New, Scooby Doo?".
Theo1858 (
talk)
16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Not all !votes here made strong policy-based arguments, but the added material does appear to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get an assessment on recent contributions to the article Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 large part of this character's reception is strictly about how professional players regarded her in Street Fighter V...and not even specifically in articles for her. While gameplay can be a factor for a character's notability, it doesn't show an overarching importance beyond the game itself, or any impact towards it. Other mentions are trivial, not really establishing any importance or examination.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Per nom. A mention in
NPR is surprising, and there's also a Destructoid article
here, but everything else feels rather press-release like. I am not seeing the significant coverage needed for a standalone page.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I will keep this short as I do not want to make this AFD about me; I will be honest, I had intended to give longer explanations but due to some exams I have had less time. I was under the impression that my arguments were good enough, as I had seen some AFD arguments which were full of just one word answers/policies/essay links or "per x user" or "per above", and I think that explanations were short but reasonable enough. For some, as the explanations on the notability of sources had been explained above, I did not want to be repetitive. Additionally, it is not "almost every AFD", there are hundreds of current and past AFDs that I have not commented on - I do not look at all of them, only some, but I only comment on articles I think are notable/able to be improved. If you would like to talk about this more, I can send an email or discuss on my talk page.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk)
00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
To clarify, AfD is
WP:NOTAVOTE. As the guideline says "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are." That also includes making sure it is not just vaguely waving at "sources" but detailing which ones support the rationale.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
00:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am aware that it is not a vote - that is why I have always provided explanation, though I was unaware that they were not long enough. But I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that AFD is not done by the number votes, but rather the quality of !votes.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk)
00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the problem boils down to the fact that you can't really do these vague "keep per user" or "keep its notable" stances when you're the first person to advocate a specific stance in the discussion. That really only works when someone has already written a well reasoned, detailed response that you agree with.
Sergecross73msg me00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
In addition to the sources mentioned above, the main source that stuck out to me was
[2], as it is clearly independent, and whilst it is part of a list, it does take about the character in detail.
[3] also stuck out to me as it talks in depth about the character, as does
[4] though to a lesser extent. I saw them as independent as the websites are not focussed on Street Fighter but the video game genre. Additionally, many of the list articles showing the character's popularity do strengthen the notability - on their own I would be on the fence, but in addition to the others, I think it meets GNG.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk)
00:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives Well the last one there, if I may, is essentially a press release, and not discussing the character per se. Additionally the redbull entry is discussing the gameplay of multiple characters in the context of Street Fighter V based off the player's perception. There's a possible issue of him being a reliable source of course, but a bigger matter is it's not showing importance separate from the game itself. Think of, say, someone using articles like these to justify Killer Instinct characters. Not trying to shoot you down, just explain the issues as I'm seeing them.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
01:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ps Blog could qualify as a primary source. Red Bull would be okay for sourcing purposes, but a list of characters tends to prove the characters as a whole are notable rather than a single one. There's a reason listicles are considered very dicey.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. Despite liking Karin, and not thinking it's quite as weak as some merged Street Fighter articles, I feel that it is unfortunately lacking in both significant coverage and evidence of notability. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
08:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The two sources in here and the
Anime News Network source are good. Karin seemed to get a decent amount of attention for her return after a long absence. The creation section has some interesting details too. I think these sources satisfy the
WP:GNG.
MoonJet (
talk)
05:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I actually think that the Anime News Network source is great, and the Destructoid source is decent. With the NPR source, however, it seems to be summing up that she is popular and that she ranked highly on polls, the NPR source itself doesn't seem to say much. If there was a third source on the caliber of at least Destructoid, I might change my mind. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Notability tag removed and I do not see the issue addressed so coming here to get consensus. Fails
WP:NFILM. Classic example of notability based on announcements and press releases. Announced in 2017, official title in 2022, filming began in September 2023 and an announcement of release for August 2024. References show it is filming but nothing showing it is substantially complete and per NFILM, we have seen many films delayed so nothing to tell this is actually going to be released in August. Many references are unreliable or churnalism so fails
WP:GNG as well. Would recommend draftify but previous film related draftified articles are simply moved back to mainspace shortly thereafter and we wind up right back here so not sure if it is an acceptable
WP:ATD.
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Draftify. This is another case of a movie article created way ahead of undecided release date and not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace.
RangersRus (
talk)
03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect or Merge to
Cop Universe as film is still under production and a part of that franchise that is still not covered under post-production. SuperHero ● 👊 ●
★18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - deleting/draftifying major Indian films such as this only gives ammunition to socks to create more of a mess, as we've seen countless times before. The film is currently filming, just like major Hollywood films as Venom 3 or MI:8 (both of which were also delayed many times). The article, of course, can be improved with better referencing so tags should stay.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk)
09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comparisons. Of course, on a cursory glance those appear to meet
WP:GNG while this film does not. Also, why would we reward socks by keeping pages that do not yet meet guidelines. This one likely will, but falls within
WP:TOOSOON. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Not rewarding them at all. I'm only thinking from the perspective of readers who would want to read up about a big upcoming film. We shouldn't let them suffer due to the follies of socks.
Krimuk2.0 (
talk)
06:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It would not meet NFF based on the content on the page. It would need to meet it based on where filming is currently at and the reliable sources that support it. It could possibly meet GNG but most of the references are simply churnalism that I see. Maybe I missed something? --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, or in worst case scenario draftify it. Personally I see no reason for deleting, because it is well-sourced regardless of whether it is a 'big movie' or not. Yes, it could be delayed again, but some other major productions around the world get delayed as well; that alone is not ground for deleting. And as another user pointed out, given that there are some well-known Indian actors among the cast, deleting it could potentially create an opportunity for socks/system abusers to recreate the article again and again, albeit with much less quality. Keivan.fTalk18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Given the scale of the film and it's coverage an article is appropriate at this time. Sure it could be redirected/merged to
Cop Universe, but once principal photography has begun and is covered in reliable sources, there really isn't any pressing reason to do so.
Eluchil404 (
talk)
01:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While numerically there appears to be a majority for 'keep' here, a number of the keep opinions express arguments which aren't particularly strong in policy. A couple also suggest draft or merge/redirect as alternatives. Relisting to establish a clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk)
09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for reasons already given above. It's not just announced as being in development, it's actually actively filming with a set release date later this year. Even if it ends up getting pushed back, that is not a reason to delete the page. Plenty of other forthcoming films have pages prior to release. As it stands, this page already has a substantial section detailing the production with plenty of sources. There is no reason to delete it.
Happy Evil Dude (
talk)
01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. The best example of coverage cited thus far is
this coverage in Latvian, but it does not make a case for GNG in itself; I was unable to find additional independent coverage other than interviews, database entries, and trivial mentions in match writeups, having searched in English/Latvian and also Russian. signed, Rosguilltalk16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Coverage on the subject seems to be limited in online searches, however there may well be coverage in offline or difficult to access non-English language sources, but for now weak delete.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to affiliated press, and even then is light on biographical detail. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online and on Newspapers.com signed, Rosguilltalk16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Does not meet
WP:GNG, and we don't appear to have an SNG for Taekwondo or general martial arts, so it's not clear whether a silver medal at the European Games should establish notability. Coverage online in English and Azerbaijani is limited to brief mentions in writeups of Azerbaijani athletes' performance, but does not have significant biographical coverage of the subject. signed, Rosguilltalk16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage. Success at the junior level has never been considered WP notable for martial artists. As an adult he has competed at one European championship and two world championships, but he didn't even win a single match at any of them.
Papaursa (
talk)
20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG, although this is hampered by the relative inaccessibility of Burmese sources. Still, we have virtually nothing to go on here: the one secondary source cited
is a blog of dubious reliability and further refers to Naang Naang not as a women but as a female-fronted shan rock group. signed, Rosguilltalk16:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Drafty for now – While she may be notable, there is a lack of sources due to being a Shan language singer. The time of her popularity predates the media era, making information only available in printed newspapers. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any online sources in very few Shan language media, a situation comparable to the lack of media in the Tibet region. Despite this, I have
alerted this AfD to editors in the Shan Wikipedia. Therefore, I opt to vote for the draft rather than deletion.
1.47.14.130 (
talk)
19:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Do we need another list of winners when many of these articles about races taking place there have their own list or is part of it, thus making this completely unnecessary. Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series. Unnecessary
WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also
WP:LC and
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, not notable enough to pass
WP:LISTN.
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete As the initial creator, I had only created the page due to the size of the page that was on there at the time. Is it really needed right now, ten years later. No it doesn't.
HawkAussie (
talk)
22:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Unsure, I was looking for a redirect, is WAGMI United the company setup just for Crawley Town? Then I would simply just redirect to there. Because all indication from the primary source,
[7] It's just appears to be the company name setup to manage the club. That's why I suggest a redirect.
Govvy (
talk)
15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Crawley Town F.C. This company is just the ownership consortium of Crawley that also sells NFTs that grant the right to weigh in on team management (what could [has] gone wrong?); it's not independently notable as a company. Based on the sources cited here, a new section can be written in the Crawley article about its new ownership and
howterribleitis.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
00:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Per
WP:V, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." In application of this core policy, this AfD must be closed as "delete" irrespective of any local consensus to the contrary. As has been pointed out, this unsourced content has been challenged by being tagged as needing sources since 2010. 14 years is far more than enough time to sources. Because this has not been done, not even during this AfD, the content must now be deleted. This does not prevent a sourced recreation of the article. Sandstein 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and tag for issues if needed. It's a valid concept in the context of multi-factor authentication, and there is plenty written about it, but the article in its state is in pretty bad shape, and I wouldn't object to a redirect back to
Multi-factor authentication#Location without any restrictions against recreating it at a future point. I'm not sure how much of the current article can be salvaged. But really, the whole point of a wiki is so someone that comes along in the future could take a look at something like this and say, "I could do better than that" and make those changes themselves.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. In this case we have both well-cited publications (
WP:PROF#C1) and in-depth coverage specifically about her in multiple newspaper stories (
WP:GNG). The fact that someone tag-bombed this article 14 years ago is not an actual deletion rationale. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm not seeing a C1 pass; her Scopus citations look to be right around the average among her coauthors. However, if she's received enough newspaper coverage for her work that C7 or GNG is met then that's sufficient.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
As a preliminary comment, he is definitely a nationally-known television personality, so I am quite confident he will pass all of the relevant notability tests once someone has a chance to look for sources.
Dekimasuよ!13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added a few sources, and an Expand/Ja template but the sources on the Jp Wp are mostly interviews. I don't have time to look any further now. At least a redirect to
List_of_Japanese_comedians#C, where he is listed seems warranted. And hopefully, users who have time and interest can revert the redirect and add sources. But, considering he is a Jp celebrity, keep, hoping that other existing sources like
this,
this (etc., it's never great but it seems independent enough and does show he is a well-known TV personality; you need to search in Jp, though) are deemed sufficient by other users. Opposed to deletion. Article needs trimming (I did remove a few things but more can be cut if the page is retained)..Best, -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Delete - the additional sources added to the article do not make a case for
WP:GNG, and one of them appears to be a total red herring that doesn't mention Mathieu or his bands (
[8]). signed, Rosguilltalk20:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Releasing some 30 albums over four decades does seem like a noteworthy accomplishment for a recording artist like Mathieu, at least among musicians. How does one - reference-wise - properly make a case for that? (don't bite a baby;)
Kombi3 (
talk)
21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait - may one, before perspicacious judgment is performed, at least ask for some more time for research. There should definitely be more printed sources out there that - partly being from the pre-internet era - are a harder to retrieve
213.160.14.18 (
talk)
20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
It exists and there are some sources, but not the level of independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years.
1st AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. Given how long this has been in
CAT:NN I think we really need to decide what the consensus is here.
Boleyn (
talk)
12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect either to
Qatargate or
Emma Bonino. It's hopeful to think that this nomination will reach a consensus when nothing about the subject has changed since the
first discussion closed four days ago. As a courtesy note, Wiki-etiquette (
WP:BEFORE) asks that we Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating, and I'm not sure this shouldn't apply just because the previous outcome was no consensus.
It might be the inclusionist in me talking, but I think the nomination mischaracterises the available coverage: there are many reliable, independent sources that more-than-mention the organisation. Here are some of the sources that came up from a quick search, a few in well-established Italian newspapers:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8.
Despite this coverage, my quick searches lead me to believe that the organisation is mostly discussed in the context either of
Qatargate (
search results) or its founder,
Emma Bonino. Nonetheless, searching around the NGO's areas of activity (e.g.,
FGM) does return some results. So, while I think there is probably just about enough in the sources to meet
WP:GNG and justify a standalone article on the NGO, sadly, I suspect no editor will be interested in rewriting this article:
Qatargate has an outdated tag,
Emma Bonino didn't link to the organisation until a few seconds ago (and that article says nothing about Qatargate), and the organisation's website seems to be down, which makes me wonder if things were wrapped up after Qatargate. The present article is uncited and likely
WP:OR, with a previous editor declaring a
WP:COI on the talk page. So a redirect to
Qatargate or
Emma Bonino, without prejudice to the page's recreation as a standalone article should an interested editor take part, strikes me as most appropriate.
IgnatiusofLondon (
talk)
20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand the thought of
IgnatiusofLondon above, but I do not think a redirect is justified in this case. I would suggest a Merge with
Emma Bonino, adding a small paragraph describing her connections with the association and a couple senteces on what the association does. Most of the current page content does not need to be kept, as it looks mostly promotional and unsourced. --
Broc (
talk)
13:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Previously a contested PROD; this list is an bloated
WP:EXAMPLEFARM full of unsourced examples that have been left unaddressed since 2017.
Legendary sportspeople will somehow retire and their numbers will be retired, inevitably. So are going to be surprised at all by their inclusion on this list?
We got list of their inclusion to their halls of fame for their favourite sportspeople, most of those listed, so why should we need a
WP:FANCRUFT list of examples for the most diehard fans?
SpacedFarmer (
talk)
11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this list to
preserve entries which were polluting number articles such as
1 and
97 (number), including references where provided. The article seems to be a useful and encyclopedic source of information. However, I'm not a big sports fan and don't have the 830 citations required to back up the list, which has grown by later addition of many less prominent people. For further analysis, please read
Talk:List of retired numbers#Proposed deletion, June 2017.
Certes (
talk)
11:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per Frank Anchor. This is the sort of information which belongs on the page for each team that has retired numbers, rather than a single (numerically-organized) page to cover all teams and all leagues in all sports. --
Metropolitan90(talk)04:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Convert to SIA - I believe this list would be more accessible if it was in tables as most of the related lists are organized; as it is, it is cumbersome to read. With that being said, this could be salvaged as a
set index article by stripping it down entirely leaving only the lists in the "
See also" section. I suppose it should then be moved to
List of lists of retired numbers. If not, then delete. Rgrds. --
BX (
talk)
07:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 per nom. I don't see much coverage of the company itself to meet
WP:NCORP, which can be tough to meet. Everything I see is mostly a mention that one of their projects is linked to them, nothing about the company. -
2pou (
talk)
21:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
BLP of an Austrian football referee, unimproved since tagging for notability three months ago. Between the unsourced sections there is a lot of routine coverage in match reports and primary sources with nothing to support notability.
Mccapra (
talk)
04:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Specific assessment of the available sources would probably be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NotAGenious (
talk)
05:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the de.wiki article isn’t well-founded at all. It has essentially the same refs as the en.wiki article - dead links to various things that don’t look like RIS, online databases of match reports that just list players and results with a name check for the referee. The only two reasonably substantive sources on de.wiki are (a) the same as source 12 on en.wiki (a short paragraph citing him) and (b) de.wiki source 3 which is a
profile of him which is a blog post from the head ref welcoming him and thanking him. That is definitely not enough to build a biography article on. There is a complete lack of in-depth coverage in independent sources.
Mccapra (
talk)
13:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
They don't appear to meet
WP:NBAND or
WP:GNG. There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough. It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower.
Boleyn (
talk)
09:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have seen many other articles do similar things where they link the YouTube page for the song on artists so I thought i was allowed. For example the
Andy Bull page uses YouTube videos as references in the same way sorry for any misunderstanding.
FFelxii (
talk)
13:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Have a read of the link. YouTube sources can be used, but not in the way you did. If Fergus's notability is going to be established then it needs to be done with secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
YouTube sources can be used. They can even be used like that, because those links
WP:Verify that he really did sing a song of that name, etc. But a link to a webpage (YouTube or otherwise) that was posted by a person/band/business can never demonstrate
Wikipedia:Notability of that same person/band/business. So while those links were okay, they were not pointful for the purpose of determining whether to keep the article.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep (weak). The external links added to the article are all a bit problematic in one way or another. Some are lacking in depth, some are interviews (not ideal as a source), some are not quite independent of the subject and the one I'd bet on
[9] is unfortunately paywalled. However, we do have the title "Armidale boy Fergus James to support Ed Sheeran on Australian tour " and the date (2018) which show that James has been on the radar for quite some time. (Also, opening for Ed Sheeran is a big deal). I also found
this which provides somewhat significant coverage.
This and
this lack depth but it's still coverage.
This is a more recent interview. All in all, I think we have (though barely) enough to pass
WP:GNG.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pichpich. I haven't done a full search yet but I did find a bio at AllMusic
here which states that his first hit single charted which i'll look into,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep based on sources added.
BoraVoro, did anyone ever tell you about
WP:NEXIST? This is probably not obvious – the
telephone game by which we
oversimplify and overstate the rules to make newbies do what we want with as little effort as possible on our part causes real problems over time – but we don't actually have any guideline or policy that endorses "Notability not shown" as a valid reason for deletion; instead, we have a rule that says that what matters is whether reliable sources are in the real world (libraries, bookstores, the internet) and explicitly not whether those sources are already
WP:Glossary#cited in the article. If a
WP:BEFORE search (which you didn't mention doing, but I hope you did) is not very helpful, then please consider a {{notability}} tag or
WP:BLPPROD instead of an AFD. (I'd have chosen BLPPROD myself.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 would seem to be little WP policy here. In theory all articles need to meet WP:GNG, which of course this doesn't because there are no secondary sources available. But there are alot of similar articles that don't have secondary sources either. There is a real need for Wikipedia define notability better.
James.folsom (
talk)
22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Off to a good start in citations, but in a very high-citation field, so not enough to make a convincing case for
WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else stands out as making a case for notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that the person is notable as she has done major contribution in safety and evacuation field using Machine Learning and GPS. She is one of the most influential woman scientist on this subject. Please do not underestimate this person profile or discriminate it.
Safetystuff (
talk)
22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added in the original page on the evacuation investigations led by Zhao: Kincade Fire and Marshall Fire. These investigation were funded by NIST and the Natural Hazards Center.
I believe that argument this person is not worthy of Wikipedia because she is early career is form of discrimination (Ageism). I do not know how this form of discrimination aligns with the Wikipedia mission and policies.
Safetystuff (
talk)
14:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added the interview and media articles with Zhao. She was interviewed lately by Fox news (just to give an example). This should answer on whether she is notable.
Safetystuff (
talk)
16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Regarding her dissertation, maybe 'embed' (wrap the text in an anchor tag and give it an href value set to) a URL where it can be read (loaded in-browser), downloaded, etc. e.g: "
[10]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324521690_Multi-Scale_Community_Resilience_Modeling_for_Natural_and_Manmade_Hazards" (signing up for a researchgate(DOT)net account is free for anyone looking to read the dissertation of interest along with other literature in which she has been noted amongst the respective set of citations). Research Gate currently attributes
88 pieces of literature (i'm assuming these are all scientific in nature as the constituent articles in the sub-set i've perused prior to writing this have been as such but did not and won't look through all 88) to have been worked on (experimentation-design-process through documentation/write-up) in-part or whole by Xilei Zhao.
I legitimately stumbled upon this article through a rabbit-hole starting with a page about the "Ryanodine receptor", saw it marked for deletion and decided to google the dissertation name listed in said article but not linked. This is to say I don't have any opinion regarding instantiating its persistence or otherwise but I think it is surely possible to, utilizing the aforementioned 88 indexed articles (there might be more; not within the scope of my cursory look into this), create a more evidentiary based (set of) 'argument(s)' (crafted into the article's content) that might better substantiate 'notability' criteria.
Anxiolydiot (
talk)
01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 establish notability under
WP:GNG. Even ignoring his recent work (a channel with 4.5m subscribers failing to get 100k views per video, and his last upload was 5 months ago), the article made it clear for almost 2 years that there's a lack of secondary sources in the article, and the lack of a biography, personal life, or even the bare minimum acknowledgement of his pedophilia scandal indicates that there's very few reputable secondary sources covering him, thus failing the notability guideline.
Redolta📱Contribs09:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Source 4 is a list and brief coverage, rest aren't RS. Coverage seems to be about him messaging fans that were underage and an "I'm sorry" video that fell flat with the public. I'm not sure either of these makes this individual notable.
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Initially was on the Delete side, but came across several sources that may prove notability. First, I found a
scholarly source that analyzes his controversy - looking at the abstract alone it seems
he is the primary topic. Second off, I do see some newspapers that also write about him significantly, such as
thisNews Letter article and the already cited Derry Journal and Derry Now pieces. Finally, The Sunday Times listicle is a pretty solid claim of importance, and is over 100 words, making it a bit more than trivial. I think this in total should be enough to pass
WP:BASIC.
PantheonRadiance (
talk)
00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Even taking into account the source mentioned above, the use of it will be problematic. He hasn't been convicted of any crime, hasn't even been charged with one, and to the best of my knowledge hasn't even had a formal police complaint made against him. So any use of that source for in-depth coverage of the allegations causes
WP:UNDUE and, if we're saying that source makes him notable,
WP:BLP1E and
WP:CRIMINAL problems, as if the majority of the article is about things he's never been charged or convicted of there's problems.
FDW777 (
talk)
13:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
@
Loewstisch: Have you references to prove it. I would sincerely like to know for sure, because at the moment I don't. To me it looks like a fringe party that has never held power and that make them non-notable, i.e. they are just another organisation. I would like to be sure, because if it results in a no-consensus !vote, I'll likely send it back to Afd in a couple of weeks. scope_creepTalk14:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The keep !votes in this discussion really haven't provided any compelling reason for this to be a separate article. I checked Google News again this morning, and while there were a fair number of articles specifically about
Antauro Humala, including one since the opening of this AfD (
[11]), none of them devote significant coverage to the party ANTAURO as a distinct entity from Humala's political career. signed, Rosguilltalk14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The result seems to be a valid redirect by the look of it. No compelling evidence of notablity has been offered in the almost four weeks has passed. scope_creepTalk14:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 This page has been flagged for notability for a decade, and I still don't believe that it has been established. I would like to see this page improved and am going to try to make some edits myself, but it has too many deep issues at the moment.
PickleG13 (
talk)
23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Have you considered that maybe these people would have been up for the honour in life anyway, but died before they could receive it? For the lower levels I would agree with you, just "recognition" for dying in a notable incident (a bit weird, in my opinion, but often done in some countries; France tends to hand out the Légion d'honneur for things like this, for instance), but not the higher levels. There's a reason these people were not made a knight or officer, but received a higher honour. And it's not just seniority, as some senior people did receive one of the lower grades. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: based on the explanations above and the "award" given to him (I'm not sure that's the correct term). We have enough for a brief article
Oaktree b (
talk)
14:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of this meeting
WP:NBIO. Non-notable minor bureaucrat/politician (Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland) who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (obits, plus minor coverage related to a minor scandal he was involved in shortly before his death). A posthumous award of
Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough.
WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to
List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you considered that maybe these people would have been up for the honour in life anyway, but died before they could receive it? For the lower levels I would agree with you, just "recognition" for dying in a notable incident (a bit weird, in my opinion, but often done in some countries; France tends to hand out the Légion d'honneur for things like this, for instance), but not the higher levels. There's a reason these people were not made a knight or officer, but received a higher honour. And it's not just seniority, as some senior people did receive one of the lower grades. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. If I'm reading the
source on the PlWiki article correctly, this individual also seems to have been awarded the
Portuguese Order of Merit in 2009 (before his death), and there's also some coverage of him in 2009
in Wiadomosci regarding alleged collaboration with the Communist regime. On the scholarly/diplomatic side, he appears to be mentioned by name on multiple occasions in a speech by the
President ofEstonia, he
led a Delegation between Poland and Turkey, met with
Syrian officials on behalf of the Poles, and performed other diplomatic functions. There some
coverage of his analysis on the
Partnership for Peace that I can find, and he appears to have been awarded the
Freedom House's Palmer Prize (see
list). Aside from all that, there's a
fairly in-depth article from 1996 in The Jewish Voice about his work regarding Polish-Jewish reconciliation (as well as a
fewJTA pieces that also refer to this). And of course there's also the flurry of coverage around the time of his death; many of these sources are in the
PlWiki article already, and
WP:SIGCOV is easily met. What this all makes clear is that we have a case here where it's clearly not
WP:1E, and where we have significant coverage by multiple independent RS.
WP:NOTMEMORIAL states Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. But this person easily meets
WP:ANYBIO#1 for the Polish and Portuguese state honors, and also meets
WP:NBASIC, so NOTMEMORIAL is not violated. On top of that, I think there's substantial enough coverage that an article can be written about him in a standalone fashion, so I see no need to redirect or merge. —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 a thing, just [Alpinism] by a different name. Article is also mostly composed of random quotes - not really encyclopedic. Article even states "The specialists may talk of pyreneism, himalaism, andenism, it refers to the same action of climbing mountains by their faces, by their ridges or by combining both."
LegalSmeagolian (
talk)
20:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify - This article seems to be google-translated from the Spanish or Catalan original. The syntax is garbled and almost incomprehensible. But it does seem to be an article about the term and concept "Pyreneism" as used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than about mountaineering the Pyrenees generally - i.e. it's about the self-conscious culture and literary tradition around the practice rather than the practice generally. The sources seem good if slightly tending to
WP:OR. BUT we can't have an article that is completely incoherent to read. The prose and syntax are a disaster. This really needs to be rewritten sentence by sentence in draft space before returning to the main space.
Llajwa (
talk)
20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the above Draftify Its not ready for main space, AfC can judge the other issues once the article is actually ready for publishing. //
Timothy ::
talk18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Honorary consulates typically aren’t notable, and this one seems to be no exception. It’s brand-new, and the coverage is either official or from
Servare et Manere, the outfit of the consul himself,
Marek Sobola. (Incidentally, both of those articles deserve scrutiny for rampant self-promotion.)
BiruitorulTalk07:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Although honorary consulates are honorary diplomatic missions, in many countries they fully replace regular and official diplomatic missions of sending states.
If it bothers you to mention the person of the honorary consul in the body of the article, feel free to delete this information if you consider it unnecessary or even self-promo (this is certainly not the intention of this article!). However, the article itself about the honorary consulate, as about the diplomatic mission, is completely fine in my opinion. Similar to other articles on wikipedia dedicated to the honorary consulate of any of the UN countries.
Romania has no consulates in Slovakia (except for this one in Žilina), and there are also none in the neighboring Czech Republic. Therefore, in my opinion, the meaning of the consulate for the wiki article is fine. But yes, it may not match your opinion. That's okay too...
HeritageOcean (
talk)
08:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, “other articles on wikipedia dedicated to the honorary consulate of any of the UN countries” aren’t really a thing. Yes, all of two articles about individual honorary consulates exist — but given that Germany alone has
35 honorary consulates in the United States alone, it’s clear that the practice is not to have articles on them, and that exceptions should be based on satisfying
WP:GNG. —
BiruitorulTalk12:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
But the United States is not comparable to Europe. On the one hand, because of their size, and on the other hand, almost all countries have proper diplomatic representation (embassies or high commissions) in Washington DC, or in the New York Mission at the UN. Maybe even general consulates, as is typical for e.g. for Chicago or San Francisco. It is not possible for countries to have an embassy in every state. These tasks are often undertaken by honorary consulates. They also have an important position in Europe. But if you think it's not, that's of course a fully respected opinion. I don't want to diminish it in any way. But I also have good arguments for an article to be written for the honorary consulate of Romania in Žilina. It's a point of view. And of course, it can be different...
HeritageOcean (
talk)
13:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Romania has nine honorary consulates in Spain, eight in Britain, five in Italy and three in Sweden. It’s a pretty routine thing. It’s not going to have many in Czechia or Slovakia because there isn’t a large diaspora there. Notability is demonstrated via multiple independent sources, which has yet to happen. —
BiruitorulTalk18:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If you consider it necessary to delete this article, do so. You have higher competence than me and I can't influence it in any way. I wish you all the best.
HeritageOcean (
talk)
18:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for
soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Useful and referenced with several bearers of the name who could potentially be the subject of future articles. Expandvand improve articles; do not delete them.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Two of the redlinks were recently created and were immediately draftified for lack of sources demonstrating notability. Even so, it can always be recreated if articles about people with the name come along in the future. And what if an article can't be expanded? Like I said, I can hardly find reliable sources online. Being referenced doesn't mean much if the sources don't demonstrate notability. "Useful" is quite an arbitrary description.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There really is no good reason to delete instead of improving it or deleting it so someone else will have to come along and recreate it. The point of an encyclopedia is to expand knowledge, not to remove it from view.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
05:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This, as far as I can tell, is encyclopedic and has the potential to be improved. If it is not inherently wrong or unreferenced, an article should not be deleted.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply What's inherently wrong is that it's not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that contain information not already in the article. If you think it can be improved, why don't you do it? Your beliefs essentially go against the essence of Wikipedia, and all of your arguments have been ignoring rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to change them elsewhere; they are valid as they stand.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As I did elsewhere, I'll call attention to
WP:IAR, a policy which also exists, and associated policies. I'd say that some of the policies mentioned here are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia and are increasing the bureaucracy and probably having the effect of discouraging editing on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia created by collaborative volunteers. There are likely ways to improve this article without deleting it altogether.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Notability is pretty arbitrary as is, admittedly, my perception that it is notable and useful. If it’s factually wrong, of course it should be corrected or improved, amended, etc. . If someone just doesn’t think it fits the guidelines (which have never been set in stone), maybe someone should take a closer look at whether that guideline is actually useful.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
03:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply There may be some room for arbitrary-ness, yes, but I think these articles pretty blatantly fail the guidelines. I guess you're right that they've never been set in stone, but these ones have been used and widely accepted for some years now. AfDs aren't a roundabout way to challenged guidelines/policies either.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
04:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:IAR and its related policies are also policies like the ones you’re quoting here and they are intended to keep legalism from getting in the way of creating or maintaining an encyclopedia. I assume we agree that articles that are unreferenced or are factually incorrect should be deleted if the information can’t be corrected and linked to reliable sources. We might disagree over what constitutes a reliable source as we do on notability, but that’s the standard I would say is set in stone. The information must be accurate. As far as I can discern, this article and the others you want to delete are indeed accurate and can probably be improved upon, which makes deleting them inappropriate under a reasonable standard.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply Yes, we agree on the second part. Accuracy is set in stone, yes, but as is notability. Notability may be a bit more subjective and flexible, but it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and current guidelines are generally community consensus. They could change in the future but that possibility doesn't make it appropriate to keep them now. On a side note, I feel like this page is getting butchered by the length of this debate.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:IAR is also one of the foundational rules here and I would say deleting an article that could potentially be improved will get in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. This is important enough to get right, regardless of the length of the debate.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk)
01:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Reply Yes, I agree that IAR is an important rule, but I don't find it any less arbitrary than notability; in fact, it is probably more so. As I've said before, improving an article is only an option if the subject is notable, which these subjects, when comparing them to criteria laid out by the project and approved by the community, I do not believe meet those guidelines. I am not a deletionist nor an inclusionist; I simply look at the rules and attempt to get people to enforce them, I do not discriminate against users, and I know hardliners who would have wanted many more of your articles deleted, but I do not. Wikipedia just isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia or definitions. As I see it, we're at a deadlock. You wouldn't want an article made on every name in existence, would you?
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
05:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, I believe it would be a wonderful idea if the linked entries on the page will established individually as articles on En wiki.
Alayyop (
talk)
15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Anica, of which this is a regional variation (see Stuart Wilson (2015). Simply the Best Baby Name Book. p. 55.
ISBN1447265971.). There are a wide variety of names derived from diminutives of the classic Greek name Anna, including this one as well as Ancia, Anka, Anika, and Anicka. Information about these names can be presented in a single place, and, importantly, does not require the presence of a notable person with the name for the name itself to be notable.
BD2412T03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you proposing that all related names be merged? That would be a hard pass from me, as it would be more messy and verge on failing
WP:SYNTH - just look at
Anika which jumbles together names of different origin.
Geschichte (
talk)
08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I am proposing that these two articles, for which a source identifies a common name origin, be merged. This is rather the opposite of the situation with "Anika".
BD2412T14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think much more information is needed. It is obviously a name in use, with a sourceable etymology connecting it to another name sharing that etymology. If not merged, I would opt to keep rather than delete altogether. The presence of notable people sharing an attested name should be of no more significance than the presence or absence of notable people living in an attested town.
BD2412T03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't necessarily agree with that last sentence but I don't feel like getting into all that right now so I could endorse a merge if we listed relevant cognates and variants, such as those aforementioned.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@BD2412. You were the one who brought up Anika. And are you sure that "Simply the Best Baby Name Book" is an ideal source? The name sounds somewhat frivolous.
Geschichte (
talk)
07:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geschichte: I thought that as well, but in the introduction to the book, the author describes a meticulous and scientific process of examining names, and cites the work of other experts, so I am satisfied that despite the marketing-ready title, the work is sound.
BD2412T19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn’t be opposed to this, though I kind of agree with Geschichte, but I’m not sure that Anika is the best analogy. Anything is better than it being kept at this point, as it seems like this AfD may go towards no consensus.
AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (
talk)
16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being put forward here, and I'm not seeing a consensus yet. Also, as a courtesy note, there is no need to bold the word "reply" each time one replies to someone else; the line indentation serves the purpose of indicating which comments were being replied to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Outside of one good reference, which is used in a quote box no less, the rest of the sources are honestly terrible, and I haven't been able to find anything else for the character. Even checking sources like Scholar just brings up a few small mentions but nothing with meat on them. This fails notability unfortunately.
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Unfortunately the reception has no teeth, just the usual cookie-cutter character-ranking content and even less total than Lucky Chloe (though the bizarre comparison to Jar Jar Binks is admittedly remarkable). Seconding the notion that Kotaku is the only thing worth salvaging.
sixtynine• whaddya want? •07:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak merge: One of the few Tekken character AFDs I can actually get behind. He does seem to have a little notoriety in being based on
Jackie Chan, and maybe with one or two more good sources, I would argue for a keep, but for the time being, I'm unopposed to a merge.
MoonJet (
talk)
10:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and NGEO, no sources showing this meets WP:N with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. BEFORE found listings and name mentions in mill news, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV for the subject. //
Timothy ::
talk06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, but the article needs to be rescoped. The Eng article fails to mention it, but I think the article title is only the first in a series of changes the building went under. It was sold to KBS, then used as a sports building under various names, remodeled, and has since 2015 gone by the name "KBS Arena Hall" (different from
KBS Hall), and is now a concert hall.
[13][14][15][16]toobigtokale (
talk)
11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment the Korean article has 2 good Korean language sources that explain the renovation/updated use in 2015:
[17],
[18]. I imagine more may exist in Korean language too.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on the sources presented in this discussion in light of
WP:SIGCOV would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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: Not taking a position here. LA Times archive shows up a few sources that look promising.
[19][20][21] There may be more I missed in WPL. An argument could be made for
NBAND#5 due to Doctor Dream Records' 15-year history and roster, but admittedly this is very weak.
Schminnte [
talk to me17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify - the page was recently created - it has zero RS support for notability, but sources are likely out there for the interested editors to find.
Llajwa (
talk)
20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent that this article's subject is covered by extant sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 yet notable per
WP:FILMMAKER. A WP:BEFORE search for his name in English and Telugu only turns up routine coverage of the film, which claims to be the first children's film released nationally in India.
Wikishovel (
talk)
11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
-->Changing to Delete now that the page about the film exists, and considering the name is not correct (which would have led to double redirect, I think). Simpler solution. When he has other films,
Sivam (director) can be created.-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The film is banking on the term pan Indian release for marketing purposes. With one film under his belt, he is not notable as of now.
DareshMohan (
talk)
20:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to page for the film Lily if someone creates that - but at this stage of his career he does not seem to be notable enough for his own page yet (and the sources here clearly don't support one).
Llajwa (
talk)
20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
For information. I rebooted the
draft today. See draft’s talk page also, with input from DareshMohan.... maybe a merge of both can be okayish..... if someone wants to move it to Main, it’s a click away. And then yes, redirect?-
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm a little concerned that Lily will not meet the requirements for notability, given that it seems like it hasn't had much success.
Llajwa (
talk)
22:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The film article presently exists at
Lily (film); more discussion around whether or not the proposed redirect is reasonable would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on
policies and guidelines as they pertain to keeping this an independent SIA or merging it to a broader page would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 has no references, with few non-primary sources when googling this topic (one of which being this article), therefore does not meet
WP:NOTABILITY with the article providing little value even ignoring this.
SoThisIsPeter (
talk)
15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
When searching, keep in mind that a lot of the results are for a completely different Scottish Constitutional Constitution set up by the Scottish Parliament, which is far more notable than this one. This potential confusion is another reason why this article should be deleted.
SoThisIsPeter (
talk)
15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Afd is not cleanup and the fact it has no reference is not a reason to sent it to Afd. It is established structural legal body in Scotland and is completely notable. scope_creepTalk15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
But this one isn't notable? The problem with the lack of any references here is that there are no reliable, independent sources to be found to demonstrate notability, and the content is not otherwise useful. It is not an article that can be cleaned up without using primary sources.
SoThisIsPeter (
talk)
16:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Right-oh. I will take a look and see if ferret out
WP:THREE references for it. So far its been assumptions and actual fact-facting has been missing. It could be dross. It is on my watchlist now. scope_creepTalk17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of coverage by extant sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - the generic name does make searching difficult, but I was unable to find any independent in-depth coverage in Scottish or UK sources. A couple of passing mentions, but nothing more. —
Ganesha811 (
talk)
16:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit02:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 reads like an advertisement. There are many parts of it that are uncited as well. Also, article is an orphan, and nothing links to
Dominic Joshua Ngene as well, which is what the article should be titled anyway.
Relativity 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: From Google, his name pops up here
[22], which doesn't fill me with hope. He does not appear to be notable, and the flowery language doesn't help.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
PhD with zero hits in Gscholar, appears to be marketing/promo article. I was expecting something based on the level of "success" the article portrays.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I would not delve into that to avoid sounding like one promoting or advertising him for any reason, however, it might interest you to note that he got an honorary doctoral degree from The university of Ecotes University, Benin. His focus may not be 100% on scholarly inputs, but majorly for his contribution to life in the field of philanthropy or just other contribution to his society.
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I dont agree with you to the extent that, He obviously wanted to make a difference, but his experience was not deep enough to handle the kind of business he ventured into, a lot of even older and very experienced investment Bankers run into problems, a quick search on google will show you the long list of business decisions that went bunkers. they thought they were doing the right thing, but they were SINCERELY WRONG! The culture of total knock down of mistakes in the quest to create business success is not good. I think while it is expedient to bring to book any behavoiur that is against set business standards, we should also try to strike a balance between encouraging the youths to venture into the risky world of entrepreneurship/business.
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. If it wasn't nominated for AfD, I likely would've tagged it for
WP:G11. When the sections of the article include "Innovative Fintech Entrepreneurship", "Thought Leadership and Mentorship", and "Work-Life Balance and Values", and when the sources read like a press release, I'm inclined to believe that the subject lacks any real notability. It's also worth noting upon a quick Google search, the only coverage (minimal) that comes up revolve around the subject of the article allegedly committing fraud & the aforementioned press releases.
Schrödinger's jellyfish✉03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It may be in order you kindly read the article again. its been reviewed and you may not find it advertorial in any way. most comments there are sourced, and you can peruse the link. thanks.
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is blatantly promotional (with lines including Dr. Joshua’s entrepreneurial spirit ignited during his early career, where he gained invaluable experience within established financial institutions and With a storied career that has reshaped the investment landscape and enriched the lives of many, Dr. Joshua continues to chart new territories in fintech innovation and philanthropy) for every single section, and should have been tagged for G11. So I would vote Speedy Delete (it can still be tagged as G11, though I won't do it here since not all opinions in this AfD are for speedy deletion). VickKiang(talk)02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nominator. Blatant advertising and non-neutral use of language. The first two sentences (minus the "opening paragraph") alone show this blatantly.
Sadustu Tau (
talk)
10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The username of the person who created the article (Brandheadway) is also the name of a Nigerian marketing agency, which leads me to believe the user was created solely to advertise and promote certain people. Possibly even a conflict of interest.
Sadustu Tau (
talk)
10:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Your insinuation is very very discouraging, it is misleading. You are wrong.
If i understand correctly, the primary motive behind wikipedia concept, The idea behind Wikipedia is to create a freely accessible, collaboratively edited encyclopedia that contains information on a wide range of topics. Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive and neutral source of information that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection.
It does not BAR certain professionals from editing or creating contents, the content created should be viewed for what it stands for, every content created should be weighed on the scale of the information loaded and the sources of such info, lets not discourage editirs and prospective editors with our negative , discouraging insinuations.
Lets not discourage certain professionals from enjoying what gives them fulfilment in life, by way of value and motivation to the youths.
when you insinuate that a particular professional is assumed to be PROMOTING some certain individuals, you already shut down the motivation to write articles or add to what wikipedia represents. you may please go back and read the article again, its been reviewed.
wikipedia is not gender bias, neither is it profession bias, please let's not discourage people from contributing. contents should be appraised on the source. I WILL NOT COLLECT A DIME TO PROMOTE ANYONE ON WIKIPEDIA. Thank you.
Brandheadway (
talk)
19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It can be promotional without exchange of financial instruments or anything of value. Building a brand or even using this to game the SEO results is considered promotional.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article.
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not advertorial or promotional in anyway. kindly go through the article again, a major part of it has been reviewed to remove that misdirection. Again, I think a part of us should encourage youths who see the likes of Elon musk, Mark Zuckerberg etc and want to be like them, Yes, they may go about the dream a wrong way, but if they are remorseful and willing to be corrected, they should be encouraged. NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS EXPECTED OR GIVEN FOR THIS ARTICLE.
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article
Brandheadway (
talk)
18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This almost reads as someone who defrauded people and is trying to hide that fact. I have concerns with the "spin" being put on what is otherwise not very flattering coverage of the individual. At the very least, TNT this and send to AfC, if not outright deleted.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
How is an NBC News story WP:PRIMARY? Something sourced directly from SCOTUS would be primary. What is this special "Trump news circus" criteria? BLP subject's activities defrauding the Oglala Sioux have nothing to do with Trump. His role on the board of directors of Burisma, longtime business partnership with Hunter Biden, and BHR Partners stake have received substantial significant coverage in American and foreign news media. These are among the more than three secondary sources referenced in the article that establish notability.--
FeralOink (
talk)
11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If he's only notable for the connection to BHR Partners, with nothing about him as a person, he should be covered in the BHR article.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
He is covered in the BHR article. He is covered in the Biden conspiracy article. He is covered in the Burisma article. He is covered in multiple other articles, all in the context of being a prominent businessman. He was also involved in
CEFC China Energy which was China's largest energy company before it went out of business.
FeralOink (
talk)
15:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see the argument for deleting this - the page cites articles about him in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Associated Press etc. How is he not notable?
Llajwa (
talk)
20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Problem is they're all articles about a "criminal", describing this person. I don't think he meets CRIME, and we don't have enough otherwise to build an article about a business person.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We certainly do have enough to merit an article about a prominent business person here. He is one of four of the first Americans to be a partner in China's largest state-sponsored venture capital firm; he is one of the first Americans to have worked for a major money center bank in postwar Vietnam. He is the longtime business partner of the son of the President of the United States. He was on the board of directors of Burisma in the Ukraine. He has been convicted of defrauding a Native American tribe. This is sufficient to build an article about him. All of these statements are properly cited and sourced in the article.
FeralOink (
talk)
15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Circular references about this person, using articles about Hunter Biden. Citation 17 is the only article about this person... Anything I find is about a fraud trial, which might be notable, but that's all I find. I don't see enough to build an article with.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What are "circular references"? I need a definition as I have never seen that term used regarding Wikipedia articles. Subject is notable for multiple state and federal trials and conviction for defrauding a Native American tribe and being required to pay them over $40 million in restitution. He is notable for being a board member of Burisma and the person who recommended Hunter Biden to be appointed to the Burisma board. He is notable due to his recent four hours of testimony to the House Oversight Committee. Multiple WP:NPOV and WP:RS articles are cited in the BLP for which he is the main subject. It is untrue that only Citation 17 is about this person. Do I need to list them here? Also, there are over a
dozen Wikipedia articles which link to this person. This article has garnered over 18,000 views in the past month.
FeralOink (
talk)
15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
circular references: "Mentioned in articles about other people that talk about him in relation to the other person." Yes, please list the sources that are directly about this individual and not about Hunter.
Oaktree b (
talk)
15:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend perusing references 17 through 27 if you want to see articles specifically about him AND that feature his name in the article title, as Oaktree b had mentioned his concern about that.
FeralOink (
talk)
16:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 without prejudice to the creation of a list on this topic with a more consistent inclusion criterion.
Owen×☎00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's a pleasing enough list, but I could compile a completely different one, of equal "validity".
Dunmore Pineapple, anyone? The problem is that the Category - Most bizarre buildings - is essentially meaningless. Though I'm sure one could find a volume The World's 100 weirdest buildings, or some such, if one looked. But it still wouldn't have any scholarly basis.
KJP1 (
talk)
16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep venerable list article created by the Colonel himself - even a Delete voter concedes it's "pleasing". I'd concede that technically, the article may violate WP:OR, unless someone spends a good deal of time improving it with sources. But I dont think stopping articles like this was why our OR policy was created - on balance, seems better to keep the article due to it's pleasing and interesting nature. In my view, we can trust editorial discretion to judge whether to classify buildings as bizarre - a much easier task than balancing competing POVs from WP:RSs to comply with due weight on a controversial topic.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - While I agree that this is an interesting list, I'm not sure if the current version meets
WP:NLIST. There are sources for a few entries, and there is also some coverage in reliable sources, like
Architectural Digest,
Country Living, and
Architecture and Design. However, for the most part this list seems to have been randomly curated, and the inclusion criteria for "bizarreness" is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. For example, several of Gehry's works are listed as "bizarre" just because his style tends toward curving facades. –
Epicgenius (
talk)
18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That's a reasonable take. I see the Colonel is currently adding sources to the article. If you were to re-check the article in a few days, you might see suffient sources for WP:NLIST compliance, & possibly Fram's OR concern may be allayed too.
FeydHuxtable (
talk)
18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Bizarre, eccentric, funky, odd, strange, quirky, weird or simply unconventional or unusual" is too hazy, fuzzy, indeterminate, ill-defined and subjective a criterion.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
12:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per CF and others.
WP:LISTCRIT says, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.". While, yes, you can point to a source and say "omg, this dude called this building weird! it goes on the list!", the very nature of such a tortured, artificial way that this list is trying to maintain inclusion criteria speaks to its fuzzy nature of exactly what should be on it. Most any sort of object is going to have unusual examples. We could just as easily come up with
List of unusual cars, or animals, or sports, or just about anything. But none of these would be good lists.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Yesterday this was a different list article. It now has very clear definition for inclusion: a reliable source calling it bizarre or a similar word. It now has 28 reliable sources in the article. Reliable sources cover these buildings for being unusual. All but one of the buildings listed have their own Wikipedia article, making it a valid navigational list as well.
DreamFocus16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Here are some reliable sources with lists of bizarre buildings. Far more things appeared in a simple, quick search, but this is enough to prove it is notable.
Listicles......don't......count.And in any case, as I said immediately above, the inclusion criteria are not clear. They're fuzzy, tortured, and unnatural. There are no reliable sources for calling something unusual or bizarre. Why are friggin' Business Insider and Country Living reliable sources for determining the bizarreness of buildings? Even the Architectural Digest one is still an iffy listicle. It's just one author's opinion. This isn't a list of bizarre buildings -- it's a list of buildings that have been called bizarre by someone. What kind of list is that? What if another author disagreed? How would we ever know? Who would ever go out of their way to call something not bizarre?
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no rule against what you call "listicles", counting towards notability. Reliable sources are covering unusual looking buildings, that's all that matters. And if you search for "list of unusual" you'll find many Wikipedia articles exist for such things. You can find some of them also at
Category:Lists of things considered unusual. The article should be renamed
List of unusual buildings to match the existing naming convention.
DreamFocus17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. Also,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are some articles that should also probably be deleted doesn't mean this one shouldn't be deleted. And no, it should be renamed to "List of buildings that have been called unusual, bizaare, odd, strange, ...". Because it's not a list of unusual buildings; it's a list of buildings that have been called unusual. It's an inherently subjective label with no clear definition. I'll re-quote the especially important bit from LISTCRIT, "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." (emphasis mine).
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep the list inclusion criteria seem clear and reasonable to me. FWIW,
novelty architecture and
Storybook architecture are part of the the subset of what you might call "bizarre buildings," which as a classification clearly exhibits overall colorful, asymmetrical, and/or personalized attributes that distinguish them from say
neoclassical architecture or
brutalist architecture or
International Style architecture. I see a lot of Gaudi, Gehry, and "utopian ecovillage" (Matrimandir, Habitat 67) on this list, suggesting that "bizarre" by another name is a form of
romantic or otherwise ideological architecture, meaning that it can be clearly defined, if nothing else by what it is not, i.e. hyperrationalized, solely functional design.
jengod (
talk)
02:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
delete The notion that somehow AD and these other journals are somehow reliable arbiters of what is and is not bizarre is at best strained. AD in particular has pushed Brutalist blockhouses and other structures that the average person in the day thought were quite bizarre. Conversely there are surely plenty of oddities of which the architectural authorities are unaware. And besides, as I am wont to say, in the 21st century, nothing is actually weird anymore, not with (to pick one name) Frank Gehry as someone who routinely competes for projects and from time to time gets to build one. Besides the subjectivity, the subject is profoundly unencyclopedic.
Mangoe (
talk)
03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep nothing is actually weird anymore, but criteria should include overall cultural impact; eg. some architectural awards or something like that..(?) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bnmbnmbnm (
talk •
contribs)
08:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - preferably as a "List of lists". This article has existed for 10 years, has very few entries when it could easily have many more. The lead has its guidelines but there is always a subjective element to measuring the degree of unusualness. Several of the current entries are not even close to bizarre (i.e. very unusual), rather simply colorful facades (Hundertwasser). Then there are many hundreds if not thousands of bizarrely-shaped buildings not yet included. To reduce the subjectivity aspect, multiple list articles by category with unique criteria would be a better approach, leaving this article as a "List of lists": List of
zoomorphic buildings, ...
deconstructionist buildings, ...
follies (already a basic list there), ...
novelty architecture, ...
fairytale buildings, ...buildings using nonstandard construction materials (coral, bottles), etc. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:88:8100:C270:105E:7825:C360:164E (
talk)
09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and retitle per above. I think that we are often too quick to condemn stuff for being fun; in this case it's not really clear that the subject is inherently encyclopedic, just that it's kind of silly. Being silly is serious business! We should take it seriously. jp×
g🗯️00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm all for fun Wikipedia articles and such, but an article like this is just too objective for us to keep. There would be a lot of discussion on whether or not a building is "bizarre", some editors would say that a certain building isn't bizarre that's on the list and other editors would want a certain building to be put on the list. Maybe it's possible to rename this to something where we can work with this?
Relativity 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The title aside, it would be nice to reach a consensus about whether the article meets our policies and guidelines for lists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Having a partially subjective inclusion criteria doesn't mean it's a bad concept. The article is full of sources that note that it's notable when a building looks weird, and each source can only give a subjective opinion to say a building is weird. No different than any other object whose notability comes largely from what people think about it. Compare with other lists that have subjective entries:
List of films considered the worst,
List of photographs considered the most important or the aforementioned
List of unusual deaths. (More examples:
[23]) Contrast with
List of most-liked tweets which is a measurement standard not available for most concepts.
Wizmut (
talk)
09:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete but with the possibility of keeping in some form - the problem here is that even with the narrowed standard, it's not enough of a defining list. But I think it may be possible to define this somehow.SportingFlyerT·C15:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is based on a mishmash of sources with completely different inclusion criteria for what is "unusual". Some sources cover a single building that they happen to characterize as distinct in some way; others are listicles on a subset of "unusual buildings" within one US state, or in Europe, or of a particular type (e.g. skyscrapers); some entries are gardens, some are art installations, some are whole temple complexes, some are treehouses... There is just no coherent theme here, it seems like just about any notable structure would qualify if some RS (including itself...) said it looked strange and an editor agreed. That is not a reasonable NLIST criterion, that's just Atlas Obscura clickbait.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 referencing is mainly about the corporation with passing mentions only of Gillespie. One contains no mention of him at all. Those offering significant coverage are repetitive and not reliable sources. If he truly passes
WP:BIO references must be found to verify that. Since none are here it appears to be a puff piece about him, bloated by the corporation's material. While a certain amount of corporate information is needed to illustrate any personal notability, I see insufficient to verify any and far too much about the corporation for this to be a biography. Fails
WP:BIO and
WP:V 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
08:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC).reply
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to contribute here.
In entertainment this is a complicated issue because while the individual is often credited (in film credits or on an album) that individuals business dealings, which often represents their notable work, are wrapped-up in a corporation. For example, on the
Scooter Braun page, a much larger page for a similar type of notable person many references talk about his company Ithaca Holdings, not Scooter himself. At other times, Scooter and his notable actions are mentioned in passing when the article is about some other personal drama not related to the content of the page.
Normally I would suggest creating a page for the company instead here, but as in my above example, there is no page for Ithaca Holdings. When making edits an effort is being made to get closer to the
Scooter Braun page in terms of tone and style.
However your point is well taken and i'd be happy to look at making additional edits here that anchor the perspective on Gillespie without slipping into too many mentions of the company.
Could we name which sources we're not considering reliable? happy to remove those as needed but i'm having trouble identifying which are causing the most trouble.
I still think this person meets
WP:BIO and their impact on the music industry is notable. as this discussion continues I will do additional research and identify improvements that can be made
JaredUram (
talk)
13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I think we have to interpret that commentary as an opinion that the article be kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
@
Oaktree b The first source, published by the DNA WebTeam, doesn't have any specific author mentioned. Given that articles from Desk Teams are often part of press releases, it should not be considered a reliable source. The second source is an interview, which is a primary source. –
DreamRimmer (talk)
16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete She's not yet notable in her industry - she has a long career ahead of her and can be written up when she makes her mark.
Llajwa (
talk)
21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 independent sourcing are a few sources mentioning the win of Botha (and of the four sources in the article, one is a Wordpress blog about Mandela day, and one is the Italian Athletics Federation, not an independent source but responsible for sending athletes to the championships), no actual coverage of the event as a whole, no
WP:SUSTAINED coverage either.
Fram (
talk)
11:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as creator, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The event has
WP:GNG coverage from News24 (with several articles) and the Atletismo Español magazine. I would expect there to be coverage in other athletics publications like Athletics Weekly and Track & Field News as well. I want to address all the concerns in the nomination:
The sources only mention the win of Botha, no actual coverage of the event as a whole – The nature of individual athletics events is that coverage will focus on the winners or athletes at the events, as the event itself is a more abstract concept. The articles aren't solely about the winner though, they usually do talk about other placings or the competition itself even if the headline only mentions the winner.
There are only four sources in the article – I have since fixed this, and I expanded the article to include eight sources (not including the results source).
There is no
WP:SUSTAINED coverage – I don't agree with this, for example Paul Botha was still being described as a "world youth champion" in reference to this event almost two years later
in Javelin Throw Magazine. World championships are the highest level of competition in the sport, and in athletics journalism references are frequently made to past championships and events.
2. Atletismo Espanol is published by the RFEA, so is not independent. Eesti contains a routine, trivial results report, not SIGCOV. 4. SUSTAINED requires sustained SIGCOV of an event. Mentions do not count.
JoelleJay (
talk)
19:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay, thank you for the challenge because I think debate like this improves Wikipedia, I'm sorry for missing it yesterday. I think I addressed point #2 at this anchor:
#RFEA. Regarding #4, I just read the page
WP:SUSTAINED and "SIGCOV" is never mentioned, so I don't think that is the Wikipedia consensus on that guideline. As the article is a results list primarily, I don't think that matters anyways, per
Category:List-Class Athletics articles and
WP:NLIST which says that lists provided as navigation aids can be kept using different criteria, which I have outlined below. Thank you, --
Habst (
talk)
00:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"World championships are the highest level of competition in the sport" - true, but World youth championships are not. It is an intermediary step in a career. Most of these people never amounted to athletes on the highest level as adults.
Geschichte (
talk)
20:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geschichte, thank you for responding and I do fully agree with your comment that World U18 Championships are not as important as the senior
World Athletics Championships. My comment wasn't meant to say to the contrary -- only to say that both can have sustained coverage, and on the merits of this specific competition the article should be kept. As you say, most Olympic medalists have success on the youth level before the senior level, which is partly why it is important to cover these championships.
In my case, I was writing an article for an athlete (
Manu Quijera) who was 4th in this event, and his 4th-place showing was a significant part of his career. Because
the main championships page only shows the top 3 medalists, he was not linked from that page which necessitated the creation of this article. Given that this event was an important part of his career according to the sources, I thought there should be some sort of backlink from "
2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics" to
Manu Quijera, and currently creating results pages is the established way to do that. --
Habst (
talk)
21:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
While writing
Toni Keränen, I found this article:
"Toni Keränen threw farther than the world champion". Yleisurheilu.fi (in Finnish). 2015-07-21. Even though he didn't compete at the championships, I thought it was interesting that an entire article was written about a performance in relation to this event. To me this is further evidence of
WP:EVENTCRIT point #2 because it shows that the result had international significance even among non-competitors, and the result was analyzed after the fact. If I can find other sources like this, I might make a "reactions" section of the article as well. --
Habst (
talk)
04:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Finland probably didn't compete in the championships. Norway skipped the 2017 edition (as did numerous other nations), and also had a history of doing so.
Check this out and search for World Youth Championships. You will see that Norway also opted out of the 1999, 2001 and 2003 edition and sent a very limited number to the 2005 and 2007 editions. All this tells us that the World Youth Champnships struggled with its standing in the world of athletics. That being said, I don't have a strong opinion about the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw page.
Geschichte (
talk)
13:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geschichte, thank you for the interesting statistics. I remember when the World Youth Championships were cancelled in 2017, and thinking that it kind of made sense in part due to all the
age cheating that was in the news at the time. I believe the U.S. also passed on the final edition, though it was no doubt the most notable
U18 athletics competition in the world during its existence despite these omissions. For the record, individual event articles are common practice at even regional competitions like the
Asian Games and
Asian Athletics Champs, as well as the
World U20 Championships and of course the Worlds and Olympics.
In my opinion, we should decide on the presence of event articles based on their own merits, and I think I've shown above that
WP:EVENTCRIT is satisfied. Another perspective would be that results articles would fall under
WP:NLIST, that is, fulfilling a recognized navigatory aid as viewers move between events at the
2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics, or using it as an index of the articles for performers at that event. In that case, it might be kept regardless of notability, as it serves as an aid to the bigger parent article which already has its own notability. --
Habst (
talk)
01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Zero significant independent secondary coverage. NSPORT is explicit that governing sports orgs do not contribute to notability. Source 0 (worldathletics.org): pure stats, non-independent N. 1 (News24 1): written by someone paid to attend by IAAF and accommodated by the Colombian Athletics Federation, non-independent and not comprehensive coverage of the event anyway N. 2 (ERR): trivial results report, not SIGCOV N. 3 (News24 2): same author as #1 N. 4 (FIDAL): non-independent athletics org N. 5 (Cape Town in Color blog): WordPress blog, SPS and obviously not RS N. 6 (Netwerk24): can't access, but seems to be coverage of Botha rather than the event. 7 (Atletismo Espanol): published by the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation, a non-independent governing org N. 8 (UZ Athletics): Uzbekistan athletics org, non-independent N. 9 (yleisurheilu.fi): Finnish Sports Association, non-independent N. 10 (IOC): IOC profile, non-independent N.
@
JoelleJay, thank you for responding because I think rigorous debate and your challenge makes Wikipedia better, even when I do not agree.
I want to respond to all the points you made, so I will do it by list:
1. News24: written by someone paid to attend by IAAF – This is false, per the article: His accommodation was paid for by the Colombian athletics federation.. He was of course allowed to attend by the IAAF, just as with any event held on private property, journalists can't simply trespass without permission. But he was never paid by the IAAF. The Colombian Athletics Federation had no role in organizing the World Youth Championships (much less the javelin throw) and the source is thus independent.
2. Per
WP:NBASIC (that applies to biographies but the same principle applies to events), sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Eesti Rahvusringhääling is an established newspaper that is completely independent of the article subject, and the fact that they chose to cover this specific event in a dedicated fashion, rather than simply recapping the entire meet and only dedicating one section to the boys' javelin, demonstrates the notability of the event.
3. Per #1, the assertion that the author was "paid to attend by the IAAF" is plainly false.
4. FIDAL is independent of the subject (boy's javelin throw at the 2015 World Youth Champs), because it had no role in organizing or promoting the event – as an organization, it is completely separate. Just because an organization is dedicated to athletics, does not mean we can't use its reporting on athletics-related subjects. For example, Track & Field News and Athletics Weekly are "athletics organizations", but nobody would doubt that their coverage of the World Championships is independent in the same way that ESPN is independent of many of the major sports events they cover.
5. The Cape Town in Color blog can be used to demonstrate notability because it is from a non-athletics-related organization and chose, again, to dedicate significant portions of coverage on this specific event at these specific championships. Also, it is written by a subject matter expert, and this article is not a BLP, therefore it is suitable for inclusion in the article.
6. seems to be coverage of Botha rather than the event – This is incorrect, the article covers the other competitors in the event in addition to Botha. Of course, the article is focused on the winner, as nearly all sports competition coverage does. But the event as a whole is covered.
7. The Royal Spanish Athletics Federation is independent of the subject, the 2015 World Youth Championships boys' javelin throw. This is because it had no role in hosting or promoting the subject. The fact that it may be funded by a government doesn't mean it isn't independent, it depends on the specific case – just as the
BBC News could be used as a source even though they are funded by a government.
8. Per #7, athletics federations (there are hundreds of them) are independent. They would not be independent about matters of governance related to their own organization, but on matters of global athletics competition, they are independent.
9. Per #7, the Finnish Sports Association had no role in organizing or promoting the event; it is independent.
10. The IOC biography was used to demonstrate the event's effect on the career of one of the competitors. The IOC actually does not host or organize the World Youth Championships;
World Athletics does – so I'm not sure how it isn't an independent source of the subject anyways.
The travel and entrance fees of IAAF media affiliates to the event would of course be covered "courtesy the IAAF". Why else do you think they would disclose this in a disclaimer alongside their other funding? de Villiers
works/ed for the IAAF, as do many, many other authors of athletics news stories. The CAF/RFEA is not independent of the athletes it sponsors or, obviously, the events its athletes and the organization itself participate in. This should be clear from the NSPORT guidance. Even if it somehow wasn't, both are IAAF member federations so are automatically disqualified through that avenue as well.Routine content does not contribute to notability. The Estonian article was a results update centered on an Estonian athlete that had exactly 1 out of 4 sentences not on that athlete.Since you seem to have access to the Netwerk24 article, please paste it here or provide an archive link.
JoelleJay (
talk)
02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay, thank you for your challenge because I believe it improves Wikipedia.
The travel and entrance fees of IAAF media affiliates to the event would of course be covered "courtesy the IAAF" – This isn't what I was responding to, I was responding to the assertion above that the
News24 article was written by someone paid to attend by IAAF. This is plainly false, and it was not stated in the article. Of course, the press does not have to pay for a ticket because they have a press pass, this is how media works at nearly all major events from concerts to festivals to sporting events. There is no evidence, however, that de Villier's travel was covered by World Athletics, and for what it's worth I would be very surprised to learn that is the case based on what I know about world athletics championships. Either way, being granted a press pass as a journalist in no way constitutes being "paid to attend by the IAAF", otherwise we would have to consider all press pass coverage invalid for Wikipedia. Based on the LinkedIn profile you linked, it seems like de Villers only briefly contracted for World Athletics and was never employed by them, and his work for them started after the 2015 World Youth Championships. I think that his work for
News24 in relation to this subject is independent.
The CAF/RFEA is not independent of the athletes it sponsors – This would be true if the athletes that CAF/RFEA sponsors were hand-picked by the organizations based on the personal biases of administration officials. This isn't how it works in athletics, the purpose of
Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (for example) is simply to promote and govern the sport of athletics in Spain. They would not be independent in matters relating to the organization itself, but they are independent of the subject when the subject is "boys' javelin throw at the 2017 World Youth Championships" because they had no role in organizing that event and no stake in its success.
In regards to the Estonian newspaper, it is just one of the eleven sources used in the article, it is a
WP:RS, and its coverage of both the Estonian athlete and of the event in general is useful even if brief. The purpose of linking it wasn't about the article's length but to show that the subject is notable because there is dedicated coverage of it, even separate and apart from coverage of the
2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics as a whole. The event only happens once every two years, and in most cases coverage of the event cannot be planned because it is subject to the performances achieved at the event, which cannot be predicted.
Here is a section of the Netwerk24 article that pertains to the javelin throw:
Paul Botha, spiesgooier van die Hoërskool Rustenburg, en Werner Visser, diskusgooier van die Hoërskool Zwartkop in Pretoria, is verantwoordelik vir dié twee goue medaljes.
Botha het die spies met sy tweede gooi 78.49 m ver geslinger om die goud met die beste poging van sy loopbaan tot dusver te verower. Die ander Suid-Afrikaner in die eindronde van die spiesgooi, Hercules van Vuuren van die Bethlehem Voortrekker Hoërskool, moes met die vyfde plek tevrede wees. Hy het die spies 76.04 m ver laat grondvat.
Translated to English, it discusses not just Botha's throw but also Hercules van Vuuren, the other South African.
Furthermore, I believe our entire conversation about the independent coverage of the event is entirely moot because its primary purpose is a list; per
WP:NLISTLists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This list of competitors provides a clear navigational aid to the athletics coverage on Wikipedia – as noted above, the original reason I created it was to provide a backlink from
Manu Quijera to the competition that was a major part of his career, and event result list articles are the established practice on Wikipedia to do so. In addition, the redlink list is useful for others who may want to create new articles in the future.
IAAF member federations are part of the IAAF. It does not matter whether athletes are "hand-picked". Governing sports orgs are not independent when it comes to coverage of their athletes, which obviously extends to events they are involved in (because of course an org whose primary function is to promote its assets would facilitate ample coverage of its assets).
Accommodations provided by the IAAF directly or via the Member Federation serving as the Local Organising Committee (in this case CAF) constitute a financial relationship. There is also no indication that de Villiers' employment relationship with IAAF was not in place for this competition, as he makes similar IAAF disclosure statements for other IAAF events he covered 2015-on.
[26][27] As I said before, the Estonian article contains one sentence of coverage on other competitors. That is trivial.This article is not a list or a table, it is an article on an event that contains some tables. Even if it was a list, NLIST does not say all lists fulfill navigational etc. purposes; the contents in this article would certainly constitute a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization; and its utility as a navigational aid is clearly undercut by most of the entries not having their own pages. If someone's main source of coverage is from an appearance that was not significant enough to warrant coverage on any other wikipedia pages, maybe that is saying something about their notability.
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
IAAF member federations are part of the IAAF – This isn't true, according to
the "member federations" page, World Athletics federations are merely "affiliated with" and not part of the larger organization. I think the question we should be asking when it comes to independence is, does the author or publisher have any role in organizing the event? In the case of this source, one of the 11 used in the article, I think the answer is "no": "SA javelin duo impress". News24. Retrieved 2024-01-16.
Likewise, governing sports organizations are independent when it comes to events that athletes from their nation (not "their athletes", as the athletes are not employed by the governing organizations) compete in. To make this two-degree leap is like saying that
Elvis Presley wouldn't be an independent source on
Kevin Bacon, because they are
two degrees apart.
The "accomodations" link you provided is for a totally separate competition, four years after the 2015 World Youth Championships took place. Also, on that page there's no indication to me that the hotel would be paid for by the IAAF, only that they would assist in being booked in the athlete hotel which would make sense for a journalist. To me, it really seems like a reach veering in to
Pepe Silvia thinking, that there are so many degrees of connection required to say there is a "conflict of interest", in just one of the 11 sources provided. If you want, you can ask de Villiers himself if his work is independent of the subject of this article or to what degree he has a financial relationship with the IAAF, which is not even the subject of this article.
The Estonian article is the shortest of all the linked coverage, but it is useful as a reference and to be combined with other coverage, which is a valid way to assess notability.
These types of results articles are actually very often considered list-class, even if they have prose describing the event, as here are many examples of similar articles marked as Lists:
Category:List-Class Athletics articles. This includes even
the men's javelin throw at the same year's world championships, which is the closest possible article to this one. If you think that all of those articles are not lists, it would be against current Wikipedia practice and you would have to change that consensus first.
Which cross-categorization in this article is non-encyclopaedic?
Javelin throwers and the
2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics seems like a reasonable categorization to make, as the two categories are inherently associated (one competes in the other). But I wouldn't say that this list is a cross-categorization at all, really, the main purpose of it is to be a navigational aid for Wikipedia coverage of the world championships.
Looking at
WP:NOTCATALOG, 1. Ample contextual information is provided, 2. The topics are not loosely associated, 3. I don't think "cross-categorization" really applies to this article per above, 4. It's not a genealogical entry, 5. It's not a program guide, and 6. It has no commercial value and wouldn't be helpful for a business.
Of the 34 competitors in this list, 7 of them are currently blue links, and there are four inter-language links, i.e. athletes on other wikis that don't have an English article yet, so that is usually a very helpful pointer to article creators and I can see that many of the other red links are potential articles as well. This proves that the article serves an important purpose for editors, as well as being a helpful navigation aid for readers looking at who participated or was significant in a competition. Also, this event is not the "main source of coverage" for
Manu Quijera, but it does represent one major starting point in his career, so it would be very useful to have a backlink from the event back to his page along with all of the other athlete pages.
Your idea of what constitutes "independence" in the wiki-notability sense is intractably at odds with our guidelines. If you still do not understand--or refuse to acknowledge--the purpose of excluding governing sports bodies from the topics with which they are involved, then bring that up at NSPORT, not here. And of course the Member Federations are members of IAAF, what a ridiculous assertion. The term "affiliated to" does not just mean "loosely associated with", it has a precise legal meaning with regards to the subordinated relationship between the orgs and their governance. In this case the Members comprise the IAAF Congress, elect the IAAF council and executive board, and function as the highest authority in the IAAF. IAAF Rules state . The purposes of World Athletics include to: 1.1.1. encourage and support the development, organisation and delivery of Athletics worldwide through its Area Associations and Member Federations (Article 4.1(g) of the Constitution); and, 1.1.2. support and assist Area Associations and Member Federations to promote and develop Athletics (Article 4.1(h) of the Constitution). 1.2. The Member Federations are the Members of World Athletics (Article 6.1 of the Constitution) and as such, they enjoy rights and have obligations to World Athletics under the Constitution (Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution). Members are not some random association from a particular country, they are required to be the sole national governing body for athletics in their country and are responsible for all athletes therein. Members are obligated to "compete in at least one International Competition or one Area Championships in the period between meetings of Ordinary Congress” and to organise in each calendar year at least one national senior championships. Member Federations are not independent of the IAAF.The purpose of the accommodations link was to demonstrate the type of form used by the press for receiving accreditation and accommodation. They use the same boilerplate form for all IAAF competitions, I didn't bother to track down the exact one. And anyway, we know de Villiers' accommodations were paid for by the LOC for the games, which is as close as you can get to the org actually running the event.
JoelleJay (
talk)
03:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay, thank you for your response because I do think these issues are important to work out.
I looked at
WP:NSPORT, the policy you referenced, and the only thing it says about governing sports bodies is, Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. I don't think that applies to this article, because the subject of the article is not the players, it is the competition "Boys' javelin throw at the 2015 World Youth Championships". NSPORT doesn't say anything about member federations not being independent with respect to competitions, and I don't think that view is at odds with Wikipedia guidelines, let alone intractably so.
Also, the member federations are hardly the highest authority in the IAAF, in fact they are often at odds with World Athletics i.e. in the case of
Russian Athletics Federation. For a similar situation
with World Aquatics, a U.S. court found that "a reasonable trier of fact could find FINA and its member federations are separate economic actors", i.e. if member federations are separate economic actors, then it would stand to reason they are financially independent.
Per the 2019 World XC form, my reading is still that journalists can be situated in the athlete hotel, but they would still have to pay for their own travel and board. If journalists at World Athletics championships really do get free hotel and travel, please tell me where I can apply as one, because then I have been wasting a lot of money attending as a fan for naught...
I do think that this notability conversation ultimately does not matter as it pertains to this article though, because I think Wikipedia considers it a list per
Category:List-Class Athletics articles and
WP:NLIST. As a list, it does not necessarily need to meet the notability guidelines because it serves as a navigational aid to readers. Even if you discard all the member federation sources, which I don't think should be done, there is still fully independent newspaper coverage of the event.
You think that the lack of independence in a sports org's coverage of its athletes somehow doesn't apply when that same coverage is used for something else (let alone an event the org was involved in)? That makes zero sense and suggests you still don't understand the purpose of this guideline.The Member Federations comprise the majority of the IAAF and their Congress is explicitly called the "highest authority in the IAAF". This is per the IAAF Constitution and its rules book. It is perfectly acceptable to sanction one constituent, which is what the Members voted to do with RAF. Financial independence--which the Members certainly are not with regards to the parent structure, not least because they pay dues and receive support from the IAAF--is not the only criterion needed for wikipedia independence. I literally sent you a media accreditation and accommodations application, you should know what it says. You can find the one for some upcoming competition yourself.Very few lists don't need to meet notability criteria, so even if this was considered a list that is far from a guarantee that its navigational function is so overwhelmingly obvious that no sustained IRS SIGCOV of the topic as a whole is needed. Routine results announcements don't count for athletes because they fail NOT, which applies to all pages including this one.
JoelleJay (
talk)
18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JoelleJay, thank you for responding. I think that a national athletics federation's coverage of athletes from the same country actually can be independent, depending on the details of the coverage. I don't think that
WP:NSPORT disagrees with that, I think that the line Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players is in reference to players representing a specific athletics team as opposed to athletes competing independently that happen to reside in the same country as some World Athletics member federation. I think that I do understand the guidelines, I am trying to interpret them as objectively as I can.
The World Athletics Congress may be the highest authority of athletics as a whole, but that isn't exactly the same thing as the member federations – per
source, there are 214 member federations and each only has three delegates, i.e. any member federation only has a 1/214th stake and influence in Congress, and probably less than that because the Congress has a board and President which would overrule the delegates. It is such a tiny role, that I would have a hard time saying that there is any independence issue, especially because World Athletics is not the subject of this article.
FINA members pay dues ("membership fees") per
source, and yet that did not stop a U.S. court from ruling that a reasonable trier of fact could find FINA and its member federations are separate economic actors. So, I would agree that World Athletics member federations are financially independent from each other for the purposes of Wikipedia.
The 2019 World XC form linked above doesn't say anything about World Athletics paying for the hotel and flights for journalists that I can see, it seems to only reference "accommodating" them as in making sure they are in the athlete hotel. If what you say is true and disqualifying, the implication is then that any journalist coverage of global athletics championships cannot be used on Wikipedia, regardless of who the journalist is, because the journalists were "accommodated" in a way that is not clear at all to me. Do the World Athletics procedures for "accommodating" journalists differ significantly from the industry standard for large international events? I don't think they do, and I haven't seen any comparison that they do.
I think that there is IRS SIGCOV of the subject, as there are thousands of words about the event from over 10 different sources linked in the article. However I also think that the navigational function of this list is clear – it is linked clearly from the parent page in a consistent manner that has been done for hundreds of similar articles on Wikipedia, and it clearly lists the finishing order and participants in the event surrounded by helpful context about the competition. There is also significant technical advantage to keeping the article, as the red-links are useful starting points for future article creators. Regarding
WP:NOT, I did read that policy (specifically
WP:NOTCATALOG) and I read all of the numbered points. I don't think that this article applies to any of those numbered points, as I enumerated above at
#NOTCATALOG.
"Governing sports organizations" means exactly what it says: they are not independent of players under their jurisdiction. Your "objective" interpretation both fails textually and in actual intent. I know this because I wrote that part of the guideline, after discussion at NSPORT that had unanimous agreement among 8 senior NSPORTS editors as well as a followup discussion that also had overwhelming support. This was the obvious outcome given what had been happening at athlete AfDs whenever editors gave heightened scrutiny to source independence
[28][29][30]. Non-independence from governing orgs continues to result in uncontroversial deletions on that basis.
[31][32]Again, we know de Villiers was accommodated by the event organizer. Whether they pay for all journalists is irrelevant to this AfD.NOT states that the examples given in each section are not exhaustive. Editors are assumed to be competent enough at inference and patterns to recognize instances that don't precisely match policy wording. And my invocation of NOT was re: NOTNEWS, where routine news coverage is discussed. The "list" having the bare-minimum technical characteristics of a page does not override its utter lack of navigational utility.Please stop prefacing your comments with those obnoxious facially insincere "thank yous".
JoelleJay (
talk)
21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Re: Governing sports organizations – I greatly respect the work you have done for
WP:NSPORT. At the same time, Wikipedia guidelines are not interpreted or enforced by any one person, even if that person was the original author of a guideline. Just as you linked examples of athlete biographies that were deleted for lack of sources, there are also examples of athlete biographies that were not deleted despite having no significant non-database sources linked, for example
Kyohei Ushio or
Abdou Manzo. As
WP:NSPORT is a supplemental guideline, there is also always the possibility of an article meeting a core guideline like
WP:GNG but not NSPORT anyways, such as in the case of
Clive Sands. Of course, any source can sometimes be non-independent depending on context, but I don't think that national athletics federations are as a rule always non-independent of athletes who happen to live in the same country, especially if that athlete has never represented or associated with the federation.
we know de Villiers was accommodated by the event organizer – To be clear, the article in question only says, "Ockert attended the IAAF World Youth Championships courtesy of the IAAF. His accommodation was paid for by the Colombian athletics federation." That seems to say he was not accommodated by the IAAF but by the Colombian Athletics Federation instead. Also, I am not sure what this "accommodation" means, and I couldn't find any Wikipedia policies or guidelines saying that if a journalist is "accommodated" then his coverage is automatically deemed non-independent.
For WP:NOT, I did try to interpret meaning rather than wording in
#NOTCATALOG. For
WP:NOTNEWS, I will go through the numbered points to see if it applies:
1. Original reporting – I don't think this is original as the results are widely reported, 2. News reports – I don't think this list is a news report but an encylopedic record of competition results surrounded by context. I don't think the World Youth Championships are covered in a "routine" way, it only happens once every two years and the coverage is more often focused on the details of the specific events with commentary rather than using generic boilerplate. 3 Who's who – The subjects are covered in order of importance to the overall topic, with the medallists discussed most often and the other competitors being given less coverage. 4. Celebrity gossip and diary – Not applicable to this article.
I also do think that the list is navigationally useful – The reason why I created it was because I expected it to already exist, having read similar articles like the
2016 IAAF World U20 Championships. Many people use Wikipedia as a reference for athletics results at major championships, and the page is in line with existing articles to provide that service in an encyclopedic fashion.
With regard to your last comment – I wanted to say that I trust that your comments have all been 100% sincere, and I would hope that you would extend me the same good faith. I am sorry that my words were interpreted otherwise, and I would much rather discuss the article than editor behavior. --
Habst (
talk)
23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sandstein, I appreciate what you said and I'll make my response brief. Is the article niche? Yes, although that's not a valid reason for deletion. I would liken it to
Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics, which was kept despite the absurd specificity of the article. 'Importance' is all relative – to a certain few, this may be a very valuable article, which is enough of a reason to keep the article if it complies with Wikipedia policies. --
Habst (
talk)
21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 and given the previous history (their last speedy was not even an hour ago), I'm not giving any benefit of doubt. Not sure if it even escapes A7 given the "credible" part of "credible claim".
ChaotıċEnby(
talk ·
contribs)
00:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Beyond confirmation it exists, I don't see any significant coverage of the position and none found either in my searches. This has been tagged since 2008, with little to no improvements made.
Oaktree b (
talk)
23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Extremely notable position with plenty of available sources. Mostly in print, obviously, given it was abolished in 2000 and lost a lot of its standing after 1968. But before that, equal in status to the Commissioner. Easily meets
WP:GNG. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merits a full 29-page chapter in John Moylan's definitive 1929 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police, plus sections in pretty much every other book about the history of the Met. As I said, relying on online sources for earlier topics is not the best idea. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
08:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please address the offline sources mentioned above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎00:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, nothing wrong with off-line sources, and the article is now well-referenced. Additionally, since the majority of holders of this post are of themselves notable, this article would have been a valid navigational list even without sourcing. But it's much better as a properly referenced article.
Elemimele (
talk)
13:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.