Delete - This is a creation of the same sockpuppet who created the draft mentioned by the nom. It is a clear
WP:NCORP fail. PROD was contested because the article has some sources, but reviewing the sources show these are all low quality and do not come close to meeting
WP:SIRS. They are a string of primary source announcements and placed content. Independence is highly suspect in them all. See, for instance,
WP:NEWSORGINDIA, but the placement concerns exist for others too. The sources are low quality, and have significant reliability concerns, and not one of them significantly covers the clinic sufficient to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
11:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't find anything beyond a story in the wrap and a handbook by his organization (which has been deleted). Given the lack of an Israeli page, it seems Israeli sources are unlikely as well. One source is not enough for
WP:GNGAllan Nonymous (
talk)
23:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can't find any commentary/reviews/etc. A few things citing this book, but none talking about it. Both authors are notable so IDK if a redirect target would work.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A book is presumed notable if it
verifiably meets, through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
Kim, Eugene Eric (September 2001). "The Wiki Way: Quick collaboration on the Web". Web Techniques. Vol. 6, no. 9. p. 62.
ProQuest275002380.
The review notes: "The Wiki Way will hopefully change that. Written by Bo Leuf and coauthored by Cunningham, The Wiki Way is a cultural and technical guide to the wonderful world of the WikiWikiWeb. ... Leuf and Cunningham do a good job of explaining what a Wiki is, and when it's appropriate to use one. They begin with a survey of collaborative tools, and outline Wiki's strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, they explain the cultural values that make Wiki work. ... The authors answer these questions by providing much commentary on social structure and the Wiki culture-The Wiki Way-and by presenting several case studies."
The review notes: "Leuf and Cunningham devote a good portion of the book to the Wiki's inner workings, and in particular, a version of Wiki called QuickiWiki. Those interested in installing and even hacking a Wiki will find these chapters straightforward and informative. The book would have been far stronger, however, if the authors had inserted the case studies before describing the software's technical details. I imagine that many people reading this book will want to be persuaded of the Wiki's utility before pouring over software innards.The Wiki Way is certainly a technical book. Wiki, after all, is simply another type of collaboration software. underlying the technology, however, is a fascinating insight into community and the nature of collaboration. In a sense, The Wiki Way is about the way we work, and that makes it a worthwhile read."
The article notes: "In The Wiki Way (2001), the one and only book devoted solely to wild, Bo Leuf and Ward Cunningham define wild as ... Wikis are easy to learn and use. There are no complicated syntax or text formatting rules. Some wild clones permit the inclusion of HTML, but The Wiki Way authors recommend, with some exceptions, against this practice. ... The Wiki Way authors recommend never deleting a wild page, but deleting the content instead, leaving a note explaining why, and creating another page instead. ... The first wild product I tried to install myself was the QuickiWiki script that comes on CD-ROM with The Wiki Way. ... The scripts that came on the CD-ROM were damaged, but you can find corrected scripts on the book's support site at
http://wild.org. QuickiWiki runs as advertised with or without a server. The script simulates the required server activity through an MS-DOS window, or you can set up a free server such as Apache (not recommended for the nontechnical) to run the QuickiWiki. Since I did not want t o be bothered with trying out all the useful "hacks" described in part two of The Wiki Way (2001), I moved onto other products."
The review notes: "The Wiki Way book is a manifesto and a software manual in one, with the essentials for Wiki installation attached on CD. The authors have written this book with an almost mystical sense of wonderment at the achievements and ideals embodied in the Wiki concept, a web site where anyone can edit anything. ... The attached CD allows you to install a Wiki on most Os’s, even Windows, and then you too will be able to keep the flame burning for those early ideals of the WWW: empowerment, learning and collaboration."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper (
[3]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources.
Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only
this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. signed, Rosguilltalk15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: It could have been redirected to the
director with the
local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source (
[4]). signed, Rosguilltalk17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The sources don't support that it is a "national football team" or a "football team" in any organized sense. It is a few one-off matches held by amateurs at various Universal Esperanto Congress events, and a few big-talkers making claims about pursuing non-FIFA recognition that are, in a word, bullshit.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is simply not true... it literally played in two non-FIFA organization tournaments (COSANFF Cup and Zamenhof Cup) among other games against teams in non-FIFA organizations (Mapuche etc), and on top of that it does meet WP:GNG by any means. Thanks,
Das osmnezz (
talk)
04:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Passing GNG is the claim to notability we think it is, and I don't know how you could argue against the articles here which were published in clearly reliable sources.
SportingFlyerT·C09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Also like to say that if it does not get merged or deleted, it should be moved to "Esperanto (football team)". I would move it, but this is during an AFD.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources in the article show that this clearly meets the GNG. I think it should be moved to "Esperanto football team" – some sources call it a national team, but one of those also then goes on to say "Es un equipo que no juega por una Nación o por un club". Common sense says it's not a national team.
Toadspike[Talk]19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Karen Football Association, which you can find can find plenty of details about through internet searches are a Karen diaspora group based in Minneapolis.
Sherms95 (
talk)
13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The Kashmir team is a local club in Bradford. The organization (and the article) pretense to be "national teams for sub-national entities", but it isn't; it's a few random local clubs with ethnic ties that signed up for a press release with this group.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
23:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – It may not be HOAX, but it didn't even organize any competition to be relevant.
Svartner (
talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024
Weak Keep Most of the coverage isn't independent, but there's some coverage, including from Bradford,
[14], BBC mentions, the Non-League Football Paper, and the nomination was based on a mis-understanding.
SportingFlyerT·C09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (
talk)19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG
[15] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.
1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of
Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in
History of Peshawar Wiki article.
2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including
The Times of India have covered this event see this link;
[16]
3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.
i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link
[17] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.
ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link
[18] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.
iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link
[19]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link
[20] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.
v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links) Above book Pg 400 link
[21] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.
5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).
So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion. Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply.
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk)
20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns!
Mohammad Umar Ali (
talk)
15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to
Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear
WP:POVFORK of
Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either.
FDW777 (
talk)
16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable,
WP:TNT may apply.
Mn1548 (
talk)
19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:NEVENTS, but
WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent.
AddWittyNameHere01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles)
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
IP- As per
this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. —
Saqib (
talk I
contribs)
23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article.
Tutwakhamoe (
talk)
21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit.
Saqib (
talk)
20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet
WP:N. The remover Saqib
WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates
WP:FAITH. --
TinaLees-Jones (
talk)
23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. —
Saqib (
talk)
06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention (
WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians.
WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of
WP:N. --
TinaLees-Jones (
talk)
07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as
Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend
Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the
2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the
2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. --
TinaLees-Jones (
talk)
07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
TinaLees-Jones,
Notability is not temporary and
WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. —
Saqib (
talk)
07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe
WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith.
Toadspike[Talk]04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example,
Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the
CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? —
Saqib (
talk)
06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just
WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want?
Toadspike[Talk]06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect (or merge) to
China–Pakistan relations. The nom is right, the article violates
WP:NOTNEWS and we have no
WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to this visit being way too recent. It may or may not gather sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article in the future, but as it currently stands, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a standalone article.
Pilaz (
talk)
17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: A non-notable visit. Not deserving a
page on Wikipedia. Would not argue against a Redirect (or merge) as an
alternate to deletion -- which equals it does not deserve a page. The
event was not significant and did not precede any other notable event that resulted from the visit. In this case the article fails the
Inclusion criteria #4, lacking "enduring significance". The event was just
routine and the new coverage was just
news of the event with no lasting historical significance. --
Otr500 (
talk)
20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate.
KadıMessage20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep She is a notable singer, mostly known for musical performances in Kurdish. More than enough sources are available, from reliable news outlets like
Rudaw,
Evrensel,
NTV,
Hurriyet,
Gazete Duvar
Keep as the references in the article and listed in the first AfD at the top left of this listing shows a pass of
WP:GNG in my view, including a 25 minute radio programme about her. Also she still has an article on the Kurdish wikipedia, and the deletion on the Turkey wikipedia may have a political context, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes
WP:SIGCOV per the sources above and those given in the first AFD. The claims that the sources are promotional are entirely spurious. These are independent mainstream media sources, not all of which are positive (such as the first source given above). The deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia does appear to have been politically motivated and based in a flawed and unethical argument not rooted in Wikipedia’s policies. That is concerning, and hopefully an admin on that wiki will do an AFD review on the Turkish wiki page. That article should be restored.
4meter4 (
talk)
14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have carried out
WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets
WP:GNG or
WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020.
Tacyarg (
talk)
22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to
Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her.
❤HistoryTheorist❤18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic?
PamD22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said."
[22]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. –
notwally (
talk)
22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the
Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. :
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26][27]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG.
Heavy Grasshopper (
talk)
09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default.
Uhooep (
talk)
15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Two different Carlos Malcolms, the other of whom invented Ska music, make it hard to source this one. Doesn't seem very notable though. — Iadmc♫talk 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The article currently cites two sources. I think
this article provides significant coverage. The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129. I can provide the excerpt if needed. I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability. I also found
this, a statement from a Cuban embassy, and
this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much. This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact.
Toadspike[Talk]19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I also found two mentions in
this book chapter, one of which cites a paper as "
Brouwer, “La vanguardia en la música cubana,” Boletín Música no. 1 (1970): 3". I cannot find that paper anywhere. Although these are just passing mentions, they confirm that Malcolm was part of the "1960s Cuban musical vanguardia" and moved to Poland (which was apparently common for Cuban musicians, as Poland was less "conservative" than alternatives in socialist Eastern Europe).
Toadspike[Talk]10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."
The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."
I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per
WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
...that isn't what BLP1E is for? He has multiple, full length author profiles. His books have plenty of reviews. There isn't even an "event" here. He writes books.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This person wrote books, that have been talked about in media, as has this person. As shown above, these are RS. Scandalous or not, notability is established.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for
WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of
WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There does seem to be an effort from this editor to remove things that are not complimentary of Gandhi, but that does not make a strong case for deletion. True or not, these "things" have enough coverage to be kept here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The two sources were published five years apart.
WP:BLP1E does not apply to an author who has received this level of coverage.
WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" nor "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Keep: More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: The prior AfD was also a keep, for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It makes no sense to cite past AfD in order to evade the existing concerns, otherwise there would be no option to renominate the article for deletion.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
ArvindPalaskar It makes complete sense to mention the past AfD *unless there are new circumstances*, such as standards changing over time. In some topics we have increased our notability standards (i.e., sportspeople). The rationale used to keep the article back then, he is the writer of several notable books, is still valid now. The nomination is literally just incorrect, he passes both
WP:NAUTHOR and
WP:GNG.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The original paper from 1998 (a "technical notice" in a special-interest-group newsletter) has no citations in Google Scholar. This appears to have had no traction and we have no coverage at all (let alone SIGCOV) in sources independent from its author. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin(
talk)16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage.
Astaire (
talk)
21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that.
Astaire (
talk)
15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold.
Astaire (
talk)
15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets
WP:V. I agree that special care should be taken over a fringe subject but even without that this book easily fails all points of
WP:NBOOK.
Azuredivay (
talk)
11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A book is presumed notable if it
verifiably meets, through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"
The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."
The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."
The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."
Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56.
ProQuest230077014.
The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""
The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."
The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"
The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."
Keep. Multiple reliable and in-depth published reviews (possibly as many as six) is enough for
WP:GNG and
WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - They are not really "reviews". The book absolutely does not meet
WP:NBOOK, let alone
WP:GNG. There is a big difference between advertorials and reviews. The sources mentioned above are either advertorials or fact-check.
Orientls (
talk)
08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
How are they not reviews/commentary? It doesn't matter if they're strictly delineated "reviews", provided they are significant coverage on the book. There is no evidence they are advertisements and fact-checking a book in a commentary manner would be significant coverage, yes.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
20:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at them they are reviews. Why wouldn't they be? What do you consider a review? This is very far over both NBOOK and GNG.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft keep. I can find two independent sources covering this book:
this Vice article and
this review in the journal Encounter. (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.) Coverage from two independent sources is enough per
WP:NBOOK. The journal
Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article. The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article.
Astaire (
talk)
22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an
unreliable source for notability. Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability, and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine. Encounter looks like a decent journal. My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh? I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.
Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A book is presumed notable if it
verifiably meets, through
reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
"Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review". Humanism Ireland. November–December 2009. pp. 22–23.
This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland, Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".
Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940. In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.
Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance. In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.
The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215). It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book."
After reviewing
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media, I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype. In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ... I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover."
Your first source Humanism Ireland fails
WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above. Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that.
WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for
WP:GNG and
WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting
WP:NBOOK. The book has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject.
Orientls (
talk)
08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability.
Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see
WP:NEXIST.
You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Sources given above are more than enough for notability. Not liking this "conspiracy theory" isn't sufficient to have an article deleted.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of
WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation.
Bgsu98(Talk)20:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of
WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation.
Bgsu98(Talk)20:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. There are two interlanguage Wikipedia in German and Japanese, but neither of them provide significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia in 2009, possibly due to BLP concerns. My Google came up with other women of the same name than this figure skater, failing
WP:V too.
⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆10:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I was told over and over that
WP:NSKATE is merely a guideline, and in this case, one national gold medal didn't lead to any sort of notability or significant coverage.
Bgsu98(Talk)18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Correct. However, the subject meets that guideline so why would you cite it in your nomination statement as a reason to delete the article?
Let'srun (
talk)
18:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of
WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation.
Bgsu98(Talk)20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of
WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation.
Bgsu98(Talk)20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: There are some sources which mention the subject as a coach and skater such as [
[30]] and [
[31]]. Not sure if it merits being kept but this is not uncontroversial.
Let'srun (
talk)
17:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am nominating a bundle of 107 articles for deletion. These were all created by one user in late 2016 with the same format. The only source in all the articles beyond the subjects' manufacturer's listing page is World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04. This seems to clearly go against the
WP:DIRECTORY policy. I fly paragliders and the lifespan of a model is at most 10 years after its production/release although this upper bound is very rare. The vast majority cease to be used after ~6 years for safety concerns (aging of the fabric). Therefore at the time of creation, all the data was about models at least 13 years in the past, and thus obsolete and long forgotten. None of the models listed below have any notoriety nor any relevance today in an industry/sport with dozens of brands each releasing multiple models every year. Recent models might actually have a web presence with reviews and news articles on the Internet, but none of the models below do as they largely predate the popularization of the Internet.
I spot-checked two (Trekking Carver, Windtech Coral) which had nothing close to notability in a search, though I did find a list of Trekking aircraft. I'm loathe to !vote delete on all of these, though, without reviewing them, which is the problem with these bulk nominations.
SportingFlyerT·C22:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I just added 6 more from Gradient. Note that this list is not exhaustive, there would be about as many articles of paramotors and another equal amount about hang gliders that are in the same situation but since I am more familiar with paragliders I decided to start there.
Gumgl (
talk)
23:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Sigcov required for all articles. No sources exist for this topic beyond the single cited (primary) source containing the initial description of the species.
Esculenta (
talk)
19:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's not a policy or guideline, and "species articles are kept because they're kept at AfD" is a circular deletion rationale not based on any policy.
JoelleJay (
talk)
20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NSPECIES is not a policy, but a sentence describing common outcomes of species' articles at AfD, and is thus a circular argument that shouldn't be used to keep the article ("this article should be kept because species article are usually kept). Now what policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet
WP:SIGCOV?
Esculenta (
talk)
20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close per JoelleJay. (Incidentally – keep, as it summarizes valuable information for the reader. This is Wikipedia's key purpose: to be an encyclopedia. This article is encyclopedic; and it is not excluded by
WP:NOT, therefore it is notable.)
Cremastra (
talk)
20:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Can no-one answer this: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV? Per
WP:Encyclopedic: "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful."
Esculenta (
talk)
20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What's not what you said? You called the article "encyclopedic". How you and I might define the word "encyclopedic" may be different, so I went to
WP:Encyclopedic, and quoted a sentence from that page to counter your argument of it being "encyclopedic". Now back to the important question for this AfD: What policy-based arguments are there for keeping this article that does not meet WP:SIGCOV?
Esculenta (
talk)
20:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case, a single article in a reliable academic publication constitutes significant coverage. Applying standards meant for athletes and movie actors to taxa would damage the encyclopedia, not help it. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)21:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NSPECIES appears to be bad, as it doesn't address cases like these, which lack enough sigcov to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Still not seeing any policy-based rationale to keep this article.
Esculenta (
talk)
21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep / procedural close. (i) All species are encyclopedic and deserve articles in this encyclopedia, (ii) a potential lack of SIGCOV is not and should not be the end of the world, and (iii) this nomination is purely done to prove a point.
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
01:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. From
WP:TOOSOON: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." This article simply does not meet that criteria, and, according to existing policies, should not yet exist on Wikipedia.
Esculenta (
talk)
02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close Disingenuous and POINTy; you don't attempt to alter established handling of tens of thousands of articles by trying hammer a wedge into one random example. Stick to the high-level discussions for that. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
05:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article contains one reference, which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable.
PercyPigUK (
talk)
18:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Though a decently recurring character in a series of Doctor Who, Karvanista doesn't really have significant coverage. Only sources cited in Reception are routine coverage for Doctor Who (Sources that are basically plot summary explaining who a character is for readers, which is done whenever a new character is introduced/re-introduced into the series) and the only sources findable in a search; beyond Flux, there really isn't anything talking about him in a significant capacity.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Non-notable clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups:
this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and
this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to
Liz Houghton.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of
Illinois on the proposal along with the new
Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories...
Roberto221 (
talk)
18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page.
WP:N is paramount, not categories.
Angryapathy (
talk)
18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Has zero sources other than their own website, and has zero content on the subject other than a program schedule. North8000 (
talk)
18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't find coverage of this TV program, and what's used now for sourcing are TV Guide-type listings, not enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk)
01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Pendergrass seems to be just under notability, with a partial nomination in a small award and few roles.
Pendergrass has voiced several side characters in multiple works in the Yo-Kai Watch franchise and characters in the PBS Space Racers series. He does not seem to have had any other roles. He states that he wrote several jingles for the Yo-Kai Watch franchise.
As part of a group of actors, he was likely nominated for Best Vocal Ensemble in an Anime Feature Film/Special by
Behind the Voice Actors, a smaller source which is mostly a database but does produce the awards as editorial content. Details on the award are a bit muddled, as
IMDB states that it was the 2017 award and gives the actor names, but
their website states that it was the 2016 award, though the archived version does not display the actor names for the movie awards. QuietCicadachirp17:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete : Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NACTOR, and
WP:COMPOSER. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Pendergrass also has no credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. —
YoungForever(talk)05:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article contains one reference which is not from an independent source. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable.
PercyPigUK (
talk)
17:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire
WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though.
Darkfrog24 (
talk)
23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article was created by
Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles
[36].
As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia.
Vlaemink (
talk)
15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like
Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere.
Reywas92Talk18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by
Francis Pastorius, and is where
Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern
Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have
Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92.
Aearthrise (
talk)
19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here:
[37].=
Aearthrise (
talk)
20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (
Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77?
Vlaemink (
talk)
20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication.
Aearthrise (
talk)
23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see that these are referring to a specific place or region, rather conceptually describing the state's Germans and where they live. I see this analogous to saying "
Polish Chicago" or "
Cuban Miami", referring to a population and culture. In your third quote, "A German Pennsylvania farmer" is combining two adjectives that he is a German farmer and a Pennsylvania farmer. Moreover, copy-pasting sections from other articles doesn't make a new article like this. Maybe start over in draft space so you're not just synthesizing content that was about the specific groups rather than the topic as a whole.
Reywas92Talk14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. In the quotes furnished above, I don't see a clear indication that "German Pennsylvania" is a well-defined geographical area, as opposed to a generic reference to parts of Pennsylvania where Germans live.
Choess (
talk)
13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete which honestly surprised me - given the quote and the academic search I performed, I thought I'd be arguing to !keep this article. However, none of the academic literature particularly contributes to notability, only using the term in passing without defining it, or is part of a single academic's research, including their masters/PhD dissertation. I just don't see enough continued usage of the term in scholarly papers that would allow us to write an entire article on it.
SportingFlyerT·C13:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
After 2 reverts, I have decided to start a discussion on whether class 755 should redirect to
British Rail Class 755. The reason is because of the fact most of them searching this term is likely looking for the one in the UK.
the pageviews also give a picture, having received over 10x the number of views. The only other topic is
Prussian G 8 which is not titled that way so that is why I agree and propose to replace this with a redirect and add a hatnote to the other. This is an example of
WP:BLAR - blank and redirect, but others have opposed my change.
JuniperChill (
talk)
15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the established convention has been that where there is one class of rolling stock, that Class xxx be set as a disambiguation page. While people will naturally think that the class in the their home country is the primary topic, Wikipedia has a global readership who may have differing opinions based on their geographic locations.
Weshmakui (
talk)
02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this normally applies, but have you heard of '
primary topic' and
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are3 only two articles where 'class 755' could be referred to and that I have provided the linked pageviews above. British Rail Class 755 has over 10x the number of views that the Prussian G 8 has. Many titles and abbreviations do not have a primary topic (where the disambiguation page has '(disambiguation)' in it) but this seems like an exception. And yes while Wikipedia does have people around the globe, articles can often have most of its views from one country/region. This is the case here since almost everyone that knows this type of train is from the UK.
JuniperChill (
talk)
09:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Since you also want this blanked, simplest is just to delete per above rationale. Next you can create a redirect as you wish. The disambiguation page is clearly unjustified, the rest is just editing.
gidonb (
talk)
14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails the
notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).
A
previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well,
TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial.
toweli (
talk)
16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I searched for some independent, reliable secondary sources to established this organisation's notability but it mostly just returned listings and a few press releases so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this subject is not notable.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is largely unsourced original research. I found some articles about rivalries within the
Philadelphia Big 5, but nothing about these two schools specifically. Any content about this rivalry specifically should probably be added to Philadelphia Big 5 instead. This was dePRODed without any sourcing changes.
HyperAccelerated (
talk)
15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 starters
WP:ONEOTHER is about disambiguation pages. This is not a disambiguation page.
Jason Gesser is also not particularly notable and is certainly not ubiquitously referred to only as "Gesser". The bar for a primary surname redirect is way higher than this one. —
Xezbeth (
talk)
16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep particularly with the addition of another person but agree that this isn't suited for a surname redirect to a single person.
Skynxnex (
talk)
18:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I think deletion in some sense seems inevitable here, but I have to ask, what possible purpose does a redirect serve here? It's not a plausible search term; it's not a plausible phrase to link from.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
17:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
One redirect is cheap; millions are
WP:COSTLY, so why? Even still, that's no argument against deletion. There's no page history worth keeping here, and this would be a useless redirect, so why create it? Nothing would stop anyone from creating this name as a redirect after deletion, except of course for the fact that it's such an awkward, implausible phrase.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I have added some sourced properties, not all of which are "the digits are in order". The article is now significantly expanded from its nominated sub-stub version, which didn't even say that much. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I need more numbers in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is helpful also, I made this page because I need more numbers in Wikipedia, so don’t delete it. It is a good page.
Highway Helper (
talk)
23:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Enthusiastic editors are a great thing to have. However, before you create any more pages, you might want to carefully read
WP:GNG, which talks about when a topic is sufficiently important to have its own page.
PianoDan (
talk)
16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Evaluating this number by
the relevant guideline, the big question is Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer? I think we can lump together all of its appearances in various lists made by concatenating numerals ("triangle of the gods", the sequence, and the Yates-order thing). Then we've got the counting of independent vertex sets, which is in the OEIS as both "nice" and "hard". We could also include
this along with that and maybe mention
this as well.
The "finite Sturmian words" sequence is also "nice", though what it's actually counting seems harder to explain... The rest of what's currently in the page can be summarized, I think, by saying, "1234 is also the answer to various partitioning problems, such as" and giving a few examples. Counting
rooted trees of a fixed height and
digits in
Fermat numbers could also be included. Overall, I think this one is salvageable, somewhat to my surprise.
XOR'easter (
talk)
01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Partitions are tricky, mainly because all small enough numbers will be some partition values of different integers in many ways, so at least two coinciding values in different enough ways (or similar too), makes pairs of integer partitions or more worthwhile to mention (here we have two for 44 and two for 24, for example). Else partition values obtained that are factors of each other is another order of interest, especially if the partitions are defined in similar ways... and so forth. Actual uses of select partitions become most notable, of course. We can remove some from here (like those in the note).
Radlrb (
talk)
05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
XOR'easter: I think you are misinterpreting the guideline (it isn't the clearest in this regard). For a number to be considered notable, it needs to meet all three bullet points, not just one of them. Above, there are similar lists for "kinds" and "sequences" of numbers, and there it is explicitly noted that we need an "affirmative" answer to the questions, not just to one of them. You can also see in the "Disposition of examples" for the numbers, that the example meets all three questions and thus is notable. For 1234, so far only meeting question 1 has been demonstrated, positive answers to question 2 and 3 are missing, and this means that it doesn't meet the guideline and isn't notable.
Fram (
talk)
07:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I said "the big question". Question 2 is the most subjective, and in this case is arguably met because the number in question is, well, "one two three four". It's the ATM PIN for people who don't care about their ATM PIN, and all that. The answer to question 3 is yes; 1234 appears on Friedman's webpage (I haven't checked the other two, but it doesn't have to appear in all of them).
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Wholly non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of the idea. Any number of this magnitude is likely to crop up in dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands, of OEIS entries. A laundry list of such appearances does not an encyclopedic subject make. I'd go so far as to say that numbers above 100 (and I'm being really generous by cutting off at 100) are not notable unless they have some overriding cultural significance or for some other special reason. "1234" does not fit into this, and indeed, even after attempts to flesh out the article, all we have is a list of numerical trivia.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Zero sense, and that will never happen anyways. It's not just about OEIS, and guidelines are clear in what is required to be included here as an article. For example, take 1024, or a small number such as 144, and you'll get very important properties arising.
Radlrb (
talk)
19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You may disagree with me, just as I disagree with you, but saying my reasoning makes "zero sense" makes zero sense. And I even said I'm open to exceptional cases, but this isn't one of them. And the guidelines on standalone notability for integers are, frankly, bullshit.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I welcome you to make suggestions for better notability guidelines at the proper project pages, then. Note, that these have been "fleshed out" quite a bit.
Radlrb (
talk)
20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I found a published source for the frequent pin code usage. I'm not a big fan of crufty number articles, but I think the grid independent set property, the cultural usage as a pin code, and the appearance of this number in recreational mathematics works such as Pickover's are enough for this one. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The PIN referenced is not really about the integer 1234, as its a string of digits for a code, and people usually would not think of "one thousand, two hundred and thirty-four" when putting this pin down, more so "one two three four". But, it can go either way, so I think it's somewhat admissible (if that's all that we can find culturaly, or in society, so to speak, for this article so far).
Radlrb (
talk)
20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA). An article on
Mobile radar observation of tornadoes seems to be a better idea, perhaps this can be moved and the list trimmed to the most notable instances only? But specifically as a list grouping this seems like a never-ending list of a non-defining characteristic of the tornadoes, which get observed by many methods.
Fram (
talk)
15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and Support renaming — As pointed out by Fram, the list should only have the most notable instances. That is actually sourced by a published paper by NOAA/OU (
[38]), which is cited in the article. The authors specifically mention dozens of tornadoes have been observed by mobile radars. That said, only a handful (actually, roughly this current list) have been directly mentioned or directly published about. In that paper, several of the tornadoes on this list were directly called out, including with some of the max readings. In fact, that published study alluded to another study of 82 separate tornadoes measured by mobile radars (page 5), but yet, only 12 were directly named in the study. Those named ones are the most notable ones. As such, several of the tornadoes listed here have the mobile radar information mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia (see
2013 El Reno tornado,
1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado,
2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado,
Tornadoes of 2009#June 5,
2024 Greenfield Tornado,
Tornado records, ect…)
Secondly, the nominator claimed “the most basic sources” and called out Twitter (only used for tornadoes that occurred in the last month—directly published by the
Doppler on Wheels account or a academically published meteorologists in the field of radars…i.e. meets
WP:SPS very clearly (“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”)) and NOAA. However, the nominator stated inaccurately that NOAA was a “primary source” that is not the case. NOAA does not own the
Doppler on Wheels (
University of Illinois does) or
RaXPol (
University of Oklahoma does) and the NOAA publications listed here (example for this is
this publication in 2016) are not primary sources for it. Per
the FAQ for that NOAA website, “The NWS has 60 days to submit their data files to the NWS Headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. The NWS Headquarters (NWSHQ) then collects all of the data files from the 123 NWS Forecast Offices. The NCEI receives a copy of this database approximately 75 days after the end of the month. A publication and archive are produced and the Storm Events Database are updated within 75-90 days after the end of a data month.” Clearly not a primary source for the Doppler on Wheels data, which is not owned or managed whatsoever by NOAA.
To list a few secondary reliable source news articles (let’s ignore the tons of peer-reviewed academic papers already cited in the article currently), we have
[39][40][41][42][43][44] as well these published in 2024:
[45][46][47](TWP)[48]. Again, those are just a handful of news articles related to the mobile radars and how they improve science. I’m not going to go through and list every reference in the article, since a ton are secondary, peer-reviewed academic papers.
@
Fram: With what you stated, I do agree with you. If you would wish, you could withdraw the AFD and move the article. I could reformat it and talk page discussions regarding what is/is not notable could occur. Since you gave an out for deletion, and I agree with the alternative, withdrawing the AFD and following that process may be best, rather than try to wait over a week to do the reformatting and such. So, would you be up to withdrawing the AFD and then renaming the article so I can reformat it appropriately? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous
WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.
Wikilover3509 (
talk)
13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable videogame development company, seemingly, from the limited information I have found, a subcontractor the actual studio hires for certain tasks such as localization. The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!).
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please alwaysping!14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The company actually has a history of developing games back in the day, including Time Crisis Alpha for the PlayStation and an old King of the Hill game – but none of this adds up to any kind of notable press coverage. A passing mention at IGN (
[49]) and small one in Kotaku (
[50]) were the only truly reliable ones that popped up, and I don't think it passes
WP:CORP.
Nomader (
talk)
16:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or Redirect: That section heading feels a bit like undue promotion of Arp's nonsense views, even though it was the original catalog section name. I suppose a redirect is reasonable here, since it's in Arp's catalog. -
Parejkoj (
talk)
19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep – The player doesn't seem very famous outside of Australia, but he seems to have
WP:SIGCOV in the country's sports media like the offline sources of The Press & Journal and Evening Express.
Svartner (
talk)
18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching
NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions.
Schazjmd(talk)14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I fully get how annoying
White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
DELETE -
WP:NOTDIRECTORY also delete subcategories on a separate AFD deletion. Why do we need this list, or any of the other similar lists? There's a whole bunch of this stuff we could delete. See
Category:Lists of businesspeople - why do we need to know how many Jewish persons are in a given area of corporations? And why do we need to know their specific names and birth-death dates? It just goes on and on, with probably nobody updating these lists.
— Maile (
talk)
13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This list appears to only have current CEOs of notable companies, even though it's not clearly stated; skimming the categories, I see a lot of former CEOs and executives of non-notable companies or other types of entities. This list could probably be reorganized to be sorted by country or further limited to, say, Fortune 500 or equivalent companies, as well as removing the few CEOs listed who don't have their own articles either, but it serves a valid navigational purpose. These categories have a lot of people who aren't corporate executives or are notable for other things, so it's not very useful for navigation. I'd further note that the item on the Common Outcomes page was added in
2011 as "Ephemeral listings of current personnel", which is often seen as non-notable people; this is by no means a precedent that applies here and does not ban the concept of things being up to date.
Reywas92Talk15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep If the list gets too long, it can split out by nationality. This is far more useful than a category that only list their names, this showing what company they are in, what years they held this title, and how they got their position. Perfect valid navigational list.
DreamFocus16:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Unable to understand the selection criteria for what constitutes a "notable company" or how a "position corresponding" to CEO is defined. As such, this is a
WP:NLIST violation.
Let'srun (
talk)
17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
If the CEO and the company both have their own Wikipedia articles, then they are notable. If its notable enough for a category, you can make a far more useful navigational list out of it.
DreamFocus23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, is a random list with no clear boundaries. What defines a notable company? There must be thousands of CEOs, if not more, this article lists a few hundred. Would be more useful if there were defined boundaries, e.g. of a
FTSE 100 or
Nasdaq 100.
Heronrhyne (
talk)
04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This was
already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time.
Grnrchst (
talk)
12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article seems to have had numerous issues when created and nonsense text, little sources have been found and I question whether the article's topic is even notable.
TwinBoo (
talk)
12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This is just a list of non-notable youtube videos (while Skibidi Toilet is of itself notable, none of the videos have individually received any significant coverage yet with the possible exception of the first one). In addition, while the descriptions are actually mostly accurate by my recollection, they should not really be here. If one wanted to do a "plot summary", they should put it into the main article
Skibidi Toilet. Possibly consider Redirect as an option.
Spiralwidget (
talk)
13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, per
WP:NLIST, the individual elements in a list don't need to show notability, if the overall topic is notable. Yes the article needs works, yes more content can be split out the other article - but if the series itself is notable, there's no reason why a list can't exist for reasons of notability. there's sources in the main article that can be used to verify this (and I'll move some across later), but "not notable" doesn't apply to lists like this.
Mdann52 (
talk)
15:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sergecross73: because per NLIST, a list is presumed notable if the grouping of items is notable. It's undeniable here that the episodes, as taken as a group, meet the relevant notability guidelines, so the list does not need to show the items are independently notable. The series is notable, the episodes don't have to show notability for the list to exist.
Mdann52 (
talk)
06:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You haven't proven the grouping of episodes is notable though. That isn't automatic just because the subject is notable. I'll drop it, as it appears you've already dropped it below, but for future reference, it takes more than the subject being notable to rightfully invoke NLIST...
Sergecross73msg me14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a ridiculous "article" that only belongs on Wikidata. Nothing of value will be lost in deletion. Assimilate them as a summary like "episodes are titled by their number" and confine this otherworldly prattle to its rightful place. Everybody, it's time to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are responsible for our future generations and the lifeblood of this country.JokeAaron Liu (
talk)
19:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Despite the baseless assertion above, this article does not in fact meet NLIST...or anything else notability-wise. Even if it did, its virtually devoid of encyclopedic content. Best case scenario would be a
WP:TNT delete.
Sergecross73msg me17:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, since there is not that much substance to Skibidi Toilet (this article feels unfinished too) to warrant a list of its episodes. They are quite short, so explaining their whole plots would probably attract sentences as long as typical Wikipedia TV show episode summaries. If needed, its whole plot could instead be explained in prose as a giant section, granted that said section is supported by reliable secondary sources. But if you need a deep look at Skibidi Toilet, there is a wiki about it, so no worries. Also here is a nitpick: the Skibidi Toilet article is attracting a bunch of vandalism, and I have seen various episodes list articles be protected against vandalism, an article being a list of Skibidi Toilet episodes could be a giant vandalism magnet, especially since that article is not a good one anyways. I do not think that articles should be deleted simply because they attract vandalism, but this one is a laughing stock.
CarlFilip19 (
talk)
21:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons
WP:GNG and
WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
Parwiz ahmadi (
talk)
12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as
this one by the New York Sun.
Dan Wang (
talk)
22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid search term (
WP:ATD), and add details there.
WP:NPOL is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge if the topic would meet
WP:GNG (read the introductory sentence of
WP:NBIO: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. and now read the parent guideline
WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.). Once notified for AfD, only
WP:GNG matters, so please cite WP:GNG while nominating articles. If all we have are statistics of how many votes these crook politicians received then stand-alone articles are not needed.
2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (
talk)
10:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You Are right brother Saqib, we should not go for every candidate, actually this person is General Secretary of one of leading Nationalist Pakhtun Party name Qaumi Watan Party and you know General Secretary is second most important person in an organization after Chairman. That is my point, we should made an article for his details,
Keep this is not the best article, but there are clearly sources on the Russian language article showing sustained coverage of this fatality-causing incident.
SportingFlyerT·C12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The russian article on Angara Airlines Flight 200 has been nominated for deletion since 2021 with those three sources talking about the heroic actions of the flight attendant. I don't mind including this in the article but there needs to be more coverage talking about the accident for a sustained amount of time for the accident to be considered notable.
"of this fatality-causing incident."
Per the
event criteria, criterion #4, Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and
viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
I completely disagree with you. Whether something is notable on another Wikipedia does not matter. We usually keep articles on fatal commercial plane crashes, and those articles in the Russian article discuss the flight attendant being honoured by Putin, so a big deal, and retrospectives in Russian such as
[51].
SportingFlyerT·C13:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has deleted fatal aviation accidents involving commercial airliners. "Usually keep" doesn't always mean "keep" unless something gives the accident enduring significance.
You mention the flight attendant but what makes the accident notable in itself? The article fails multiple guidelines for a stand-alone article. In my opinion, there isn't enough that gives this accident enduring significance that would warrant a standalone article.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The death of the flight crew in normal passenger aviation combined with the lasting coverage of the event through the honouring of the flight attendant clearly gets it over the bar.
SportingFlyerT·C17:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
There's plenty of secondary sources available for this incident. I don't really know why you're trying to discredit this on that ground.
SportingFlyerT·C21:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The community has a longstanding consensus that the crash of a regularly-scheduled commercial passenger flight resulting in a total hull loss, fatalities, significant impacts aside from the crash of the aircraft, and/or long-term regulatory changes meets notability standards.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by the following reply. I have reinstated my full reply.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but I'm busy. I don't expect to be able to spend much more than casual morning coffee drive-by's until mid-July at best. You could try searching youself? It shouldn't be hard to find.
RecycledPixels (
talk)
08:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not aware of, nor have I been able to find, any such consensus either.
WP:AIRCRASH is merely intended to help assess whether an event is worthy of mention in lists of accidents and incidents, and sure enough this accident is quite rightly listed on the
airline,
aircraft and
airport articles. Just possibly, we could redirect to one of those rather than deleting it outright.
Rosbif73 (
talk)
13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
But could you link an established consensus? Community "consensus" doesn't override policy and guidelines which the article/event fails and does not excuse it from not meeting multiple guidelines.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The fact it's consistently brought up shows that it demonstrates at least some sort of "consensus" about how these articles are reviewed at AfD. In this instance, it was a passenger flight which resulted in fatalities, and received sustained coverage "after the event," which usually results in a keep. I don't know why this would be different.
SportingFlyerT·C19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It's been brought up but it has never been established as an actual consensus.
Could you link an established consensus on this matter? You're saying that the accident resulted in long term effects, changes in regulations but I haven't been able to find those. Could you explain where you're coming from?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Note that this comment was broken up into two parts by a previous reply. I have reinstated my full reply.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
08:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:AIRCRASH is not policy and it specifically recommends not being used at AfD. That being said, it absolutely does reflect how we tend to assess these sorts of articles for deletion, and is referenced over 800 times.
SportingFlyerT·C17:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Then it is being referenced over 800 times incorrectly. As you said,
WP:AIRCRASH is not a policy, so actual policy based arguments take precedence over essays. I don't see much evidence of this essay being thoroughly supported by the community.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
17:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and I used it incorrectly. I was told on
another AfD to not use it as it was an essay which I have not since. As for the other Afds linked, just because they're used doesn't mean it's being correctly used. I can't speak for the others but let me remind you that consensus was quite clear cut in the others so arguments mentioning
WP:AIRCRASH probably were not given too much value.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
23:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
My question still stays. [...] and long-term regulatory changes / [...] or long-term regulatory changes, it doesn't matter since it's being mentioned. Why mention it in the first place if it's being discarded and not going to be elaborated on?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: If the decision is not to keep, it should be redirected to
Angara Airlines#Accidents rather than being deleted, noting that this article is linked not just from the couple of navbox templates, but also from
a few pages. It's reasonable for at least some of those appearances to remain, so interlinking is a net benefit. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SALAT, some notable Spanish-speaking people does not seem like a well-defined criterion. Extremely incomplete list. There are ~530 million Spanish speakers in the world, this list could potentially contain millions of entries.
Broc (
talk)
11:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Apart from the objections already raised (with which I agree) the article doesn't define Spanish-speaking people: does it just mean people with Spanish as their mother-tongue? Or people whose home language is Spanish? Something else? I speak Spanish (badly): does that make me a hispanophone? Apart from anything else, it doesn't seem to list notable Spanish-speaking scientists, but there are plenty of those (especially in Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay).
Athel cb (
talk)
17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish
WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into
WP:PROFRINGE territory with the
WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.
For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:
"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."
Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like
WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the
Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them.
— kwami (
talk)
11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.)
— kwami (
talk)
12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by.
— kwami (
talk)
12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass
WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the
Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally?
AnandaBliss (
talk)
16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "
teach the controversy" energy.
@
Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I
WP:BLUDGEON.
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the
WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of
Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a
megatrout,
@Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in
WP:FTN look like an
élevé. –
Austronesier (
talk)
20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For all the "delete" !votes because of
WP:OR issues, there's
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"
[53] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"
[54] by Juha Janhunen
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well.
— kwami (
talk)
06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to
M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list.
— kwami (
talk)
07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –
Austronesier (
talk)
17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least,
WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability.
35.139.154.158 (
talk)
15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text.
WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –
Austronesier (
talk)
17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //
Replayful (
talk |
contribs)
18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit11:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as fails
WP:GNG. All three sources mentioned by
Cocobb8 are just about Gupta's appointment as "the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation" only.
The Hindu, though notable media, wrote only "A senior journalist, Mr. Gupta was associated with the first NDA government, having worked in the PMO of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.", as addition to the announcement which is not enough for
WP:NBIO.
Twinkle1990 (
talk)
14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Twinkle1990 Well I won't quote that much because that would constitute a
copyright violation. But, here's the very first sentence of the article. The Union Culture Ministry has appointed journalist Kanchan Gupta the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation till May 2020, weeks after Union Culture and Tourism Minister of State (independent charge) Prahlad Singh Patel was nominated to the post.At this point, I'll leave it to other editors to share their thoughts with this article.
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Thank you @
Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a
discussion because of a
WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article
de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the
article talk page, as well as
my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through
WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.
I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the
article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at
WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest
WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a
WP:NPOV.
I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at
WP:DEL-REASON are met.
Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
Copyright violations are not present.
Vandalism is not present.
The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia,
de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a
Google Search.
Content forks do not apply.
Article is well-referenced and satisfies
WP:Reliability.
Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:
Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.
Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.
Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.
Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage
Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage
Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)
Removal of his CV and website as sources
Removal of German citizenship; uncited
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.
Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.
Removal of weblinks.
Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.
Spiralwidget (
talk)
12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello @
Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.
First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a
WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:
Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g.
Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf.
Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here
[55]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on
Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.
I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.
Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.
Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.
Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.
I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents.
Spiralwidget (
talk)
14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in
WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --
Maximilian Janisch (
talk)
14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see
WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it.
Qflib (
talk)
18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of
WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under
WP:BIO, but since this is a
WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited.
Nsk92 (
talk)
14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass
WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the
Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through
WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider
WP:BIO1E. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the
ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by
Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the
ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. (
"Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "Sonntags
Blick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills
WP: GNG through
WP:SIGCOV.--
BBCLCD (
talk)
11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as
Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that
Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time.
Carrite (
talk)
18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of
WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time.
Qflib (
talk)
18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SALAT. The selection criterion for this list is internationally well-known personalities that speak Arabic which is absolutely arbitrary.
Broc (
talk)
10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is incredibly arbitrary- the list will never be exhaustive, the premise could be expanded to millions of other potential articles- i.e. people that speak Telugu, Tagalog- and is clearly original research.
Spiralwidget (
talk)
13:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SALAT. There are currently ~400 million
Arabs in the world, many of whom are notable and have a page on Wikipedia. This extremely incomplete list is way too broad, as it could potentially grow to millions of entries.
Broc (
talk)
10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
10:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
With only database source listed, the article of this luger certainly fails
WP:GNG. All that came up in my Google search were
an interview and trivial mentions; no indication of independent fact checking. Corresponding Czech Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise. He was not even one of the top three luge winners at the 2010 Winter Olympics.
⋆。˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚。⋆10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
article is written to legitimize this term, making it seem its use is widespread. there isn't even a chinese wikipedia article about this term. search up "沒女", most results (and most sources in the article) are about the tv show
没女大翻身.
ltbdl (
talk)
08:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep for now: Could the nominator clarify what is the rationale for deletion? The Wen Wei Po, U Beauty, and the South China Morning Post sources currently in the article may not be the best, but already demonstrate that the term exists and is notable enough to pass GNG. In addition to these sources, a simple search has provided me with numerous other sources, including some Chinese sources that document the origin of this term (see Economic Daily[56] and The Sun[57]), how it spread to and became popular in Hong Kong (see Hong Kong Economic Journal[58], Wen Wei Po[59], and
She.com [
zh[60]), as well as the subsequent social influence and some recurring usages after it gained popularity (see
BBC[61], Ming Pao[62],
HK01[63], and Oriental Daily News[64]). I have not yet looked for academic sources, but I have already come across two academic journal articles that cover this term when I was searching for media sources (
[65] and
[66]), so I do not believe academic sources would be difficult to locate either. :The fact that it does not currently have a respective article on the zhwiki means nothing, and it is clearly an argument of
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Most of the sources mention the TV show Nowhere Girl is understandable, because that show popularised the term. There are many other instances of the term being used, such as the drama series The No No Girl (全職沒女), the film Love Detective [
zh (沒女神探), and a non-fiction book 沒女要翻身 (lt. Nowhere Girls Need Changes) written by
Queenie Chan [
zh[67], where the English translation of the term may differ. So the claim that the term is only used in one particular TV show is false as well. Could the nominator please elaborate a bit more on the specific rationale being used for deletion? —Prince of Erebor(
The Book of Mazarbul)15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per
WP:NACD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Owen×☎08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG. Any one of these would be enough to keep. The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found
here.
Toadspike[Talk]08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found
this, which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and
this book, which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131.
Toadspike[Talk]08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail
WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also
WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (
WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking[68] etc.
Geschichte (
talk)
07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I take the opposite position as above. I think there's sufficient secondary coverage about this trend and the page is an appropriate fork from
List of Internet challenges. The list merely defines "gallon smashing" without providing any additional context about the trend's history or impact. I'd prefer to see this entry expanded, not merged or deleted. I've added additional in-depth coverage by Bloomberg News, ABC News, CBS News, etc, and I've shared more refs on the talk page. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet
notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to
primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content
self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than
WP:GNG-building coverage about them in
reliable sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You "heard me the first time", and yet argued "keep because the page is about what the page is about" while completely ignoring the important point that pages aren't supposed to be about that?
Bearcat (
talk)
14:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete only one entry is notable (i.e.: has its own article). If we remove all others, we are left with a list containing one item, which has no reason to exist. Hence my !vote for deletion.
Broc (
talk)
12:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
07:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT. Also, having an observed supernova in the galaxy is trivial.
C messier (
talk)
07:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
07:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails
WP:NASTCRIT.
C messier (
talk)
07:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The first three sources are from USARL, which is the competition the subject played in and thus not independent. The fourth source is a blog post with a passing mention of the subject, and thus is not reliable OR in-depth.
JTtheOG (
talk)
16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response. In this case, "speedily delete" refers to
speedy deletion, a separate, much quicker procedure which does not need a discussion to delete a page. This rugby article is not eligible to be deleted through that medium. However, in my opinion, the subject has not received
significant coverage from reliable sources that cover him directly and in detail and thus might fail our
general notability guidelines, which is why I brought it to a discussion.
JTtheOG (
talk)
20:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Redirect per
Cocobb8. Cannot find any sources on GBooks, Google (except for WP mirror content), Archive.org, or anywhere else that turns up any result at all for any of the romanization options given or Hangul/Hanja script provided. I doubt it's a
WP:HOAX, but I think we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found 20 years since this article was created.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
16:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. I removed the PROD after finding plenty of sources on this individual especially in Korean. This is most likely due to the various different spellings of his name. Here in this Korean translation of the Goryeosa[1] published by the National Institute of Korean History he is listed as both "독타불화" and "톡타부카". Individual has Encyclopedia of Korean Culture article
[2] as well as a Doosan Encyclopedia article
[3] both listed as "왕독타불화". He also appears in
Empire's Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols by David M. Robinson as "Toqto'a-Buqa" as well as in Korea and the Fall of the Mongol Empire also by Robinson.
⁂CountHacker (
talk)
17:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cocobb8, there are two Korean-language encyclopedia articles on this individual. That is not a passing mention. Not only that, he held the the office of Prince/King of Sim/Shen (various ways to translate it), which was a major office in Goryeo-Yuan politics, and had authority over the Koreans who lived in the Yuan-controlled Liaodong area. There were various attempts to place Wang Toqto'a-Buqa on the throne of Goryeo, he wasn't just a random noble prince, but an influential prince with power and influence, who nearly became king in at least two attempts.
⁂CountHacker (
talk)
16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CountHacker, encyclopedic articles are
tertiary sources, so they cannot be used demonstrate notability, as GNG clearly states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, kinds and princes are not inherently notable and must demonstrate their own notability per
WP:NBIO. Cheers,
Cocobb8 (💬
talk • ✏️
contribs)
17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Redirect and Keep Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Obvious keep, clearly passes GNG per CountHacker's sources, and the two encyclopedia's entries alone are more than enough to establish notability. The redirect comments should be disregarded, the first one (we can safely delete redirect if no sources to validate notability can be found) is pure nonsense: it would had made sense as long as sources had not been provided, but
changing the delete vote to redirect after sourcing has been provided just leaves a contradictory and illogical rationale. The second one, claiming that individual entries on established encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Korean Culture and Doosan Encyclopedia do not count towards notability, is just a
WP:CIR issue and a
WP:COMMONSENSE failure. --
Cavarrone08:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would prefer it if my page was not deleted, please tell me how to move forward. I did not write this page, and I'm not a regular Wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to do anything about this.
OnaJiteA (
talk)
04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by city, by field by century,...), there is no need for this overarching list.
Broc (
talk)
06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Despite the large number of edits I made to this list a year or so ago (many more than I guessed before checking), I agree with
Broc that it is too long and unwieldy, as well as being seriously incomplete, to be useful.
Athel cb (
talk)
08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is there space for a "list of lists" of British scientists or similar? I think the concept is certainly sound, and it seems to be visited a fair deal.
Spiralwidget (
talk)
WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list.
Broc (
talk)
06:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I would propose to split the article into different subsections of science; i.e. one for psychologists, one for biologists, one for chemists, etc, and make this article a list of those lists, sort of like
Lists of celebrities.
Mjks28 (
talk)
06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This would be an effort completely unrelated to the existing page, as it would not be a simple
WP:SPLIT but would require a complete re-evaluation of all entries in the list. Creating lists by topic could be done by simply using categories as a starting point, without needing the existing list. In my opinion the suggested "split" is not feasible.
Broc (
talk)
09:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete While creating new lists for American chemists, etc. may be an appropriate narrowing of topics, I see no need use the existing list in any way. Recreating it as a "Lists of" or other navigation page is welcome, but again it's not necessary to use any of the current page as a starting point.
Reywas92Talk15:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are more than suitable for meeting the
WP:GNG, as they each provide in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources.
Let'srun (
talk)
14:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not enough
WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the
WP:GNG. There are recent articles about him being inducted in the HOF of his school, but that is mostly local coverage which is still not notable enough.
Prof.PMarini (
talk)
07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The current sourcing is not very good, though. All that's there are two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them, a social media announcement, and an IMDB profile.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
20:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This writer has received at least 2 nationally significant awards, which is sourced + meets WP:CREATIVE for his multiple credits as writer (also sourced), so I am leaving it at that, as I consider the requirement for notability is met. two or three short articles with maybe two paragraphs describing him between them may be considered a description of significant coverage. Thanks. Just added 2 sources. Feel free to remove ImDb. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: One look at their Spotify page will show you they have 2 monthly listeners, clearly not
WP:N. However, I don't want to be too rash when arguing for delete, and in this case, I think we could draftify the article so it can be improved, and inevitably apply for submission if/when the band becomes more
notable. —
Mjks28 (
talk)
11:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep.
WP:RFD, not AFD, is for redirects. It would probably not be a good idea to nominate it there either, considering sources like
Britannica: Turkish: “Kemal, Father of Turks” , i.e. that he is closely associated with the name Father of Turks. (
non-admin closure)
Geschichte (
talk)
08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Father of Turks" is the rough meaning of the last name of Ataturk, but it does not justify creating a redirect from this term to the Ataturk article.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (
talk)
05:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No substantial independent coverage of this businessman/bodybuilder. Writing a long undergrad thesis is not a claim of importance.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
03:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article's sources are mostly primary, and reads pretty biased. Also doesn't appear to be
notable enough, anyway. The fact that the leading sentence includes an external link to their website screams
advertisement. —
Mjks28 (
talk)
11:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This is clearly a SNOW situation without any support at all for Deletion but the nominator. Any further decisions on splitting articles are editing choices that can occur outside of this AFD. I urge the nominator to listen to the opposing side, who are editors who focus on this subject area, and not reject their expertise as if it is a matter of cliquishness. They probably know the sources and literature better than the rest of us. LizRead!Talk!07:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The claim that this was a single event is
WP:SYNTH by Wikipedia editors. I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence". Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A
tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back
tornado outbreaks. That definition is scientifically published and sourced.
Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence. You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts. I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that. You have an issue with the article name and should have used
WP:SPLIT and
WP:RM...not AfD. You did not look at
what to do before nominations for deletion, which would have mentioned that. Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high
WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage. So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your
!vote has been noted. You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the
notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved. I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather "this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article." The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Walsh90210: If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles? The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources (
"A deadly tornado outbreak..."[80] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe. Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e.
Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024,
Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024, ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more. For example,
"The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government. I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it. I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.
That is more what I am asking. Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general? That is actually unclear here. Specifying that would be helpful. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" (which I hopefully have criticized enough already); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form. Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various
WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article
List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. A blank-and-redirect to
List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Walsh90210:I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD. To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD. See
Wikipedia:Merging. The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the
deletion policy, specifically
one or more of the "reasons for deletion". AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated. Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options. For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons. The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines. In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.
Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion (
WP:MERGE), a renaming discussion (
WP:MOVE), a split discussion (
WP:SPLIT) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next (
Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024). Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying. Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern. Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue. But not a full-on deletion discussion. I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Rather obviously keep, as a noteworthy event or sequence of events. There might be grounds to consider splitting the article if the sources don't support treating the events together based either on causal relationship or proximity in time and location, or some combination of the two; but that would not be grounds for deletion.
P Aculeius (
talk)
03:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per P Aculeius. If RS doesn't support tying all this RS material together, split or remove parts that don't fit with an RS-based theme. This should have been an editing exercise discussed on the article's talk page rather than coming here.
Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab •
Gruntwerk04:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I think it is far preferred to group a handful of back to back tornado outbreaks together in this manner for ease of access and because while there are multiple outbreaks covered sometimes drawing the line of when one outbreak ends and the next begins can be difficult, would constitute original research, and doing so lies outside the purposes of Wikipedia. DJ Cane(he/him) (
Talk)
13:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all. /srs
Comment the continued contempt and refusal by "weather" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD. If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can. But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment. “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up? Yeah…this is very much a time you should
back away from the discussion, since we didn’t make it up (
[81]).
There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same "event" is stupid. That's it for external usage of the term. The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and "fiction" wikis. The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for "tornado outbreak sequence" (many of which refer to
Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence, which is a "tornado outbreak" from a single storm). This. Is. Not. A. Single. Event. and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is.
Walsh90210 (
talk)
17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD.
Penitentes (
talk)
18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - This article is certainly is notable and certainly qualifies for its own article. The only thing that would even be remotely necessary if the nominator’s rationale is correct would be to split the article. But even then, deleting it is not the way to do it.
Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" is used in scientific settings. Most recently, it appears in "An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge. He did write that they are "sometimes called simply an outbreak". The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245. Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted.
CatharticHistorian (
talk)
21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence," most notably
Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long. Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too.
SouthernDude297 (
talk)
00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a
non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpertblah, blah, blah...04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep exercising
WP:AGF as in the first AfD linked at the top left of this discussion a respected editor Michig identified a number of book sources that convinced him it passed
WP:GNG although a number of the links no longer work, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
21:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources.
Hawkeye7(discuss)01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Routine news coverage of Insurgency in Kashmir region are not sufficient basis to warrant this page. No significance of this newsworthy event to qualify for inclusion.
RangersRus (
talk)
13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep It was notable at that time and it is notable today as well. The article has to be updated and content about NIA charging the individuals involved in this incident on 16 March 2024 should be included.
ArvindPalaskar (
talk)
02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - mostly routine coverage, and it appears the article has copyvio problems (as per my tagging today). Maybe needs a more general page with the history of this and similar insurgency operations?
Mdann52 (
talk)
05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here?
Jclemens (
talk)
04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of
Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the
legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with
Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Question Judging from the description in
Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that
name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct?
Daranios (
talk)
15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill
WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to
Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at
Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at
Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such.
Daranios (
talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering
Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and
Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the
Bag End article. This
snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the
Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article.
This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the
Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though.
Daranios (
talk)
10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per
WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I think
WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of
Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like
Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like
Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here.
Daranios (
talk)
15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating
WP:PTM.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I see this also as a name list.
WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here.
Daranios (
talk)
09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the
WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel(talk to me )02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails GNG.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump.
SportsGuy789 (
talk)
16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Do not delete
I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Alread PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Obviously not
notable, very clearly written in a biased and impartial tone, and has no sources (
WP:OR). Also, what does a "superior student" even mean? —
Mjks28 (
talk)
11:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as
WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here.
— Maile (
talk)
01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available.
Dclemens1971 (
talk)
05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted.
Flatthew (
talk)
16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This article was
previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of
WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly
WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps.
RainbowPanda420 (
talk)
21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your
incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of
ulterior purpose.
Royal Autumn Crest (
talk)
12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Royal Autumn Crest:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda...
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
Keep: User @
BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from
2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in
2022 and
2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate
Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.
Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @
BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)
From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
"The following are presumed to be notable:
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."
There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiplejournalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)
In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---
Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.
Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.
@
RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat.
BottleOfChocolateMilk (
talk)
19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\reply
Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so.
SportingFlyerT·C16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply