The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
List of largely non-notable mayors of a city of 30,000 people. Lacking secondary sources, also particularly lacking non-local sources per
WP:AUD.
Fails
WP:NLISTAusLondonder (
talk) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not sure it's necessary to merge. On the one hand I hate to lose the information, on the other hand, the article appears cited to a single source so is simply proxying for it.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a list of almost entirely non-notable people — the only two who actually have Wikipedia articles both have them for having gone on to serve in the provincial legislature later in their careers, not for having been mayors of Langley per se — and it's referenced principally to the city's
self-published list of its own former mayors rather than independent third-party sourcing. Merging into the city's article would also be acceptable, but it doesn't meet the standards necessary to qualify as a standalone list.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. only primary sources used, and almost all mayors on the list do not meet WP notability threshold to believe that someday they will have articles created in their names.
Lokotim (
talk) 17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. No coverage whatsoever, apart from download links and databases. I've always found the gap between popularity and coverage in mobile games to be bizzare though. ~
A412talk! 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article cites no sources because there is no coverage.
YordleSquire (
talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this topic. It therefore fails
WP:GNG.
Knox490 (
talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Thank you for the input and thoughts, would you care to add the section?
Isaac Tam Tsz Hang (
talk) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo seems fine, I don't find much coverage about this salute, could easily be merged into the main Ronaldo article. Fine piece of trivia, but I don't think it's notable alone.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – It's definitely not encyclopedic content.
Svartner (
talk) 05:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations – mentioned there, but let's start the topic in its section. I would also prefer keeping the article since it is the subject of multiple reliable sources and given that the player's article is unusually long.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect as above.
GiantSnowman 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - widely known as the most popular and iconic football celebration ever. I dont think merging is a good idea as the article is already tagged for being too long --
FMSky (
talk) 18:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:ORGCRIT, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Coverage is from local media, not helpful in establishing notability per
WP:AUD.
AusLondonder (
talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This has turned into a classic
trainwreck, which would make consensus on any given article more or less impossible to determine here. No prejudice to individual renomination of specific articles, but it seems they will need to be considered separately.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 11:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Insufficient grounds for a standalone article; I attempted to redirect this article, but was reverted. Recommend forced redirect or deletion.
Bgsu98(Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, recommend the same be applied to the following articles as well.reply
Comment by page creator: I am in the process of expanding this article. Please keep this in mind before/when voting. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. For "And the Rest Is Drag", the article currently shows coverage from
The Guardian and
The A.V. Club, and a quick search pulls up coverage from
IndieWire and
Entertainment Weekly. The previous episode, "Hello, Kitty Girls!", has coverage in similar sources (see, for instance,
Vulture). If certain episodes have more specific concerns, a more targeted nomination should address them, but for now, these episodes seem to meet
WP:N.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per analysis by RunningTiger123: The Guardian, A.V. Club and EW are all good sources (for starters), and WP:N has been met. ☆ Bri (
talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
For clarity, my comment refers to "And the Rest Is Drag". I have not examined any of the other nominations. ☆ Bri (
talk) 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bri Shouldn't be a problem. I think you'll find there's a similar amount of coverage for those episodes, if not more. Also, the article selected for me to develop ("And the Rest Is Drag") is likely to be the shortest of the season 7 entries. Being the episode with the final challenge, "And the Rest Is Drag" has the fewest contestants, plus there was no mini-challenge and no guest judges. In other words, there's likely more to say about the season's earlier episodes. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge all into
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). The sole existance of just reviews is not the basis for the notability/existance of an episode article, as has been discussed at WikiProject Television many times. --
Alex_21TALK 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WikiProject discussions do not supersede community-wide policies and guidelines (WP:OWN,WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If those discussions cite relevant policies and guidelines, it's more helpful to share those here so they can be weighed within this discussion.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 00:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In what way is OWN relevant here? Quite the random policy to just "quote". --
Alex_21TALK 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant that multiple editors, or a WikiProject, attempting to force articles to meet a certain standard of their own is in line with multiple-editor ownership (a few sample statements to watch at OWN point to this), but LOCALCONSENSUS makes the point more clearly so I've struck OWN from my comment.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong keep per RunningTiger123. The episode has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Even if you completely ignore the lesser publications like
Channel Guide Magazine,
City Magazine,
Gambit Magazine,
IndieWire, and
Vada Magazine, you still have thorough reviews by major outlets like
The A.V. Club,
Entertainment Weekly,
The Guardian, and
Vulture. The vast majority of television episodes do not receive this much coverage. I am not finished expanding this entry, but I think I've demonstrated that an episode is much more than the ten bullet points included in the season 7 summary table. I've been disappointed and frustrated by the few editors who seem to enjoy placing as many obstacles in my path as possible, instead of collaborating or even assuming good faith. I cannot be expected to flesh out all of these entries to Good article quality by the AfD deadline, but I hope other editors will agree that my work on "And the Rest Is Drag" shows there's no need to mass delete or redirect these valid articles. We need more entries about LGBT culture and history. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep And the Rest Is Drag; merge rest per Alex 21. It's very rare for competition-style series to warrant individual episode articles as they generally can never meet
WP:GNG nor
WP:NTVEP. And the Rest Is Drag is somewhat close, but still, I think it'd probably be better suited merged to the season article. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, as I haven't decided what my ultimate thought is, but the sources as brought up here are not convincing me. Channel Guide Magazine, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly and Indiewire are recaps and thus do not contribute toward notability per
WP:NEPISODE. Looking at them directly too, none offer anything significant in terms of critical commentary, and the way are used in the article isn't really significant critical commentary either; sparse qualitative assessment in an article that is paragraphs of plot summary is not non-trivial coverage, especially if all that can be wrung out of it for reception is a sentence and a half. City, Gambit, and Vada are also largely recaps, and I'm not sure if they meet
WP:RS. So, that leaves only AV Club, which is a robust review that offers significant commentary. ~Cheers,
TenTonParasol 23:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Even looking at
WP:GNG, I remain not convinced since the sources that that article is slowly accumulating is recaps and recaps and more recaps with very little critical commentary or anything in the way of reviews in a non-trivial manner. Sources that provide plot summary and little else in the way of other commentary do not satisfy. It feels like we're inching toward
WP:REFBOMBING with sources that simply summarize the plot rather than establishing meaningful coverage of the work. Even if enough sources eventually turn up, it isn't serving the article to prop it up with this way, and the recaps that don't provide meaningful commentary should be removed. ~Cheers,
TenTonParasol 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per RunningTiger123's commentary and the creator improving the articles per
WP:HEY. AV and the Guardian are independent and show notability.
DaniloDaysOfOurLives (
talk) 23:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentBgsu98, you can't just create a list of articles, this bundled nomination is not formatted correctly. Please review the instructions at
WP:AFD and correct this nomination. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 08:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and do not merge. On "And the Rest Is Drag": plenty of full-length independent coverage in respected publications such as The Guardian, Vulture and The A.V. Club,. IndieWire and Entertainment Weekly are largely recaps but contain critical commentary. The amount of critical commentary could not be contained within the season article. The genre of the show would be an indicator before research that notability is unlikely, but after research it turns out that it does meet GNG. On the other articles: I see no reason they would not also be notable given the episode-by-episode reviews by the same publications. —
Bilorv (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to allow for the time it may not have been listed correctly per Liz's note Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I looked at a random article and while it looked pretty big with a lot of detail, it really isn't. The episode detail is way too long and much more than the
MOS:TV allows for. Most of the text in the production section was part of a bio of two people there and was completely unrelated to the actual episode.
Gonnym (
talk) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought a bit of context about how Andersen and Cayne have been involved with the series was relevant, but no problem with your trim. Thanks! ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The nominator doesn't even offer a source assessment... They merely recommended a "forced redirect or deletion" because I reverted their redirect. Also, merging into the series entry is not plausible; I agree with
User:Bilorv, who has said even a merge to the season entry would be difficult. ---
Another Believer(
Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per commentary from
Bilorv and
RunningTiger123. Many articles such as "
And the Rest Is Drag" showcase many independent coverages and notability from various publications. Also, merging all the information into a standalone
article would be very lengthy. However, I would say it's best when creating an episode article should be in the draftspace, until the creator decides it's ready for the mainspace. —
JuanGLP (
talk/
contribs) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Small regional newspaper in Bangladesh with no evidence of notability either in the article or the sources used. Google search found nothing to suggest it would pass
WP:NORG.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk) 20:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTINHERITED. If you type in "major" or "notable", be prepared to show evidence therefor. Also, having one semi-notable reporter does not make the newspaper notable.
Bearian (
talk) 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
asilvering (
talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Calling this short-lived regional daily a "major" newspaper is an exaggeration. According to a press release about a new newspaper by the same editor, Sylhet Protidin began publication in 2006 and ceased some time between 2007 and 2008.
[1] I can't find any instance of it receiving an award or being cited by a reliable source. Does not meet
WP:NNEWSPAPER or
WP:NMEDIA. No good redirect target, but perhaps the alleged torture of the editor could be worked into
Rapid Action Battalion. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Pinging as concerned parties those participants in the previous discussion who have edited in the past year: @
JRA,
Nyttend, and
Work permit: --
Worldbruce (
talk) 17:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Have you searched in Bengali or just in English? If Reporters without Borders think a publication important enough to write an article about it, and if the UNHCR think it important enough to reproduce that article, there will be further reliable sources in its own language, regardless of what you find in English. Moreover, print serials characteristically get print coverage and subscription-only database coverage (e.g.
Ulrichsweb), so Google will miss heaps of sources.
Nyttend (
talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nyttend: Yes, I searched in Bengali as well as English. The press release I linked to above is in Bengali. There is nothing about the paper in Ulrichsweb. Reporters without Borders (RSF) didn't write an article about Sylhet Protidin, but about the alleged torture of Ahmed Noor. All the article says about the paper is that Ahmed Noor was its editor, and it printed a story by human rights organization Odhikar. RSF is an advocacy organization that defends all journalists, not just those who work for outlets that are important or notable.
WP:MUSTBESOURCES is unconvincing unless sources can be shown to exist. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 23:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources (the article's sources are just mentions).
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to pass
WP:NCORP.
popodameron
talk 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete My own BEFORE finds nothing to redeem it. Its productions may be
WP:N but
WP:NOTINHERITED, etc.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of an actress, not
properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress's notability doesn't hinge on just listing acting roles per se, it hinges on the extent to which the article can or can't be referenced to media coverage about her and her performances: articles about her, reviews of her films or TV shows which single her performance out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she won or was nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth. But the sole footnote here is a short blurb which glancingly namechecks Andrea Gabriel's existence without being about Andrea Gabriel in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only source she's got. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of a lot more coverage than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't find coverage in RS, this is typical
[2], simple photo essay with a few words on her new role. We'd need extensive coverage, this just isn't enough.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I could not find anything in industry publications (Variety, Deadline Hollywood) announcing new and additional roles except for one extremely-brief TV guide article for the Gossip Girl role
[3]. While it is clear she has a robust television resume, there is simply not enough coverage at this time.
Trainsskyscrapers (
talk) 2:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There are more to notability as Wikipedia is based in sources cited in articles. I can't find SIGCOV or any award & nom. for her achievements in the film industry. I wonder how the subject had portrayed roles in TV shows yet not even two sources had cited her (in exception even interviews) Otuọcha (
talk) 05:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep:The notice you're referring to didn't have any mention of a restriction on removing the notice. Hence, it was removed.I apologize. I will consider this in the future Thank you.
Syed Shaveer (
talk) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey, it's actually okay to remove proposed deletion notices! See
WP:DEPROD for the policy. The flip side, of course, is that if the proposer doesn't think the issues haven't been addressed, the article will often be taken to
articles for deletion for a more thorough discussion, as in this case. ~
A412talk! 23:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There are about 2,000 M-class solar flares like this one per 11-year solar cycle (see
NOAA/SWPC scales). Unless
WP:NSUSTAINED is satisfied (it is not in this case), an event like this should not get a dedicated article.
CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 22:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not in this case The topic has significant coverage as seen
here. Just forget NSUSTAINED with Indian sources and even Newsweek talking about it.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 15:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The topic of random inconsequential solar flares seems to get significant coverage, but I am seeing very little about the February 6, 2024 event that this article is focusing on. For example, the
Newsweek article I believe you are referring to is covering an X1.9-class flare that occurred on February 22. Furthermore, in this Wikipedia article, only refs 1, 2, 5, and 9 are actually about the February 6 event. The rest are about other, unrelated flares.
CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The original PROD was on the money: WP:NOTNEWS. Best
Alexandermcnabb (
talk) 05:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – NOTNEWS violations (news style title and content is guaranteed deletion).
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:NOTNEWS, title of article already reads like a news article instead of an encyclopaedia entry.
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
WP:NOTNEWS, could just be a brief sentence in
Solar cycle 25 instead of an entire article about a non-notable solar flare.
Sadustu Tau (
talk) 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please delete the page if it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Syed Shaveer (
talk) 19:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete after researching, can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Starring or being any film crew of any Asylum mockbuster does not make anybody notable, it's a sign where your career is heading to.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Absolutely nothing of notability in this article beyond a single film role in 2009
InDimensional (
talk) 14:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no coverage of this subject in any major publication.
desmay (
talk) 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Repeatedly recreated, and already sent to draftspace twice. Search results show nothing about this street, and I couldn't verify if it even exists (or if it's some kind of hoax).
CycloneYoristalk! 20:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a (somewhat amusing) literal translation, it looks like the street is called Pod Kosom. It's not immediately obvious if the translation is even correct, as the etymology isn't listed. A google search finds nothing of particular significance. The street was mentioned in a single recent Slobodna Dalmacija article apparently, based on
the eponymous tag (in Croatian). If the city district of
Meje, Split had an article, this could be redirected there perhaps. Most of the present article content is actually just about
Marjan, Split. --
Joy (
talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Just a normal street on Marjan, fails GNG, doesn't deserve its own article. Note a BEFORE search should be for Pod kosom as noted above.
SportingFlyerT·C 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no such hotel in Azerbaijan, it was only planned to be built. Currently, there is the Deniz Mall shopping center in its place.
Sura Shukurlu (
talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Planned and unbuilt hotels can be notable. Haven't performed a source search, just scanned the article and other wikis and it looks like it could pass GNG. Possibly oddly the Armenian article is the best sourced...
SportingFlyerT·C 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Little real information in the article, no coverage online and no real sources in the article.
InDimensional (
talk) 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I followed what SportingFlyer said he did, and came to the opposite conclusion. This is a nonexistant building.
James.folsom (
talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:EVENT and
WP:NOTNEWS. Only contemporary news coverage, no sources that provide sustained coverage or demonstrate notability.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 19:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
KEEP I fail to understand why this can be called an isolated event. We all know, this event is part of
Global war on terrorism which has been going on for decades and decades now. There is ABSOLUTELY sustained coverage almost every day in all the Pakistani newspapers about the
Pakistan Armed Forces's ongoing campaign against terrorism in Pakistan, specifically against this above terrorist group called
Pakistani Taliban, also called
Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. This '2023 Lakki Marwat operation' was, no doubt, part of that ONGOING WAR ON TERRORISM!!!
Also, this article already has many references from major newspapers of Pakistan and India and a book reference...
Ngrewal1 (
talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
nobody has said this is an isolated event, or that the broader campaign is not notable, just that this specific operation has not received lasting coverage. Do you have coverage demonstrating otherwise? Also, the book is from 2014, so can't possibly establish the notability of a 2023 event.
Eddie891TalkWork 20:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The 2014 book reference was cited correctly NOT to talk about this operation in 2023 in particular, but is already given in the article under the title of 'Background' to this 2023 operation and connects it to the ongoing campaign to "
combat terrorism in the region, which had been plagued by frequent attacks"...
Ngrewal1 (
talk) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not
WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage here is all from the time of the event. --
asilvering (
talk) 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Uncommitted_(voting_option)#2024:_Michigan,_Minnesota,_and_Washington where the topic is already covered, without prejudice against changing the target if consensus is reached on the target's Talk page. Super Tuesday has come and gone, and we haven't really gained much in terms of evidence of notability. There is broad consensus here that the page should not be kept as a standalone article, but views are split as to the best redirect- or merge target. I don't see any convincing argument as to why a redirect should be done over a delete; there's nothing in the page history that necessitates erasure. Since the final relist, there seems to be a consensus for this redirect, so I see little value in another relisting.
Owen×☎ 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree a redirect of this specific title is vague and could conceivably point to a number of targets (especially after the 2024 presidential election). I do not think the sourcing about individuals who decide to vote for uncommitted delegates in the Democratic primaries refer to a an organization, which is implied by the word "campaign". --
Enos733 (
talk) 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As per the entry some Democrat voters are voting “uncommitted” because they doubt Biden’s ability/competence to fulfil the role and to defeat Trump, thus merging it into an entry on the Israel/Palestine Conflict protest vote is not wholly accurate.
Eight Whales (
talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The difference is that the title includes the word "campaign," so there is some coordination and shared objectives. Now, I agree we cannot just say or even suggest that everyone who voted uncommitted in 2024 saw their vote as a protest vote about the Israel-Hamas war. -
Enos733 (
talk) 06:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep recieved significant coverage in many sources (dozens of media organizations) independent of the campaigners. The 2024 campaign is distinct from the general option to not vote for any candidates. Issues of content and article title should be solved with normal editing, not deletion. Furthermore, the objection about sustained coverage is hard to understand given that this campaign has been getting national media attention for at least
a month now. (
t ·
c) buidhe 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As I said, if you disagree with the article title the correct venue is requested moves, not AfD. The article's intended topic is clear from its content. (
t ·
c) buidhe 03:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait until super tuesday to see if this may actually be a big deal.
Lukt64 (
talk) 03:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Seems almost certain that this AFD won't be closed by then so I have no problem with this.
Esolo5002 (
talk) 03:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just jumping in out of curiosity, but I agree with this - next few days will be telling.
Carlp941 (
talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete quickly. Not notable. —
Red XIV(
talk) 05:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't agree all of the sources are PRIMARY, but I do agree there's not sustained coverage for this. Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON.
SportingFlyerT·C 15:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Super tuesday made this a big deal, they have a lot of votes.
Lukt64 (
talk) 04:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Should also redirect. These campaigns all have vague and statewide names that don't necessarily agree on exactly how far to protest i.e. dont support in primary but vote in general. or abstain from voting for biden. even a minority of these campaigners are trying to argue to vote for trump to deprive votes from biden.
Did not know if Uncommitted campaign was the correct name for this phenonomena when I first made the Israel-Hamas war protest vote movements article, but I think we should make a page redirecting from Uncommitted Movement to Israel-Hamas war protest vote.
User:Sawerchessread (
talk) 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
.. also should disclose, i wrote most of the Israel-Hamas war protest vote article
User:Sawerchessread (
talk) 19:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete As has been said, there are at least three existing articles that extensively cover this topic and the title of the page is vague and unhelpful.
AveryTheComrade (
talk) 00:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those arguing for a Keep, a Delete or Merge. Now that Super Tuesday has passed, have opinions changed in any direction? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
this article has had no useful updates and there is no info that there is some organized national uncommitted campaign
User:Sawerchessread (
talk) 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 10:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - played international football and has significant GNG coverage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jimbo online (
talk •
contribs) 19:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. I would also like to see the sources "Jimbo online" loosely referenced above.
Anwegmann (
talk) 03:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Support and we shouldn't stop here. There are several articles about political parties that should be deleted for the same reason.
Charles Essie (
talk) 20:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We really have no need of more research-free nominations and deletion rationales. Instead, we need people to do the research before coming to AFD. That's what the unsourced article drive is about: looking for sources. You show no evidence of looking for sources in this rationale. That hasn't helped the encyclopaedia one iota.
Uncle G (
talk) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Uncle G: Disappointing you characterise my nomination in this way when as you say below no sources exist. Having crappy one paragraph articles about micro-parties that haven't been updated in 22 years is not my definition of helping the encyclopedia.
AusLondonder (
talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Charles Essie: Agreed, I'm working on weeding out some of these awful articles about clearly non-notable political parties (most of which haven't been updated in at least twenty years). Unfortunately many were created with zero sources by editors who believe all political parties are inherently notable.
AusLondonder (
talk) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked in the same handbook where I found
Social Liberal and Democratic Party (
AfD discussion) documented in depth. It doesn't have this party, by either English or Spanish names. Looking for anything else, after eliminating the Egyptian party of the same name (in Spanish as well), turns up pretty much nothing.
ISBN9781107145948 gives this a total of two words: "unsuccessful (flop)".
Uncle G (
talk) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete 3% of the vote and zero candidates two decades ago, isn't notable. The sources used are trivial coverage. I don't find anything further we can use.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm persuaded by those editors advocating Deletion that the sources providing SIGCOV just aren't there. LizRead!Talk! 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe that this person does not meet
WP:A7, but my speedy deletion tag was contested. Minor voice acting roles do not meet
WP:ENT. signed, SpringProoftalk 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep; I usually don't like to vote keep off of an SNG but I think there is a very strong case this person meets
WP:NACTOR with their significant roles in Power Rangers, Heat Guy J, Last Exile, Mezzo Forte, The Happy Cricket, Tenchi in Tokyo, and more.
Link20XX (
talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite being in a lot of productions under several names, there's basically no reliable sources to establish notability.
Esw01407 (
talk) 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I would argue that a page for a notable son isn't a reason for a page about a less-notable father.
Bryce Papenbrook isn't at issue here whatsoever. Also, I don't think I'd consider a lot of his roles significant? For example, his Power Rangers character was only a major plot of the story for only a handful of episodes. signed, SpringProoftalk 03:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Needs some reliable secondary coverage apart from an obituary and a database entry. --
Mika1h (
talk) 22:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I added as much obituary references as I could find. --
Rtkat3 (
talk) 14:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This person probably meets
WP:NACTOR as I noted above, which is enough for them to qualify for an article.
Link20XX (
talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, that's your reading of the guideline. I think there should be at least some significant coverage about the subject, it can't be just a list sourced by a database. --
Mika1h (
talk) 16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete per
WP:NOTDIR /
WP:NOTDATA. I'm a little surprised there isn't more coverage about this actor, given the notability of the works he's appeared. But I'm seeing a lot of small parts and uncredited work. I care about crediting artists, but we can't do that if there are no reliable secondary sources that have decided to cover it. This is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources have said about a topic, not a copy-and-paste of a movie database.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 11:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm surprised too. Every other editor should've found more coverage by now including other obituaries like the ones that an editor claimed wasn't good enough. The only other known source is the interview with his son Bryce. --
Rtkat3 (
talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NACTOR, or any form of
notability as determined by Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines. The only sourcing is through
data bases and the "External links" sections. --
Otr500 (
talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This article joins many others, an absolute sourcing nightmare. Names of
living people abound and many times not sourced. Not finding anything substantial I went through some links:
Maetel Legend that boldly has no sources "except" through the "External links" section. There is no mention in the article "Cast" section of the subject.
Brigadoon: Marin & Melan: "Tenement house" subsection, Tadashi Tokita (unsourced), subject links back to this article.
I went through several with the same results. --
Otr500 (
talk) 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect I understand CT's POV on why the merge wouldn't work per how we handle actor v. their characters, but I think a redirect to
List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters#Dominic Vail makes sense. It can be protected if necessary but I'd hope the subject makes the effort to understand community consensus and why it (may, pending consensus) be the best way to handle it vs. outright deletion, which has happened once via PROD.
StarMississippi 19:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect per the
merge discussion that was started. I'm not sure where "efforts... have failed" came from, since there have been no previous (unsuccessful) efforts to redirect.
Primefac (
talk) 11:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That was my mistake; I struck my comment above. Chris Troutman (
talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No worries, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
Primefac (
talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cannot find anything of note online about the College. Appears to be one of a large number of colleges in the area with no particular distinguishing features
Newhaven lad (
talk) 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no source at all on the page. Simple search does not bring up reliable sources that can be used to even contemplate to Draftify this page. Fails
WP:GNG.
RangersRus (
talk) 19:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Owen×☎ 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't find anything notable online. Can't find out the size of the College. No basis on which to regard it as a major educational establishment in Jhang District.
Newhaven lad (
talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is
WP:NOTGUIDE. In addition, the entries are not discussed as a group in secondary sources, so
WP:LISTN is also not met.
Let'srun (
talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Owen×☎ 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; once you toss aside the stats, the rest of this belongs in
Chris Paul. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. I see only stats and no content.
Lorstaking (
talk) 05:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The important facts should already be in the main
Chris Paul article. I'd be in favor of deleting everything in
Category:Career achievements of basketball players. These articles are difficult to maintain over time, and sourcing/updating the content is more trouble than it is worth. Some of these stats are just silly and arbitrary ("Only player in NBA history with 6,000 assists through his first 9 seasons and not reach the Conference Finals in that span").
Zagalejo (
talk) 23:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete anything important and encyclopedic can be added/should already be in main
Chris Paul article. This is a clear
WP:NOTSTATS violation, that doesn't meet
WP:NLIST, as it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for a separate list article.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no editors arguing for Deletion. LizRead!Talk! 06:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Only found passing mentions in sources talking about
Time Air. No significant coverage found when searching for the company. Article has been unsourced since December 2009.Retracting my nomination. Sources have been tracked down, thanks to Sunnya343. Many thanks!
Schrödinger's jellyfish✉ 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I found sources in the ProQuest database by searching "Ontario Express" "Canadian Airlines". Here are some examples:
[4],
[5],
[6].
Sunnya343 (
talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I altered the links if that helps. [1] is a Toronto Star article about the airline ending flights to Hamilton, [2] is a piece in The Globe and Mail about them buying new aircraft, and [3] is an Ottawa Citizen article about the airline beginning operations.
Sunnya343 (
talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
By the way you should have access to ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library if you meet
these requirements.
Sunnya343 (
talk) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, okay! I didn't even realize the Wikipedia Library was a thing - I'll get that set up! Once I can get those sources in, I'll retract my nomination. Thank you so much!
Schrödinger's jellyfish✉ 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Subject does not meet the
WP:GNG due to a lack of
WP:SIGCOV. Playing international matches is irrelevant in this discussion.
Let'srun (
talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. At first blush, it would appear that views are evenly split. Closer inspection reveals that the Delete views are anchored in guidelines, while the Keep ones are of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NEXIST type, without providing any sources. We all recognize the impact of WP:BIAS when it comes to non-Western topics, and are willing to lower the notability threshold accordingly. But we can't lower this threshold to zero. This deletion is without prejudice against an early REFUND if even a single SIGCOV source is found.
Owen×☎ 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed under NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. I'm normally pretty lenient on military unit articles because they tend to be very enclyclopedic but IMO this one is pretty far out there. Content is basically just "it exists" plus a note of participation sourced to a Twitter/X page. Other than the Twitter/X page one is just a government gazette to support a "mentioned in a dispatch" statement and a stamp page to support a gun type and founding date sentence. North8000 (
talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Per nom. The page is self opinionated. It does not draw any parallels from the reliable sources, forget even having any on the page. There is no background or history about the Regiment. Can't rely on Twitter accounts. Fails notability.
RangersRus (
talk) 19:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete absent any reliable sources (a check on English Google Books had zero hits) and not even anything reliable on the web.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me) 09:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
What makes you think Google Books is a good place to check notability of an Indian military unit?
RadioactiveBoulevardier (
talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. We have generally considered major units to be notable. Probably because they are. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. As the person who has created the article, my views are that - The concerns from North8000 are valid. Data regarding military units are sometimes very difficult to come by. A google search regarding this unit will come up with nothing, except for the Wikipedia page. Once more data comes into the public domain, the article can be expanded.
Akk7a (
talk) 04:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I’m not convinced that more exhaustive searches wouldn’t demonstrate notability. For example, there are a lot of regional/local newspapers in India and a lot of them aren’t indexed or even on the web.
That said, the article is rather stubby compared to other “Regiments” (battalions) of the Indian Artillery.
But I think the best course of action would be to let it sit for months to years and see if it gets expanded.
I strongly suspect this is a case of non-searchable SIGCOV being assumed not to exist i.e.
WP:BIAS. Indian Army units don’t have the same Web footprint as American or British ones. Just how it is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Closing as keep since sources are present, but require addition onto the article and further expansion. No consensus for delete.
(non-admin closure)The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 02:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Despite being a member of Czech Republic women's handball team as well as the winner of 2018
Czech Women's Handball First Division, this person has not received enough sources to meet
WP:NSPORT and
WP:GNG. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes.
CuteDolphin712 (
talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm going to try translate the articles and re-word myself if this nomination was kept. However, since I knew nothing of handball-related subjects the moment, it's admitted difficult.
CuteDolphin712 (
talk) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - the concern is absence of sources, and this is dealt with in the comments here by Malo95, so I see no enduring rationale for deletion. Article needs improvement, not deletion. C679 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Issues related to WP:UNDUE can be fixed editorially.
Owen×☎ 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've already found a handful of articles in Spanish news and will expand the article now.
Davidlofgren1996 (
talk) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Per
WP:BEFORE, meets GNG:
[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] A lot of them talk about his expulsion from the team in 2018 due to animal cruelty, which definitely should be included in the article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per sources above which show notability.
GiantSnowman 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG. Sources above are routine match reports, routine contract signings and refbombing an alleged animal cruelty incident. Quero doesn't pass
WP:CRIME either and it's
UNDUE to focus on such a negative event. (Was he ever convicted?). The sources in the article aren't any better.
Dougal18 (
talk) 11:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
While the coverage of the animal cruelty incident is most likely the first thing people will see about Quero when searching for sources, this does not detract from the fact that he is a professional footballer with a modest (but sufficient for GNG) amount of coverage. I've improved the article since the AfD was started, and I'll review the sources I've added here:
La Vinotinto - Coverage of the beginning of Quero's career in Venezuela, talking about his breakthrough into the first team and including quotes from an interview conducted.
Táchira - Again talking of his early career, and his potential as a young player to represent his nation at under-20 level - includes quotes again, as well as information regarding his early life.
Liga FUTVE - Perhaps a primary source, but a pretty comprehensive article on Quero and his time with Falcón, again including quotes from the player.
These three sources covering his career, as well as a number covering the animal cruelty case, should be enough to satisfy GNG.
Davidlofgren1996 (
talk) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
ligafutve is the official website for a league Quero played in and is not independent. tachira.gob.ve is a government site so I don't know how reliable it is. lavinotinto is nowhere near enough for a GNG pass.
Dougal18 (
talk) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Only speaking about the animal cruelty: Quero published the incident on social media, it is the reason why he was expelled from the league and he apologized for it. He hasn't denied or excused himself for it, so I'm not sure if there's another side of the story that casts doubts on what happened. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 09:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Obviously standards of
WP:GNG. The sources are not cursory by any means and provide reasonable coverage of him beyond simple appearances. This is rather clear to me.
Anwegmann (
talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnecessary disambiguation page. It seems that the Michigan-based Trinity Health is clearly the
primary topic, as they are a massive system spanning half the country with 120,000 employees, whereas the North Dakota-based Trinity Health is a small local system primarily located in one town. I propose that
Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan) be moved to
Trinity Health and that a hatnote be added linking to
Trinity Health (Minot, North Dakota). With that hatnote, this disambiguation page would become unnecessary and thus can be deleted.
IagoQnsi (
talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Let the RM run its course, if there is consensus the Michigan one is primary the DAB can be deleted under G14 but if there is no such consensus the DAB will need to stay at the base name. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 19:33 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The page provided by Candace Smith is important and is necessary for people to know what a strong woman she is. Candace has helped many people around the world with a message of power, strength, and belief in one's self. Her message of "never dim your light for anyone" resonated with a friend of mine who needed to hear that message. Candace's roles in movies promotes a strong woman in the midst of overcoming obstacles, and becoming better because of it. Therefore, my suggestion is to Keep her page, because her story needs to be told to the world, as it will help women around the world. No question...Keep her page!
Qsilver9 (
talk) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaving aside that this is your very first edit on Wikipedia, if you want to spread Candace's so called 'message' you could as well just purchase a web domain, buy some hosting, set up some WordPress page and publish some copycat inspirational phrases by Chat GPT. This is an encyclopedia, not an inspirational website.
Bedivere (
talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You have misidentified "Candace Smith" as "Candice Smith" as evidenced by your discussion.
Candace Smith has starred in her own action flick, major motion Warner Bros. films, her own reality show, Millionaire Matchmaker, Survivor, Hawaii Five-0, Entourage and much more. She recently guest starred on Tacoma FD last year and has a new show. This is a personal attack and I do not like black women who survive sexual assault in Hollywood and speak out to be erased/ silenced.
Neutral comment I've removed Trichard's comment
repeated three times below this line; adds nothing to the discussion, and you only have one vote (which has not been disclosed). Also, we don't
source to IMDb. Nate•(
chatter) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Article is starting to come under attack from editors with obvious conflicts of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all Smith herself. City of Silver 05:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
DELETE. Nothing noteworthy here. And the blatant COI only reinforces that for me.
Bgsu98(Talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Deceased porn performer who did not have an article while she was alive. Death is not a notable event.
Counterfeit Purses (
talk) 16:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Multiple news articles surrounding this person's death. Should not have been marked for deletion.
71.147.48.38 (
talk) 16:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Please keep the discussion civil. An administrator can decide if this page will remain. Counterfeit Purses is now ranting on my Talk Page. Like I said, I am OK with the decision of the administrator either way. This is not personal.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 22:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per the jellyfish. All news coverage about her appears to be exclusively about her death.—
Moriwen (
talk) 17:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Only passes notability test because of death. Breaches.
WP:BLP1EJamesparkin (
talk) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I would counter that she is notable NOT for her death, but for being in over 150 adult films, amassing over a million dollars, and for being a social media influencer. Her death was an event that covered her career (many events) as documented in the Internet Adult Film Database.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Why does it need to be redirected to anywhere? How is directing her name to a list that she isn't in helpful to a reader?
Counterfeit Purses (
talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
She is in the list. Redirecting as alternative to deletion because coverage exists, allow me to repeat myself. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
(Sorry I thought I had added her before to the list; did not publish the edit; just did it now) -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank She wasn't in the list when I made my comment. She won't be in that list if this article gets deleted.
Counterfeit Purses (
talk) 20:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with the first sentence, -again, my bad I had forgotten to publish her insertion- not the second: not all actors in the list have a standalone page (edit: on the English WP). -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You are free to disagree if you want, but that is a list of notable porn performers and Sophia Leone will be removed if this article is deleted.
Counterfeit Purses (
talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Should be kept regardless of if her name shows up in some arbitrary list.
FrostSpider (
talk) 00:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
She actually was a notable performer. Let's be blunt about a couple of things. I'm sure there are scores of notable performers in the adult film industry that don't have pages because someone might be afraid to suggest creating one. They don't want to open themselves up to be called names for suggesting one. Second, she's more notable that a lot of names I see pop up on the recent passings page. I've seen countless regional TV and Radio host appear on the page, as well as many very obscure political figures from overseas. Some of who even Alexa could not find information on. Trust me, you delete Sophia's page, and I and others could recommend close to 5,000 pages on here for deletion.
Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (
talk) 12:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The fallacy I detect here by the pro-delete crowd is that she is notable due to her death - this is factually untrue and seems to miss the one-event stipulation's purpose. She did in fact receive massive coverage mainly after her death, but this coverage was based on many notable events throughout her life (on one major adult site, she is mentioned in numerous articles over the years). I also read the notability guidelines with regard to celebrities, and as a performer with over 100 films, in addition to the media coverage and her social media influence, she seems at minimum on the border of notability. Given that she now has an article from People magazine, I believe this crosses over into notability. I also note the growing number of objections to deletion on this page.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Most sources are non-RS, the New York Post and others. I'm not sure why the Hindustan Times covers an article about her death from halfway across the world, when non-RS on this side of the planet ignore it. That strange sort of undisclosed promotional items in Indian media, that have no other coverage.
Oaktree b (
talk) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Her death is notable in the sense that recently quite a few people with similar jobs have ended their lives. The pattern is notable. So Delete, but maybe cause for a meta topic?
95.96.130.127 (
talk) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Typical superficial 'mainstream' news coverage most porn performers get when they die. Most of the sourcing seems questionable as well. Nothing else out there of substance to create a better article.
GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk) 03:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I added Complex and Parade Magazine. These are fairly reputable sources.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upon re-reading this comment, whether conscious or unconscious, there is condescension regarding the profession of the performer (note the wording "most porn performers"). Notability is not decided by the moral views of editors. This is not meant as an attack on the editor - I merely note that the career-choice of the performer appears to be influencing some editors.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 07:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm rather shocked she didn't have a page, considering she was one of the top performers in adult films in adult films in the late 2010's and very a brief time, was one of the top paid. The fact she didn't have one while she was alive was clearly an oversight. I say we keep her page and flesh it out better.
Comment I understand the arguments from everyone here and I also wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the editors opinion on this article.
Abishe (
talk) 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Humanly I feel deeply sorry for her premature and unjust death, but as porn actress she never made the definitive leap towards undisputed notability, probably because she never engaged in scenes which could grant her relevant awards in the industry. -- Blackcat 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I did some quick digging on Sophia, and in addition to her extensive adult career, covered by significant news sources, she was a social media influencer with over 100,000 followers on Twitter and 300,000 followers on Instagram. I am certain that if given the time I could dig up sources to make her page more substantial with proper sourcing. I think an opportunity should be given to improve the article for some set period.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 04:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will list here the reputable sources used or added for Sophia Leone.
There are also other decent sources that have been added. I believe this list is superior to other pages I have seen on Wikipedia. Again, this is just my opinion.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 08:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability.
BD2412T 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Jmg38 (
talk) 23:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
She had a following (over 300,000), people are curious. This is where we go to learn. It sounds as if you have another axe to grind possibly with her employment.
66.214.145.179 (
talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am inclined to agree with you that some may have an issue with her employment. She had over 400,000 followers on Twitter and Instagram combined - almost a half-million - and news coverage of her has been extensive. I will object to this article's removal at the highest levels, and will request a greater grace period. There is no consensus here as defined by Wikipedia policy.
Yellowbear48 (
talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
An active businesswoman, but I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing to indicate notability. The sources are connected with her and her work, or are passing mentions.
StarMississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Note that the description of the Chevalier of the Legion of Honor as France's highest honor is misleading; Chevalier is the lowest rank of the Legion of Honor, awarded to thousands of people yearly.—
Moriwen (
talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a musician, not
properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a nomination for a specialty music award, which would be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced but is not top-level enough to constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC #8 on bad sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to
primary sources that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all. There was, additionally, a completely unreferenced article about his band, which basically made no other notability claims at all besides this guy being in it, so I've redirected that to the BLP as well -- and I would also note that there isn't a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article: the redirects from the band and one of his album titles are the only inbound links leading to this, and until I unlinked them as recursive redirects just now this article was the only inbound link leading to the band or the album title either, so these three titles are essentially creating a self-contained walled garden. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him or his band from having to have much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The sources provided are not strong enough to establish notablility.
@T.C.G.[talk] 22:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD. The article claims that "He is regarded as one of the top artists in his area." but no proof of this. No evidence of
WP:MUSICBIO or
WP:GNG. This article was moved out of draftspace prematurely. A previous version was already sent to draft by Liz under the name of
Draft:Luckystarzs.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Zero coverage for this individual found. And this version of article appears to be an unfinished template. PROMO, very much spam.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom- does not meet notability requirements.
Editing84 (
talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I recently declined AFC submission
Draft:Luckystarzs with same content as this article. The mastermind behind both articles is named
user:Luckystarzs, a clear/possble vandal/sock.
ANUwrites 18:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment The article creator has move this article to Draft space and then removed the AFD tag. They have been blocked for self-promotional as all of their articles involve them and their career. LizRead!Talk! 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - blatant example of self-promotion with no coverage whatsoever.
HarukaAmaranth春香 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
13 page views. Apart from that, the subject has no move for notability. The cited references were all databases and thus, fails
WP: ATHLETE. Otuọcha (
talk) 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Had 2 caps back in 2006 but can't find any evidence of meeting
WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I can't find any coverage of the footballer of this name in any language, although there are a few namesakes, including a translator and a medical doctor. The best that I found on the footballer was
Nakrebi, a database source.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a pure piece of
WP:OR, poorly sourced to novels, short stories, games and like. While it is plausible the topic could be
notable, given the ORish state of this, nothing here is rescuable; 80% of the article is a plot summary for
Lensman series, and the remainder 20% is unsourced OR in the
WP:IPC-failing style of "this term also appears in the following random works".
WP:TNT treatment is advised, although
WP:ATD-R allows for a less drastic solution of redirecting this to
Space travel in science fiction where the term is mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I’m obviously biased, since I was the first contributor, but “a pure piece of
WP:OR, poorly sourced” is clearly incorrect: The first two footnotes are uncontroversially secondary research, and there are nine other footnotes, which I think is above average for a Wikipedia article of this length. I can’t speak to the quality of citations by other contributors, but would welcome specific corrections.
FlashSheridan, could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here? I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.
TompaDompa (
talk) 20:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
> could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here?
Citations to “The Epic of Space,” page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947, and to Samuel Lawrence Bigelow’s Theoretical and Physical Chemistry.Of Worlds Beyond was quite important in the intellectual history of early science fiction, and I dare say most readers have been puzzled by Dr Smith’s reference.
> I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.
That’s fair criticism, and I’d be happy to fix it.
If I have that right, the article cites
E. E. Smith's essay from Of Worlds Beyond (1947) to verify that Samuel Lawrence Bigelow's Theoretical and Physical Chemistry (1912) was the first mention of an inertialess drive? And this is real-world background information for what follows, which is all in-universe?
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Alright, so I was able to access Of Worlds Beyond via the
Internet Archive. The relevant passage on
page 84 is I would not use mathematically impossible mechanics, such as that too-often-revived monstrosity of a second satellite hiding eternally from Earth behind the moon. Since the inertia of matter made it impossible for even atomic energy to accelerate a space-ship to the velocity I had to have, I would have to do away with inertia. Was there any mathematical or philosophical possibility, however slight, that matter could exist without inertia? There was—I finally found it in no less an authority than Bigelow (Theoretical Chemistry—Fundamentals). Einstein's Theory of course denies that matter can attain such velocities, but that did not bother me at all. It is still a theory—velocities greater than that of light are not absolutely mathematically impossible. That is enough for me. In fact, the more highly improbable a concept is—short of being contrary to mathematics whose fundamental operations involve no neglect of infinitesimals—the better I like it. So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from. I hardly think we can call this secondary research, contrary to your assertion that it is uncontroversially so. We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith. Combine this with the
WP:Writing about fiction issues present here and the fact that the article otherwise relies entirely on the primary literature (i.e. the works of fiction themselves), and I think the description of the article in the nomination is rather apt.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
> So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from.
Fair point; the absence of contrary evidence is of course not conclusive, though for an intellectual history it is rather suggestive. Happy to make the correction.
> We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith.
Yes, in one of the key early books on the intellectual history of science fiction (admittedly rather a recondite area). Citing that didn’t seem like original research to me.
It's not original research, but getting it straight from the horse's mouth is not exactly secondary research either, now is it? This entire article relies on
WP:Primary sources, in violation of policy.
TompaDompa (
talk) 22:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was published in a volume edited by someone else, as close as existed at the time to a scholarly publication on the subject. (One of the few available, in my experience, in ordinary bookshops, even decades later.) As I recall (from the few times I’ve done it myself), this would have allowed Dr Smith himself to cite it, so it seems odd for you to forbid someone else to rely on it.
You may think it odd, but remember that there are significant differences between Wikipedia and scholarly sources. Scholarly sources encourage original thought, while
WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Scholarly sources largely prefer primary sources, while Wikipedia largely prefers secondary sources. And so on. Mind you that the only sentence in the entire article that (1) is referenced (2) to something other than a work of fiction is The possibility of
inertialess travel was first suggested in Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, published in 1912 by the
Tellurian chemist
Samuel Lawrence Bigelow, an alumnus of
Harvard.—and the sources there are Of Worlds Beyond (discussed above; I'll also note for the record that the note
Piotrus alludes to below reads, in its entirety, "The Epic of Space," page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947. Dr. Smith gives the title as Theoretical Chemistry–Fundamentals, and provides only a last name. Given the other errors in “The Epic of Space,” e.g., “Trweel” for “Tweel” on page 80, the misspelling of “Constantinescu” on page 84, and, arguably,
E. E. Evan's analysis of Triplanetary on page 87, the error does not seem implausible.),
a library entry to verify the year of publication for Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, and
a webpage that appears to get its information from
Ancestry.com (at least, the webpage states at the bottom that RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community.), a
WP:Generally unreliable source per
WP:ANCESTRY.COM, to verify that Bigelow went to Harvard. The rest either lacks any kind of source at all or relies improperly on the works of fiction themselves.
TompaDompa (
talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Key words: "better sources". As opposed to:
WP:OR. PS. TompaDompa already explained it in detail above. It is quite possible we can add a sentene or two to the "Space travel..." article, based on secondary sources. And for the record, there will be no red links to fix - per the nom, there should be no hard deletion, just redirection (due to this failing
WP:GNG, in particular, SIGCOV requirement). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
And one more reply: it does not - and why should it? Those works are not mentioned in the nominated article outside a confusing footnote. And that footnote is very ORish, ex. "Given the other errors in...". Who says there were errors, and how is this relevant to the article? I am sorry, but I did say this is a "mess" and it needs a
WP:TNT treatment, and I stand by this assessment. What was passable in 2006 is very much not so in 2024. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'm very new here, so I'm not sure my opinion matters, and I'm probably going to make a mess out of the formatting expectations for this process because yikes. There do seem to be some sources that discuss this as a trope with value to the craft of science-fiction storytelling. I found a book that confirms Triplanetary as the first use and describes the trope as a means to end-run physics and allow galactic-scale storytelling (Gunn, James. Alternate Worlds: The Illustrated History of Science Fiction (3rd ed.). McFarland. p. 134.
ISBN978-1-4766-7353-0.). Paul Gilster is a
fairly respected space technology writer who also describes the fictional history of the concept, including precursors to Triplanetary. and it's real-world futurist applications or likely, lack thereof (Gilster, Paul (2004). Centauri Dreams: Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration. Springer.
ISBN978-1-4419-1818-5.). I don't have access to
this, but Google suggests some relevancy. There's also a lot of ufology nonsense about the topic, which I'm sure isn't enough to actually make a topic a thing but is... maybe worth noting in an article with wider context? It's a fictional element either way, after all.
Lubal (
talk) 20:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia in general and
WP:Articles for deletion in particular. Being new in no way makes your input less valid/relevant/important. I took a look at those sources. Gunn makes a rather brief mention of inertialess drives on
pp. 134–135. I would characterize that as a passing mention falling short of
WP:Significant coverage of the topic (Gunn doesn't discuss the concept, he merely mentions it in the context of Smith's fiction). Gilster similarly briefly mentions inertialess drives on
pp. 173–174. When it comes to your last source,
searching for "inertialess" on Google Books gives me no results. So it does not appear to me that those sources would be a sufficient foundation for an article on this topic, though they may be useful for other articles on related topics.
TompaDompa (
talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Re: That third source. That's... interesting, because Google gave me this snippet: "Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical “inertialess drive”, which was capable of reducing a spacecraft’s mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such..." No idea as to further context; like I said, I don't have access to that one. And I certainly don't understand how Google handles searching/snippeting of otherwise "unavailable" text. Otherwise, is there a bright-line rule on what constitutes passing mention? Gilster, in particular, seems to give the topic a couple of paragraphs of attention in the context of fictional elements that some people hope might not be completely impossible (that cited footnote from Arthur C. Clarke might also be worth scaring up). On the other hand, the whole "ZPF might let us delete inertia" thing, Clarke included, is about six inches short of total nonsense, so while I think
this is more than a "passing mention," I also don't think it's a source I'd want to hang my hat on.
Lubal (
talk) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That is indeed peculiar, though Google is of course known to be fickle at times. Alright: looking into it a bit more (i.e. checking a PDF of the book instead of the
Google Books page), it turns out that the book says Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical "inertialess drive", which was capable of reducing a spacecraft's mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such drives appear in the novel Triplanetary by E. E. Smith, originally serialized in Amazing Stories in 1934, and in Kenneth Robeson's "The Secret in the Sky" from the May 1935 issue of Doc Savage magazine. These early treatments of inertialess drives assume that nullifying an object's mass would make it easier to accelerate and manoeuvre. That would be true if the inertial mass was reduced substantially, but not all the way to zero. on page 112 (annoyingly, Google lets me preview page 111 and 113, but not 112...). This, however, seems to be the only mention in the book.As to your question about whether there is a
bright-line rule: not really, it comes down to editorial judgment. To quote myself from
a 2021 AfD discussion:
what
WP:SIGCOV says is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that
no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case. Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of
WP:One hundred words has been suggested. Some editors focus on breadth of coverage. Some editors focus on depth of coverage.
A pretty good starting point, in my opinion, is the following passage from
WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a
definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be
merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.TompaDompa (
talk) 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. Which is why we ma want to consdier if we could add a short paragraph based on these sources to Space travel... ? It is a Good Article, and we cannot bloat it with fancrufty plot description and ORish examples, but the sources we found likely lend themselves to a sentence or two. What do you think? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if it changes anything. I agree that most of the sources discussing this topic don't individually have a lot to say about it, but there are quite a few sources that say something, and they aren't saying the same thing. I took a shot at workshopping what this might look like if we were going to rewrite it entirely and then keep it. It's at
User:Lubal/Inertialess. Separately, there's another article at
inertia negation that probably more or less overlaps this topic and is arguably even worse. That one might need to be redirected or deleted, too.
Lubal (
talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lubal I've AfD the terrible article you reported; as for your rewrite, it looks quite solid although right now I do not have time to spot check the sources. I wonder what
User:TompaDompa will say? Side note: if the current article is deleted and then you add your version, it might be eligible for DYK. Otherwise, if we replace the content now, it would not, I think. Which does not make sense, IMHO, but rules are rules. Perhaps I misunderstand them - ping @
BlueMoonset for a comment on this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Piotrus, it's unlikely that an article that's deleted and recreated in short succession will be considered eligible for DYK. Especially since any recreation would likely include the pre-deletion history. Whatever is ultimately done, don't include DYK in your calculus unless the article ends up a 15K+ prose character monster.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BlueMoonset I see. That's unfortunate, seems to me like it is a topic to discyss at DYK. What Lubal did is to effectively write a new article; why shouldn't his work be recognized by the DYK community? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm unsure if I'll have time to check
Lubal's draft at
User:Lubal/Inertialess; I'll get back to you if and when I do. As a note to the closer, it may be worth relisting this discussion specifically to give editors time to reach consensus on whether the draft should replace the old version.
TompaDompa (
talk) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Space travel in science fiction per
Shooterwalker. Secondary sources to establish notability are very thin. What can be properly sourced is probably worth a paragraph in a broader article rather than it's own article.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. That draft is a significant improvement. I am essentially neutral as to whether it works better as a separate article or a section in the broader topic.
Eluchil404 (
talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel. After seeing the draft article, I'm still not really convinced that it needs to be separate and not just part of the broader article on space travel.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nom. I can't also find less or any coverage about him. Fails
WP:ATHLETE and
WP: SIGCOVOtuọcha (
talk) 04:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: Per
Criteria 5, I believe it's far way from meeting it since they are sports database and an article from
Goal.com. Well, it clearly states, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. It is not a requirement for notability...". Besides, the article was not independent of the subject. So fails all
WP: ATHLETE. From another perspective, the article clearly lack sourcing and much can't be related from the Internet. Hence, it fails
WP: GNG. Otuọcha (
talk) 04:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nomination per
this discussion at RfD. Article was created in 2011 and then
BLARred in 2014. A failed attempt at restoring the article was made a few days ago by
Belbury which was then reverted by
Randykitty, and there's apparently no agreement in sight. Pinging other editors who participated in the linked RfD:
Thryduulf,
Lunamann,
Voorts.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No serious disagreement here, my "attempt at restoring the article" was just to undo the redirect and restore the previous version of the article, after having followed a CyberEmotions wikilink that took me to a page that didn't explain the term. No view from me either way on whether the article should exist.
Belbury (
talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - The previous AfD had two keep !votes, but neither specified any policy reason for keeping the article. There was no source discussion and the only nod to notability was that it had "big players" in the project. But it was, nevertheless, just a research project that seems to have no lasting notability. Research outputs would be primary sources, but, in fact, could be useful in articles that talk about notable subjects for which these are relevant. For instance
Sentiment in Twitter events would be interesting in something on the Oscars, or Twitter, or an article about group dynamics. Those notable subjects are not the project itself. Redirect would be fine if there were agreement on a redirect target, but failing that, this should be deleted.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Run of the mill research project. 40 participants sounds impressive, as does the list of the organisations where they work, but a standard NIH grant to a single investigator usually runs up to a million $$ for 4 years. The EU grant contrasts rather paltry with that: 3.6 million Euros (augmented with existing funding 4.6 million) for 4 years for those 40 investigators. Usually these consortia are ephemeral and CyberEmotions is no exception. It was closed in January 2013 and has disappeared without much trace since. Of course, notability is not temporary, but almost all of the references present in the article date back to when the project wa active and none are the in-depth independent sources required for GNG. Some don't even mention this project at all (e.g. ref 4), which is all too common in this kind of drummed up promotional "articles". Note that one of the conditions to obtain EU funding id to publicize the project and its funding sources as much as possible, and WP is then an obvious target. --
Randykitty (
talk) 15:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete: pure fraud or neologism from editor with disruptive editing elsewhere (
Faxuliopa).
Klbrain (
talk) 09:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete under criterion
WP:A11 which I've now tagged accordingly. Clearly a made-up name.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable businessman, with no significant coverage in
WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only more of what's cited here: primary sources, press releases and sponsored content. Tone, unsourced content and creator's user page suggest conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing.
Wikishovel (
talk) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – fails notability guidelines. Sources on Google that is at least reliable only shows subject being appointed as CEO without any other indepth details. Checking the article's sources, most of them are unreliable or primary sources.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Coverage I find is exclusively PR items. What's used in the article now is non-RS or so-so sources, per CiteHighlighter. The last one is the only "green" source and describes this person taking a trip (and was written by the subject here), hardly the stuff of notability in Wiki.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete sources too PR based and not in depth enough to establish notability.
Editing84 (
talk) 09:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Sourcing consists of YouTube, LinkedIn, press releases, alumni interviews (not
WP:INDEPENDENT). We have relatively articles in Fast Company and Entrepreneur magazine, two known sources, but they are self-published and thus cannot establish notability. TLAtlak 01:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – most are just press release, for example businesswire
here. Again, most sources are not from independent news outlet sources. Unless other sources exist. Until then, delete for now.--
Tumbuka Arch (
talk) 08:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify until he appears for the first team. There is some coverage of him:
[14],
[15],
[16], and
[17]. But I think it is still
WP:TOOSOON for this article.
Anwegmann (
talk) 04:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the sources like
[18] published by PTI News Network, or related to launch of the OTT platform. There is no independent coverage to meet
WP:ORGLordofhunter (
talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect to
Ultra Media & Entertainment. I also don't see independent coverage, and I note that there's no articles on non-English wikis either, so I don't think we're just missing foreign-language sources.—
Moriwen (
talk) 17:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose - Second line of the article clearly establishes notability, "the first time a communist party had won a local government majority in the English-speaking world" is 100% notable
Obviously other Kearsley Shire Council elections should not and do not have their own pages
Totallynotarandomalt69 (
talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
That doesn't necessarily mean this election deserves its own page though. This could easily be accommodated within the
Kearsley Shire page itself.
Steelkamp (
talk) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and I am surprised this article was even nominated for deletion. The second and third paragraphs of the introduction clearly establish notability. This is a notable local government election in Australian history, one that has attracted both specific studies by historians (Martin Mowbray's article in the leading journal Labour History, which is cited in the article) and observation in larger studies of the CPA. Stuart Macintyre in The Party frames his discussion of the CPA's local government efforts around its 1944 success in Kearsley (pp.155–156). J.D. Playford's PhD thesis, "Doctrinal and Strategic Problems of the Communist Party of Australia, 1945-1962" (ANU, 1962) suggests that the support the CPA secured in Kearsley and other municipalities influenced its postwar electoral strategy and objectives (pp.30–31). I also do not see the relevance of Kearsley not being a capital city LGA; much of note in Australian politics has occurred beyond capital cities and we should not encourage a capital-centric attitude. My recommendation, far from deletion, is expansion: there is plenty more to say about this unusual and notable result.
Axver (
talk) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Not only did this election end with a controversial result (the election of a handful of communist party members (5/8 seats) - the most in any local election, leading to a government majority), but there was ample coverage, and an indication of lasting effects.
Trainsskyscrapers (
talk) 3:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep the nominator's personal opinion regarding notability is irrelevant; there are more than adequate reliable sources, both contemporary and subsequent (even 50 years later, eg
[19]), to satisfy
WP:NEVENT. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just another of many shootings in the US. No fatalities other than the shooter. No ongoing media interest after one week.
WWGB (
talk) 06:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per above. To the creator: I would recommend looking at
another incident in
San Bernardino County back in January if you're interested in writing an article.
Raskuly (
talk) 21:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete As above; no lasting or greater significance; no real reason to be considered encyclopaedic. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Palmerston is a satellite city of Darwin of 37,862 people. There are simply not enough sources to make this a worthwhile Wikipedia page.
Steelkamp (
talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Normally it wouldn't deserve to have a page but given the elections delays and news coverage (it is also one of only two city councils in the NT) it's notable enough
AmNowEurovision (
talk) 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete. I did find a few sources about the election. I can't read
this one because it's paywalled, so I don't know how good it is.
This ABC source is pretty good, but
another one is mostly
WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election result. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything that could help meet
WP:GNG. JML1148(
talk |
contribs) 08:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it's a city council with a fair bit of News Corp and ABC coverage given its multiple delays
Obviously the normal non-delayed elections wouldn't/shouldn't have their own pages
Totallynotarandomalt69 (
talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete local council elections aren't generally eligible for articles unless there's coverage "above and beyond" the election, including
WP:LASTING coverage. I don't see that here.
SportingFlyerT·C 12:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Uncited, potentially unciteable. No clear indication of notability here/or of coverage to establish that. [Note that I attend Cornell, have no connection with this org.]
Eddie891TalkWork 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that the ethnic group described by this article is the
Bari people. The article consists of original research advocating for the 'Karo' name over Bari. I can find no reference for its claims. The three references provided were all published years before the events described in the article were alleged to have taken place. I was able to retrieve the full text of two of them (Seligman and Yunis) and found that they did not contain the word 'Karo' at all. Confusingly, there does appear to be a Karo ethnic group in East Africa: the
Karo people of Ethiopia, but they are not the Karo (Bari) people described here.
ATDT (
talk) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject fails
WP:NSONGS. Most of what I found in BEFORE were mere mentions. This article relies on interviews (not independent) and discogs (
WP:SPS). Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (
talk) 06:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Led Zeppelin (album) as failing notability guidelines, as well as recommending protection to that page. If deleted, also support salting the title.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 16:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Virtually every Led Zeppelin song is going to meet
WP:GNG. This is no exception.
Welch, Chris (2009).
Led Zeppelin : the stories behind every Led Zeppelin song. London : Carlton. p. 26.
ISBN978-1-84732-286-9. Credited to Page and John Paul Jones, this gave Jones a chance to show off his abilities on the church organ, while Page made use of a Fender pedal steel guitar. Played on the band's early dates in Scandinavia, the song was later dropped from the show. Jones uses bass pedals on the organ to fill out the sound, until Plant begins to protest at the woeful lack of courtesy shown by the modern girl. "Lying, cheating, hurting, that's all you ever seem to do," he grumbles. But although she drives him insane, one day her time is gonna come and she'll find him gone. The pedal steel that Page uses is slightly out of tune, which adds to the strangely plaintive air that persists until Bonham's sternly bashing drums bring a sense of direction to the final chorus. Part of this song was sometimes used on the band's 'Whole Lotta Love' medley.
Somach, Denny (2012).
Get the Led out : how Led Zeppelin became the biggest band in the world. New York : Sterling.
ISBN978-1-4027-8941-0. Only "Your Time Is Gonna Come" is not known to have been performed live during that period, probably because it requires an organ, an instrument to which John Paul Jones did not have access during concerts until later. Jason Bonham has said that the song's bright and cathedral-like organ prelude- -which he heard on a record player at his house as a child was one of his earliest memories, and made him curious about music before he finally understood that it was his father's profession. Here, Plant croons a vengeful lyric over a pastoral riff played mainly on acoustic guitar with occasional add-ins from Page on electric lap steel, an instrument he might have been fiddling with for the very first time. Page was, after all, a guy who'd joined the Yardbirds not as a guitarist but as a bassist- and he'd never played bass before, either! No portion of the lyrics to "Your Time Is Gonna Come" has been traced to any previous sources, but if Plant was the lyricist, the writing credits don't reflect it.
Led Zeppelin : you shook me. Blitz Books. 2017. p. 26.
ISBN978-1-9997050-7-7. Segues from Dazed And Confused with a keyboard sound that although used sparingly by John Paul Jones was to become very much a Led Zeppelin sound. Nice gentle guitar from Jimmy gives this song a lovely feel. Along with Black Mountain side this track gives a nice respite from some rather exciting and heavy tracks now the album is on CD. In the days of vinyl of course this was a gentle (ish) start to side two.
Shadwick, Keith (2005).
Led Zeppelin : the story of a band and their music : 1968-1980. San Francisco : Backbeat Books. p. 52.
ISBN978-0-87930-871-1. On today's CD versions it segues into the following track, 'Your Time Is Gonna Come', as it had from 'You Shook Me'. Considering Page's close involvement in all things Zeppelin up to the present day, one can only assume that this unbroken movement of songs is intended. Certainly the César Franck-chorale-like organ intro to 'Your Time' (played by Jones) is in the same key in which 'Dazed' concludes, so it may well have been the original intention, thwarted by the time limitations of vinyl at the time. When Jones makes the transition into the riff of Your Time Is Gonna Come', the tune's roots are laid bare. The verse's structure is very close to 'Hey Joe', as performed by Jimi Hendrix, down to the detail of the cadential guitar tag. Plant's vocal follows a different route to 'Hey Joe', although the lyrics have a similar message about women paid back for alleged wrongdoings to long-suffering lovers. The song, another Page composition, is undistinguished, with a hackneyed chorus that even Page's arranging skills can't mask. He uses pedal-steel guitar for the first time in a studio, but by his own later admission it is out of tune. The song does however give Plant the opportunity to deliver an entire song without having to resort to screeching, and he does well.
Keep Tons of notable coverage per above.
Seacactus 13 (
talk) 01:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Article needs some work but good sources are plentiful
InDimensional (
talk) 14:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted, and the sources given by JFire above only scratch the surface. There is enough analysis by reliable authors out there to expand this article significantly. Here's another: Led Zeppelin All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track by Jean-Michel Guesdon and Philippe Margotin. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep – The Led Zeppelin band is exceptionally influential. The past AfD resulted in a merge but a lot more coverage has shown up in the past 20 years, some of which is noted by Jfire TLAtlak 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I'm at a bit of a loss at what's going on here. Nominator
Piwipie (
talk·contribs) has not given any explanation for why this should be deleted… but their nomination doubled as the contesting of a redirect to
Groupe Canal+ — which has since been reverted by
Chris troutman, noting that this is a
GNG failure. I at least concur that there is no reason why this should be an article (at the very least, certainly not in that state…), but am not entirely sure at this time if this nomination should just be given a procedural close. (There's been a bit of disruption at these Canal+-related articles and redirects lately, it appears; see also a [much more legitimate]
nomination for
Télétoon+.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 05:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional, fails
WP:NCORP. Coverage is mostly routine (funding, acquisitions); or a listing without
significant coverage. There's a single source I would consider borderline, a profile in an industry publication (Industrial Distribution), but that seems like it. ~
A412talk! 01:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; all sources on Google shows up routine news coverage with nothing indepth.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 15:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
StarMississippi 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
PROMOtional article with no meaningful history.
DrowssapSMM 01:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The topic is probably notable enough to have an article, but is such a mess, being almost entirely unsourced and comprised mostly of original research, that it needs some
WP:TNT. JML1148(
talk |
contribs) 08:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete In agreement with others that while the subject itself is technically notable, this article is indeed a "
WP:OR mess", and in dire need of
WP:TNT.
A. Randomdude0000 (
talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I won't go straight keep since that would start a discussion (not shying away, just feeling I woulnd't have the time to reply/ research properly), but I'm inclined to point out that science fiction (and fiction in general) has developed a plethora of political ideas that are unique and not seen in the real world, and at least some of these merit encyclopedic entries to whatever extent. And this need not necessarily be political science fiction, it's just fiction that describes a specific political system. For instance, right now I'm going through the
Shadowmarch tetralogy, and while it's not in the least political science fiction, it goes into fine detail about systems of the lands and monarchies presented there. --
Ouro (
blah blah) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ouro If you look at comments by me and others, you'll see we agree this is a notable topic. The problem is it needs to be written from scratch, with sources. See
WP:TNT, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Subject fails ANYBIO and MUSICBIO. I could not find significant coverage in independent sources. Chris Troutman (
talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: No notability or significant coverage
InDimensional (
talk) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Lacks
WP:SIGCOV. Quick search reveals only one direct news mention,
this article, which is already cited in the article.
It's possible there's more coverage in non-English sources, but appears to be non-notable without significant coverage at time of nomination.
Schrödinger's jellyfish✉ 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The first article is the only one strictly about this person that I can find. I suppose there could be more in the local language, but I can't find any. Lack of sourcing unless others are found, so not meeting notability at this time.
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject fails NCORP. Beyond what Tabernacle Baptist Church says about their own broadcasting, I only found ROUTINE listings that you'd find about a radio station. Chris Troutman (
talk) 01:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Per BURDEN. OP says they found "routine listings that you'd find about a radio station"....then add them. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 02:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of radio stations in South Carolina: it appears to have ended up here because of an objection to a previous redirect to
WBPB, a station this station was previously a simulcast of but continued its previous programming after WBPB was sold. In the absence of any evidence of independent notability (at least on the surface, this seems to be a relatively
run-of-the-mill religious station), the correct solution would have been to retarget as an {{R to list entry}}. (This is a clear case where an article would have been more likely to persist under the looser "guidelines" of 15 years ago that declared all FCC-licensed stations "notable", but
a 2021 RfC revealed there was no consensus for media entities having any looser guidelines than
GNG (much less NCORP).) WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Does not pass
WP:GNG or
WP:NHOCKEY. Did some digging and found most mentions about his brother who had his face cut open. The rest are passing mentions and do not contribute to
WP:SIGCOV.
Kline •
talk to me! •
contribs 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created in defiance of consensus and notability standards by Dolovis, the subject never played beyond the semi-professional level, and has never met any iteration of NHOCKEY, never mind of the GNG.
Ravenswing 10:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Subject does not meet the
WP:GNG because of a lack of
WP:SIGCOV showing notability. The only sources currently are databases.
Let'srun (
talk) 16:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Does not meet
WP:NHOCKEY, or any other notability guideline.
DrowssapSMM 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Some coverage in French.
[20] and
[21]. Had a major injury from the sport he played, so it mostly focuses on that aspect of his career. I suppose having a major injury and returning to the sport gets you notability, he's only played in the junior leagues, not I don't think he's otherwise notable. Some coverage here of his arrest for drunk driving
[22],
[23]. Some coverage here
[24].
Oaktree b (
talk) 01:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, he's not notable, the first two articles I've mentioend focus on his brother for the most part. 3 and 4 are about a drunk driving charge, 5 seems to be about him. Not enough for notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 04:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete – fails notability guidelines. No reliable sources found to establish notability whatsoever.
Toadette(
Let's discuss together!) 16:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: This was originally a redirect to
Phil Masi, who was a baseball player. It may be better to restore that redirect.
DrowssapSMM 19:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
✗plicit 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This manufactured phrase of recent coinage does note seem at all notable to me. If it is just a case of
Cognitive bias, it can at best be merged there.
BD2412T 00:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Two unique references, one of which is a non-peer-reviewed working paper and the other a blog. I can find plenty of other mentions but all are SPS. Looks like a case of
WP:NEOLOGISM.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. Should this phrase get any real traction and coverage, we can always re-create the article, as it's just a definition right now anyway.
Cortador (
talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete:
A neologism that doesn't have any notability at the moment.
DrowssapSMM 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources only give enough for a definition.
Rjjiii (
talk) 19:54, 11 March 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.