The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Soccer Canada profile and Tranfermarkt, that's all there is. Nothing in Gnews at all, literally nothing to be found. Delete for lack of any kind of sigcov
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Though I have found sources from offline Canadian newspapers about his career. However, the fact that his career was rather short I fear that this page will never get past being a stub article.
Shotgun pete (
talk) 03:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Ten total career appearances for a team that existed for one year—fails
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:GNG.
Anwegmann (
talk) 23:00, 17 April 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
History of Bellingham, Washington. If this is the correct Redirect target article, feel free to change it. There were several mentioned in this discussion. LizRead!Talk! 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
History of Bellingham, Washington. Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham. Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text.
PersusjCP (
talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I second that, Looking at it now in retrospect, I think it may be better to merge with
Bellingham, Washington History.
Gonzafer001 (
talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Gonzafer001 are any parts of this article generated by LLM (
WP:LLM)? "stunning natural beauty" and "marked a significant moment in the region's history, shaping the development of Bellingham into the thriving city it is today" have
WP:TONE issues and sound like something ChatGPT would generate.
Jfire (
talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Good catch. A lot of this does sound like it was generated by an LLM. I plugged the text in to a few of those LLM detector sites and it came back at 100%. I don't know how reliable they are but I plugged human writing into it too, including from WP articles, and they all got <5%.
PersusjCP (
talk) 01:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Bellingham - there's not much sourced information here to merge!
SportingFlyerT·C 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That's fine with me too
PersusjCP (
talk) 01:26, 18 April 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 Draftify. I'm closing this discussion as Draftify. As far as I can tell, this just means that it needs to be submitted for an AFC review before returning to main space. I just hope it gets improved. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the draft talk page. LizRead!Talk! 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: I agree with sephenMacky1. I do not want the article to be deleted but improved.
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 14:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify. I feel like the article can be improved, but as it currently stands, it really lacks NPOV and reliable sources.
StephenMacky1 (
talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
::See the recent sourcing, it is better sourced now.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
::::No, they mostly contains secondary sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Umar bin Khattab said, Learn Arabic language. That is part of your deen. — Ibn Taymiyyah said, Arabic language is the symbol of Islam and its people (Muslims). — He further said, Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic andd instructed the beloved Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Qur'an-Sunnah in Arabic. The first followers of the religion were Arabic speaking. Therefore, there is no substitute for mastering this language for deep knowledge of religion. Practicing Arabic is part of religion and a symbol of respect for religion. How is this not a direct quotation? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
::::For quotations, secondary sources have been used from books and newspapers.
Bengali editor (
talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify for aforementioned reasons. Also, maybe retitle to something simpler like "Arabic in Islam".
::Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars, I have added a lot of entries from established reliable sources.
Bengali editor (
talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know much about religion, but doesn't Muslim mean someone who believes in Islam? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes. And there is also more entries from non-Islam non-muslim scholars also. 01:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bengali editor (
talk •
contribs)
And that's a problem. You said "Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars", but the opinions you added were Muslim. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nope, in the section opinion of non muslim scholars, no one is muslim.
Bengali editor (
talk) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wait... so Islamic scholars aren't Muslim? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (
talk|
This is an article about a theological doctrine. You seem to be confused by the academic field of religious studies, in which people can be of any religion and still discuss others. Nevertheless, even if this article exclusively cited devout Muslims, those could still be NPOV as Muslim clergy are experts in their own religion. Nearly every theological doctrine will necessarily have to cite to its believers. For instance, a quick perusal of
Trinity § Sources shows quite a few devout Christian theologians. Dan •
✉ 05:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep There is a special status for the Arabic language in Islam.
Salah Almhamdi (
talk) 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
*Keep Classical Quranic Arabic in Quran and Hadith literature is considered the most divine miraculous language in Islam as muslim scholars say the linguistic divine secret knowledges of original Arabic Quran can never be completely transformed into translation in any other form of languages. Moreover, using original arabic dictations in prayers (
salat) and prophetic rituals such as
Hajj is obligatory also. The traditions of Muhammad including the quotes and deeds of Muhammad are also preserved much carefully in original Arabic (
Ilm al-Rijal) without any minimal distortion.
Bengali editor (
talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless.reply
Keep This article is without a doubt a useful and encyclopedic article – I was Googling for this topic specifically when I came across the article and was surprised to learn that not only was it new but that some editors want to delete it. I'm having trouble understanding how the nominator considers it NPOV for having direct quotes. Maybe mixing it up with original research? Nevertheless, direct quotes from the Quran to support the assertion that the Quran makes a statement about something isn't really original research. And in response to the draftify proposals: I think this article is more than ready for mainspace. Sure it's fairly heavy on blockquotes, but it's referenced, structured, formatted cleanly, and has a good discussion of its main topic. Dan •
✉ 05:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment – when I found this article and voted in the AfD it had already been moved to the title
Arabic in Islam. I prefer that title and think the page should be moved back there after closure. Dan •
✉ 04:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please do not move this article until after the AFD is closed. If the decision is that the article will be Kept, then a article page move can be considered. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is absolutely encyclopedic. Whether it should be kept or draftified is something I'm not prepared to outright decide, but I'd say that it is definitely
notable enough to be an article. That said, it definitely has several, substantial issues.
Ships &
Space(
Edits) 01:31, 17 April 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 article states that Gary Smith is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for stalking. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under
WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like
Christine O'Donnell,
Lar Daly or
Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction.
Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into
the article about the 2012 election.
Mpen320 (
talk) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - BLP doesn't apply, but
WP:POLOUTCOMES does, as does
WP:GNG. He's supposedly dead, was a defeated candidate, although his crime did get national attention. All those are considerations.
Bearian (
talk) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Did some not so nice stuff after his political run, which was also somewhat troublesome. I don't see criminal notability, nor do I see political notability. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual, which is not what wiki is for.
Oaktree b (
talk) 23:21, 16 April 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 03:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NBLP and
WP:GNG. The notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the
Hollywood Critics Association. All the coverage he has received is in context of a series of related controversies involving his company. In fact,
about 70% of the content on this page is copied from the company's Wikipedia page. Notability is not inherited, please see
WP:INVALIDBIO,
WP:BIO1E and
WP:PSEUDO. Beyond these controversies, there is very little biographical information and that is cited to low-quality sources such as
Muck Rack, alumni sites, and the 'about' page of a primary source.
Teemu.cod (
talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, the page should be deleted as the notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association/Hollywood Creative Alliance.
AnneNonnyMouse (
talk) 01:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd for deletion, supposedly by the article subject, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:23, 16 April 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 is not a Keep closure or a Delete closure. Do to a lack of participation, I see no consensus here. If the nominator wants to hold a follow-up AFD, please wait an appropriate period of time. Coming back too soon to AFD will likely result in a similar closure to this one. If this AFD can only garner a handful of participants, a new AFD happening too soon will likely have even fewer participants. LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
He does full fill the
WP:NOTNEWS the editor has nominated this article for personal grudge towards the creator of article he is being victim of
WP:PA which is against Wikipedia policy. this journalist has notable contribution for journalism previous worked at Vice President
Geo News and currently serving as SVP of national tv channel based in Pakistan called
BOL Network.
Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 20:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
WP:PROMO article that lacks coverage in secondary sources directly about him. I can there are some press releases about his appointment on corporate positions but Wikipedia is not your
WP:CV.
163.47.119.21 (
talk) 12:19, 5 April 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, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Liz: It was PROD'd by the creator of this BLP Themselves. --—
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more participation here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear Liz,
This article belongs to a journalist based in Pakistan and all citations were update, nominating user keep requesting for deletion of my article without putting any citation needed tags or contributing in updating article, I would request please remove the deletion request as this article fulfills the notability requirement user saqib has accused me for COI and keep lying, please do the needful. Thanks
Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Liz as I mentioned above the article has been updated with new citations and I will update article again and the individual is well known Pakistani journalist there is no violation of notability guidelines, I request to please keep the article.
Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The frustration to rescue this BLP indeed suggests there may be a COI or potentially paid editing at play here. —
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 00:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm just curious why IP addresses from outside Pakistan are involved in voting deletions here. --—
Saqib (
talk |
contribs) 08:26, 20 April 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 A bit of coverage, but I'm not sure enough to suggest a
WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per
WP:ATD.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 18:36, 17 April 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 Looks to be lots of coverage, but not sure there's enough to suggest a
WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per
WP:ATD.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 18:35, 17 April 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.
Reviewed during NPP. A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 (
talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep An election for a second-tier authority in a large country is clearly going to be notable, and particularly one for one of England largest counties that saw a massive swing from the ruling party to the opposition. I don't have access to newspapers at the time, but I would be amazed if there wasn't similar national/regional coverage to that given to the reverse happening in 2009.
[1][2][3] I'm also not aware of any other AfDs on elections of this tier of government that have resulted in deletion; the
only previous AfD I could find on county council elections resulted in a unanimous keep.
Number57 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Number 57: Being the (requested) unusually thorough discussion, I consider
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election to be informative not only for the delete result but also for the extensive discussion and wider participation. Do you think that the election in this current AFD is more impactful or of a larger scale? Or likely to have GNG sources to produce an article vs. "stats only" If so, could you expand on that? Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes – Chorley is a third tier (district) authority, below Lancashire as a second tier. And even that Chorley outcome was an outlier. All other AfDs on elections for third tier authorities that I can find (excluding AfDs on elections that had not yet taken place, a couple of which resulted in deletion due to
WP:TOOSOON, but were subsequently recreated after the election took place) resulted in keep outcomes:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16.
Number57 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While I don't go with "there are others like it" argument, I think that the other two aspects that you talked about (level/size and resultant bigger impact) make this a special case. North8000 (
talk) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep (with templates calling for improvements/more cites!) Regional significance to UK. Combined with historic swing to Labour - there will be a boatload of coverage for anyone with a subscription to newspapers.com.
Hemmers (
talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep (with improvement templates) The article pertains to an election which has significance in the county of Lancashire, a large geographic area with a significant population, as well as in the wider context of the relevant local elections in that year, important to guaging the popularity of this party or that. This data is, without this article, difficult to find and even harder to gain insight from, the Wiki format providing helpful data at a glance for any Lancastrian interested in the historic composition of that council, or any interested party looking more in depth at the 1981 locals. Previous discussions have unanimously kept similar articles and established the Elections Centre is a sufficient source:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1973 Lancashire County Council election.
Djack1770 (
talk) 10:58, 18 April 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 seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all.
Drmies (
talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
DeleteWeak delete - Substantial review in
Pelit magazine and
a section in a retrospective (also Pelit) but it's still not enough to pass GNG. MikroBitti could have coverage around 1992-93 but didn't find scans online from that period. --
Mika1h (
talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That uses in parts identical text as the Pelit retrospective (same writer). Also there's this brief thing by
Vapriikki Museum Centre:
[4]. --
Mika1h (
talk) 14:46, 17 April 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'm re-closing this discussion as a Procedural Keep. Even though the nomination has been withdrawn, because of the presence of a Delete vote, this discussion can not close as a Speedy Keep. So, it's a Procedural Keep. LizRead!Talk! 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African
rugby league player, to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions.
JTtheOG (
talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the
same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated
WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving
WP:SIGCOV:
Procedural keep Discussion needs to be held individually on whether or not these individuals pass
WP:GNG. Combining them together could well lead to
WP:TRAINWRECK.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage.
Mn1548 (
talk) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mn1548, which article subject are you talking about? LizRead!Talk! 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Originally made the comment about
Johan Fritz before releasing it was a group AfD, but left comment here as it applies to all. The South African league isn't professional and non of these articles have more that two references. Not enough coverage of these players cited nor do I think any at notable if more coverage could be found.
Mn1548 (
talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep per Rugbyfan's comments. Articles should be re-nominated separately.
J Mo 101 (
talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability in the article beyond a dubious 'guitar picking' statement and no significant coverage to be found on the web.
InDimensional (
talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article has been through PROD. Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Only one source provided. Nothing came up in Google.
RolandSimon (
talk) 03:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. NN. A google search reveals social media links.
Desertarun (
talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have
List of Wimbledon broadcasters and
List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections?
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think that if there are secondary sources that back up the level of detail included at the Wimbledon article, that would be a good model to follow. The Australian Open article seems lighter on analysis and less obviously makes a case for meeting
WP:LISTN, but is still as you note in better shape than the French Open article at issue. signed, Rosguilltalk 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, as per my previous nomination. This was soft deleted and should remain deleted. No merit for keeping this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A missionary in Africa but no evidence of any notability. Many of the sources are family tree/ genealogy sources which attest to facts but not notabiity. He gets a mention in source 4 as a young man with an eye to an attractive daughter of a missionary family but nothing here speaks of notability and the source is highly affiliated. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Hey man im josh (
talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The sources are, except one, either self-published obituaries in newspapers or on funeral home websites, or otherwise Ancestry or Geni family trees (also self-published), as well as a gravestone and some US General Land Office Records (primary), plus a self-published biography of him on someone's blog. The only possible good source in this is the book, "Stewards of Grace," which was written by his grandson. Google searches and google books searches give no results, so delete.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was created entirely by one account, @
RogerNotable, who's currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing.
Mrfoogles (
talk) 20:46, 16 April 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. IEEE Fellow is a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C3, one of the main examples used in WP:PROF of the sort of thing that passes that criterion. G5 speedy is not in play because the article was created before anyone was indeffed (which is, by the way, not the same thing as banned). And in what universe would, say, "professional athlete did professional athlete things" be regarded as a valid deletion rationale, or "100% agree" be regarded as a substantial contribution to a deletion discussion? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Clear C3 pass as an IEEE fellow.
Curbon7 (
talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: not only IEEE, but NASA medal, etc. would be enough even if he weren't an IEEE Fellow. Basically a speedy or snow keep. --
Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 00:45, 20 April 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.
Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a
WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as
Beaker (laboratory equipment) and
Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term.
JMWt (
talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mergeto
Beaker (archaeology) which is also about drinkware except that it was dug up from the ground. Could use a line that the term has been used in modern contexts?
Reywas92Talk 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Cup. Beaker (archaeology) is not a good enough fit.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Cup no point of the article with no sources. Merge per above.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:58, 23 April 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.
Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under
WP:NORGDclemens1971 (
talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm away from my copy of the Handbook of Denominations for a bit, but if someone else has access, indexing and description in there is generally sufficient to establish notability. Otherwise, I'd lean towards deletion. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per research by
Dclemens1971 determining that they were not listed in the most comprehensive compilation on the subject. Since the denomination is not listed there, GNG is the best standard to apply and the subject fails on that count. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 19:30, 16 April 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.
Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and
WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under
WP:NORG.
Review of existing sources:
Link - Dead link; archived link
here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.
Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
, 10, 11.
Link,
Link,
Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources
Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source
Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.
I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability.
AusLondonder (
talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG.
The Herald (Benison) (
talk) 18:57, 23 April 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 without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it.
Owen×☎ 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't follow this sport, but he is famous in his country and from what I read, he is currently the best and most watched fighter on the Czech-Slovak scene. There are now reliable sources to pass GNG (see also cswiki). He is also
author of a book. Imho it might be enough.
FromCzech (
talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
He's currently a long way from meeting the English WP notability for MMA fighters, which is a top 10 world ranking. The sources on this WP consist solely of database entries and fight reports, nothing close to meeting
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. It appears he authored a self-published autobiography, which does not help the claim of notability. If you could show which references given in his Czech WP article meet this WP's notability criteria, it would be appreciated.
Papaursa (
talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Some sources:
mmaservis.cz,
remiza.cz, Deník.cz (
1,
2). But if it's not enough because of WP:NMMA, I'm OK with that.
FromCzech (
talk) 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for responding. It's not just that he doesn't meet
WP:NMMA but also because I don't think the sources represent significant independent coverage from reliable sources. I looked at the four sources you mentioned. The first is a bio at a Czech MMA website that has lots of MMA bios, with no indication of independent fact checking. It's basically a Czech MMA database. The second is a bio at a Czech sports site, which doesn't appear to be very neutral based on the section titled "Patrik Kincl -the birth of an MMA god". The third is about him signing his autobiography at a book store and the fourth is about the breakdown in negotiations about an OKTAGON promotion title fight. In my opinion, none of these represent the type of coverage I believe is required to meet
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete As I mentioned above my search didn't find significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a lot of ghits, but almost all are fight announcements or results, MMA databases, or information from various promotions he's fought for. There's nothing that any pro fighter wouldn't have. If better sources are found, I would be willing to evaluate them (see
WP:THREE) and reconsider my vote.
Papaursa (
talk) 20:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I also know nothing about MMA, but kinda agree with the fact that his CZ Wikipedia page seems better! A few more coverage I discovered there are
2018,
September 2021,
November 2021, and
2022 – all of which are from Mladá fronta Dnes.
CuteDolphin712 (
talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't know about the CZ WP, but on the English one the same source counts as one reference, at best. The first reference given is an interview, the second is coverage of his loss for a KSW title, the fourth is an announcement of a fight cancellation, and the third is an announcement for a replacement fight for the one that was cancelled. This is pretty typical sports reporting that can be found for any fighter--nothing that shows particular notability.
Papaursa (
talk) 18:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Has multiple articles that are not just based on his results and go over his career and life. [1][2][3][4][5]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. with expansion of article. LizRead!Talk! 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Leaning Keep. The area newspapers of the time gave extensive coverage to this team; which isn't all that surprising since the ABL was, it appears, among the largest professional basketball leagues of the time. See
thousands of results from just 1933 to 1935 when they were active. It seems one could easily develop a
WP:GA-class article or better if they put the work into it.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
I'm not sure what benefit to understanding keeping the standalone article really provides, at this time, until an interested editor makes the effort to source or expand the article. So a redirect strikes me as an appropriate alternative to deletion for now. And of course, I am fully aware of the irony that this might well turn into one of those deletion discussions in which, for all the time we spend discussing whether to delete the article, we might as well have used that time to bring those sources forward that render the question moot.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
IgnatiusofLondon: One must also realize that
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see where
WP:NOPAGE applies only because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with
WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf.
Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as
WP:NOPAGE says: at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (my emphasis).
Put it this way: if
New Britain Mules were already a redirect, no sane editor would create an article by copying and pasting their entry at
American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 and call it a day. It would be unhelpful for readers wanting more information from the ABL article to find no further information at the standalone article. There's no point creating a standalone article unless it adds information beyond what is already offered in the target article. As this isn't the case, a redirect is appropriate until an editor produces the necessary sources to (i) demonstrate the topic's notability and (ii) expand Wikipedia's coverage of the team beyond what can reasonably be written in their entry at the ABL page.
To offer a similar case, today, I
BLAR'd
Ildiger, because the article (
old revision) had nothing to say about the subject beyond what was already said at
Siege of Ariminum (538). But it's a redirect with possibilities, because an editor that can construct a fuller biographical article should feel encourgaed to do so.
if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that → Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I put it this way: I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. Redirects are virtually never expanded except on, e.g., modern topics who have since gained further notability. There's just not that many interested in historic redirect expansions, sadly. But of course I can expand this at some point soon if I am the only hope this article has for existence.
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. → Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nobody will miss this article – Actually,
318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so...
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
IgnatiusofLondon: I performed a major expansion of the article. It now has a wealth of information included nowhere else, including that they had several Basketball Hall of Fame players, were considered (if briefly) as among the top teams in the U.S., and defeated the 1934 "world champions", the
Original Celtics (one of the only franchises ever inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame), in a blowout. They seem even more notable than I initially thought. Your thoughts on keeping?
BeanieFan11 (
talk) 00:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Ultimately, no deletion tools are necessary. In the worst case scenario, this should be a redirect, but I think the article has potential.
Zagalejo (
talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I wish this argument could be used to cut AfDs short. Unfortunately, I've never seen it accepted here. AfD wants to make all these decisions within these discussions. ~
Kvng (
talk) 14:03, 17 April 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.
Merge to
Field trip. This should be a pretty straightforward solution, since that is the thing to which the document relates.
BD2412T 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
When I was at school, I used permission slips to leave classes early for medical appointments, or to consent to my photograph being taken. I remember we had a yellow slip with about ten different checkboxes and the staff would just tick the applicable box for what permission was needed. So it wasn't just for field trips.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Another big one – permission to skip the lunch queue/enter the canteen at a specified time without queueing, for those taking part in lunch clubs.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well the current content is about field trips, and it would probably be better to merge there than go nowhere.
BD2412T 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes,
field trip could mention that permission slips are needed for students to attend. But that mention should occupy no more than a sentence of the article, and
permission slip is entirely unreferenced. It is likely easier for an editor to find one source that supports whatever should be briefly said about permission slips at
field trip than for an editor to merge the article.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him •
☎️) 12:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete and do not merge. In universities in the US permission slips are used to register for classes with limited enrollments and for other cases. Merging would be inappropriate because the term has far more general usage.
Ldm1954 (
talk) 00:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 16:51, 16 April 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×☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per
WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a
Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life"
AusLondonder (
talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. There's only three sentences total.
— Maile (
talk) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep satisfies #1 criteria of
WP:ANYBIO, however it's a very short stub and I'm not opposing deletion either. A09|
(talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: it makes that explicitly clear - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.AusLondonder (
talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails
WP:BIO.
LibStar (
talk) 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, an ambassador with no significant coverage in independent secondary sources (
WP:BIO) does not merit inclusion on en-wiki. The CVO honorific should have generated coverage, but it hasn't, which is further proof that this individual is not notable under our guidelines, and AusLondoner is perfectly right in pointing out that ANYBIO does not supersede BIO, we have to strike a balance when they seemingly disagree.
Pilaz (
talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Supposedly holder of the CVO, which has
pretty much always been considered to confer notability per
WP:ANYBIO #1. ANYBIO doesn't supersede BIO (or vice versa) because it's part of BIO! They are not separate guidelines. However, I have been unable to find any indication in the London Gazette that he did receive the CVO, which is very surprising. The Queen made a state visit to Slovenia in 2008 and he may have got it then, but you would still expect an official record of the fact. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).
WP:ANYBIO states in black and white that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says.
AusLondonder (
talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated.
This announcement from 2004 doesn't reference the CVO.
Pilaz (
talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other. Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. I'm not. I'm restating
general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say. Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you read the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) many editors were incredulous at the suggestion that ANYBIO confers notability and eliminates the need for significant, in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. As one editor said "Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV." Another said "The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources." From my reading of the discussions there, most did not even realise the problem of editors citing ANYBIO as a keep rationale in itself, irrespective of the lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. We're going to have to go for an RfC eventually and completely deprecate ANYBIO unless this stops.
AusLondonder (
talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you read the discussion (and the others) you will, of course, notice that you are cherrypicking comments to support your own view. Many editors clearly disagree with you, hence the overwhelming number of people with high honours kept at AfD. Just because a handful of editors come along and start saying "we're right and you're wrong" does not make their argument any more valid than that of those who have consistently argued the opposite. But I have put my view more fully at
the discussion you have started. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. You're arguing with the black and white words of your own favoured ANYBIO which says unambiguously that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included"
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:30, 23 April 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.
Virtually no actual content and been like this for 12 years. No credible claim to notability - the chairman of a regional branch of a business unit of a larger company. No secondary sources.
AusLondonder (
talk) 16:07, 16 April 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. That's odd. I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange to have lots of coverage. Perhaps the problem is that hits are being masked by other uses of the word Pros. Eastmain (
talk •
contribs) 16:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, just barely This company may have the worst search-optimized name of all time, complicating any BEFORE search, but I am having a hard time finding independent, secondary, reliable sources providing significant coverage to meet
WP:NORG. Examples:
Reuters (already cited in article; trivial coverage); the three Houston Business Journal pieces already cited (trivial coverage); and an additional
Reuters story (trivial coverage). However, I can identify an additional
Houston Business Journal story and two scholarly book mentions (
here,
here). I think it just scrapes under the line, but it's close.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Updating my view to "keep" based on the analyst reports identified by Cunard below.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the
NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 back to the incident. This is practically the definition of
WP:1EVENT. Yes, it's gotten lots of coverage because of the industry and Baldwin, but that doesn't make this person notable.
Valereee (
talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would argue she meets
WP:PERP #2 given the sustained news coverage, death of a notable figure, effect on a well-known actor (
Alec Baldwin), and injuring another. Then, separately, working on two notable films, both of which had safety issues because of her actions. --
Rusty2rusty2rusty (
talk) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing it. There's another article this can go into (Rust shooting incident) and there are no concerns about article size; we know very little about this woman to build a biography around. Literally we know her approximate age and the name of her dad. Baldwin wasn't the victim, and Hutchins doesn't qualify as a "renowned national or international figure". And no one has suggested an unusual or noteworthy motivation for this crime, it was a horrible accident.
Valereee (
talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect back to
Rust shooting incident. She's not notable outside this event and any biographical information would be better served in said article per the first sentence of
WP:CRIME.
Uhai (
talk) 10:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Rust (upcoming film): When I created the redirect under the subject's name, it was to aid in searchability (if it ever needed). There may be enough materials in the future for the subject to have a BLP, but at the moment, it is as what the nom stated, BLP1E, and should not be a standalone article yet.
– robertsky (
talk) 08:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Rust shooting incident—It is within the purview of the New Mexican judiciary to dispense sanctions for criminal misconduct, not us. Gutierrez-Reed was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties as armorer, and it lead to her receiving an 18-month prison sentence. We don't need to further punish her by giving her an entire Wikipedia article. Other than the shooting, she has done little of note.
Kurtis(talk) 08:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Rust shooting incident. In
WP:CRIME it states that a criminal who is notable for a single incident already covered by another article (in this case Rust shooting incident) does not require a separate biographical article about the person themselves.
Jon.yb093 (
talk) 9:17, 22 April 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.
Not sure a redirect is necessary given it is an unlikely search term with the disambiguation.
AusLondonder (
talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyhow, it seems the only way to salvage or undelete the article would be to find coverage in Jennings Daily News which is non-routine. Indeed, newspapers don't have all of their archives publicly online. Unfortunately, the other newspaper services I see don't seem to carry this paper.
WhisperToMe (
talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
To establish notability, we need to see coverage in multiple reliable sources. Multiple articles in the same newspaper is considered one source. What would the second source be? ~
Kvng (
talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NSCHOOL. I wasn't able to find anything showing notability online, and I don't think it's a viable search term that would warrant a redirect. -
Aoidh (
talk) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - No claim to notability and no evidence of notability . Only two sources and searches (at least in Europe) yield nothing better. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:54, 22 April 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 Every university has a Board of trustees, this usually doesn't need a standalone page, especially not to just list non-notable names.
Reywas92Talk 17:12, 16 April 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.
another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: The GQ is a few photos with captions describing what this individual is wearing. No coverage outside of this type of photo spread/ "look what the celebrity is wearing". I don't see notability in the given sources either.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Anybody can call themself an influencer, and many do. Want to get noticed? - label yourself "an influencer". If his group the Elevator Boys don't rate a Wikipedia article, the individuals therein certainly are not notable. The search brings up a lot of hits that mostly say "gained a lot of attention through their videos on the social media platform Tiktok". So? Being noticed is not the same thing as achieving awards and mainstream media coverage.
— Maile (
talk) 20:39, 21 April 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 incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per
WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed
WP:GNG. Thank you.
✠ SunDawn ✠(contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect. The article in question doesn't meet the criteria for
notability per nomination. However, there is already an existing article titled
List of Russian military accidents that include incidents such as this one. Integrating this article into the existing list would be better solution.
Ckfasdf (
talk) 05:16, 27 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) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The nominator refers to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents where that states: "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Next to that the nominator wrongly states that the essay states "in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable". The essay itself states "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent."
Most of the military accidents that happens regulary are carrying 1 or a few crew members. This accident killed 24 people, including 13 passengers. So (as example) in my opition it's about the same notability as the previous month
2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash: a militairy airplane that crashed (15 peoeple were killed including passengers were killed).
An investigaion has been done into the cause of the crash and advice was given to prevent a similar accident.
There were multiple aspects on several levels (from the pilots, to the air traffic control, to aircraft weight inspector/approver to airplane map designer) that contributed to this crash including:
The 337 metres high hill was not indicated on the map of the pilots
The aircraft was overloaded
Air traffic control was not checking the location of the aircraft after take-off
A SOS signal went off but was ignored
That makes that the accidents meets all the aspects of
WP:Event
But the article should be renamed: The current title of "RA-78804" is the registration number of the aircraft. According to the standards, the article should be moved to:
1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash.
82.174.61.58 (
talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename – Per @
Artene50. Significant coverage of Russian-language sources.
Svartner (
talk) 05:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:47, 16 April 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. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page.
Owen×☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (
talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. How is a triple murderer not notable? --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article isn't about him and doesn't have GNG sourcing or sourcing to be an article about him. And that is the main criteria for passage of an article on the person under either GNG or nBios. So by that process, and also by the fact that the article is about the event . Hence "Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news." Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The article not being about him isn't a good reason to delete it. The killings are certainly notable. The article title is a different issue. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 11:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My nomination was addressing that.....(un)suitability as a news event article. My last post was instead addressing your post that it was indented under, it was not the rationale for the nomination as was implied in your subsequent post. Sincerely, North8000 (
talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - the person is not notable but the event is, so I am inclining to Delete it and creating a new article on the incident.
Bhivuti45 (
talk) 11:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. It would be better information if there were details of of the murderer's background, as well as his motivation for the crimes. Nevertheless, he is a serial child killer. The article is worthy of keeping.
— Maile (
talk) 03:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Draftify: This should be a case of WP:BLP1E. Reliably cited with sources supporting
WP:THREE,
WP:SIGCOV, and
WP:CRIMINAL, its still unclear determining having a standalone article. Maybe
Rosguill' s making sense where we should have this draftified as the event and maybe applicable as a redirect either way. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP1E states that we shouldn't have an article about people only notable for one event. Did you mean something else? --
asilvering (
talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Asilvering, that should be
WP:BIO1E. I'm having much consideration on this article as it's unclear whether to have an entry or not. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete This crime, while gruesome and sensational, does not meet
WP:CRIME: neither the perpetrator nor the victims were notable prior to the act, and there is not likely to be any historical significance to this act. (I.e. it is unlikely that news coverage will extend past the immediate event.)
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Shadow311 (
talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to
William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary
JMWt (
talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Äther - Ein Medium der Moderne, pp. 213-215, has two full pages discussing the story, but focussing on Hodgson's use of the titular Äther = ether in it.
Daranios (
talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, (note this was an edit-conflict with the above opinion, but I'm posting it unchanged): this is an awkward one. (1) the bar for notability of fiction is a very lopsided one; modern fiction can be assessed on the basis of independent reviews, but there wasn't so much reviewing back in 1919, and anything that got written about it back then will be hard to find. This problem is noted at
WP:OLDBOOK. There, we're urged to use common sense, and consider the number of times the book has been reprinted. Since this 1919 story is still readily available more than a century later, I'd say there's a reasonable case that it has contributed to the history of literature and is notable in wikipedia terms. But (2) Hodgson's work is covered here in a weird way. We also have
List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which presumably exists to avoid
William Hope Hodgson becoming too long. Many of the related series that he wrote have their own separate lists. (3) Overall, I'm in favour of keeping plot-summaries of his short stories somewhere, but I don't care whether this article, which is basically a plot summary, is kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into
List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which already contains plot-summaries of similar length for some other stories. My main worry about the merge option is that someone will then find the list-of-stories, be horrified by its length, and nominate it for deletion based on its lack of secondary sourcing. But the plot summaries themselves are fundamentally useful to readers, and verifiable.
Elemimele (
talk) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the sources given above and the comment explaining, is likely ok. No issues if we merge either.
Oaktree b (
talk) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to
List of stories by William Hope Hodgson. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge or weak keep per Daranios. This is borderline when it comes to
WP:SIGCOV, but I am confident this can be preserved somewhere. I am open to an appropriate merge target if that's the compromise.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 01:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - The sources highlighted above show that this story should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Further discussion can be held after the AFD closes if needed to decide whether it should be merged anywhere or not, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am fine with it being kept until then.
Rorshacma (
talk) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not fulfill the requirements for
WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search.
WP:NACADEMICS is not met either.
FortunateSons (
talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete (nominator) All independent coverage is very minor and focussed on some area of research, I could not find enough coverage that is both significant and independent. No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMICS could be found. Almost all content is sourced from obviously non-independent sources.FortunateSons (
talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A nomination is already a vote for deletion, please remove your bolded vote. You're just restating your nomination. nableezy - 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Um, in English one writes 'struck', unless you are thinking of 'stricken', which is something commonplace in I/P realities.
Nishidani (
talk) 11:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, that was a poor translation from my native language, my bad
FortunateSons (
talk) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Especially with the new additions, the article adequately establishes notability.
Zerotalk 01:20, 19 April 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.
RL0919 (
talk) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The only claim to notability is being an unelected candidate in a previous Australian federal election. Fails
WP:NPOLITICIAN and
WP:GNG.
GMH Melbourne (
talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Running unsuccessfully in an election is not a claim to notability.
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete The only sources that I could find that might prove notability were all from daily mail, which is a deprecated source.
Nagol0929 (
talk) 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't think violating parliamentary privilege is notable, the rest of his career appears routine. There's coverage of this person, but I'm not sure what he's done is notable.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Was !deleted 1.5 yrs ago as not meeting notability for politicians. The political violation now described in the article isn't rising to the level of criminal notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete was previously deleted and not seeing much has changed. Fails
WP:NPOL as a political candidate.
LibStar (
talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this article is not making any other meaningful claim of notability that would have gotten him into Wikipedia for other reasons.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:29, 19 April 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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to
WP:USEFUL.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:21, 16 April 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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to
WP:USEFUL.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, this fails to meet the
WP:NLIST.
Let'srun (
talk) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - doesn't pass LISTN as no significant coverage of these items in the list as a group
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:12, 20 April 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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing
WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to
WP:USEFUL.
SpacedFarmer (
talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Almost reads like a directory.
Lorstaking (
talk) 09:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the
WP:NLIST.
Let'srun (
talk) 14:44, 19 April 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.
Although he was memorable for his collaborations with John Singleton, none of his roles are significant enough per
WP:NACTOR.
The Film Creator (
talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:17, 16 April 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, LizRead!Talk! 04:17, 16 April 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, LizRead!Talk! 04:16, 16 April 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 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Certainly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage.
Anwegmann (
talk) 23:03, 17 April 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 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Certainly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage.
Anwegmann (
talk) 23:03, 17 April 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 03:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:V. Nothing to suggest this is an actual "community".
AusLondonder (
talk) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete More GNIS nonsense, no information found.
WeirdNAnnoyed (
talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete There are only about 300 vague and passing mentions in the local paper, which is not very many when considering 100+ years of newspaper coverage. None of these provide any detail regarding the place. I'm rather confidant it was just a name of rural area centered around a named crossing of some kind. These three newspaper clippings
[5][6][7] layout the entire history of the county, and couldn't spare more than the two words in the name of the place. This also provides alot of useful info about how towns get created, and the nature of postoffices that is very useful for AFD argument.
James.folsom (
talk) 02:07, 20 April 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, LizRead!Talk! 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:15, 16 April 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 source within the entry is the football player database, I couldn't find other sources, and this football player actually only kicked less than 4 years.
日期20220626 (
talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me.
GiantSnowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Without being able to read, write, or search reasonably in Japanese, I am trusting the nom that they could not find any sources on this player in that language. As I see it, though, a four-year career in the Japanese top flight and nearly 30 total appearances verges on notability.
Anwegmann (
talk) 23:06, 17 April 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. The consensus is to Delete this article. To the editors working on this article, being a Microsoft employee, even a senior employee, doesn't in itself establish notability by Wikipedia standards. LizRead!Talk! 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet.
Cleo Cooper (
talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per G11. Pure puffery, no evidence of notability.
Schrödinger's jellyfish✉ 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
hello. I understand your point but if you check the link to the
Microsoft Alumni website, you will see that all information's in my page are mentioned. I hope you known Microsoft Alumni is an association for Previous Microsoft Members.
Emmanuel T. (
talk) 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) —
Moffo Cartele (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
i've just Updated the sources by adding a direct link for the Microsoft Alumni website. the link shows 80% of the information's on my page are verified.
Emmanuel T. (
talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: PROMO. Independent sources don't count towards notability and the association with Microsoft is a name drop. I don't find sourcing for this person otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
All the link's in the article show that he did not just collaborate with Microsoft but he worked there for almost ten years. I don't really understand your point and i don't think saying the truth can be considered as a kind of PROMO. check the link below
i don't really understand what is wrong about this article sources. as for me, all the sources shows notability of the article. Mercury Dev's
Cartele dev's (
talk) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) —
Cartele dev's (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: A book review (?) here:
[9], but still not enough for author notability.
Oaktree b (
talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
your link show's his old books while the article is talking about his recent books. I think the link's of his recent books available contains all the necessary information's for author notability. Mercury Dev's
Cartele dev's (
talk) 22:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
delete complete and utter vanity spam dumpster filled to the brim with garbage (fake, black hat seo) which is a surprise to exactly no one.
GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While cursory searches have shown some newspaper coverage, I've been unable to verify the reliability of any of them. At the time I stumbled across this article and its AfD, most sources were user-generated (Microsoft wiki..?) and therefore unreliable. I still stand by my earlier speedy delete vote as G11.
Phönedinger's jellyfish II (
talk) 19:16, 20 April 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.
Again, I don't see how a bunch of bored academics+A bunch of very bored journalists with nothing better to write about+a bunch of very bored people with nothing better to talk about=The sex lives and proclivities of a bunch of imaginary people.
Americanfreedom (
talk) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep as this article is currently on the main page (
WP:SKCRIT#6).
Elli (
talk |
contribs) 04:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. This nomination reads like
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no actual reason for deletion has been provided.
Di (they-them) (
talk) 04:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. There are no issues with the quality or notability of this article and
WP:SIGCOV is clearly satisfied here despite the topic being a relatively new internet phenomenon. "it's strange/frivolous" is not a valid deletion rationale. This AfD and
Americanfreedom's repeated (ab)use of the
prod tag is pure
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
(Disclaimer: I have discussed this article off-wiki with its creator,
Generalissima, on several occasions, however, she did not in any way prompt me to participate in this AfD and the opinion expressed here is my own.)
Ethmostigmus (
talk) 04:54, 16 April 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.