Datasets:

hsuvaskakoty
/

wide_analysis

text stringlengths 40 160k	label stringclasses 8 values
Silvaco: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 02:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep While I couldn't find anything about the company other than press releases, I found some coverage of their software in books: Modeling And Electrothermal Simulation Of Sic Power Devices: Using Silvaco© Atlas [27] is entirely about their software, Computational Electronics [28] and Introducing Technology Computer-Aided Design (TCAD) have significant mentions. [29] ~ A412 talk! 01:04, 24 February 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, L iz Read! Talk! 06:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep , found some usable coverage of the company (and not just the software) [30] [31] Mach61 ( talk ) 06:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Silver Cup (band): The most noteworthy coverage the group has received is the interview in V Magazine . The rest of the sources are student and community newspapers that probably do not meet the reliable sources bar. Iago Qnsi ( talk ) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the creator, I'd personally disagree. The coverage in V Magazine , their entry in the SLC public library , and coverage in local papers meets WP:SIGCOV in my eyes (criteria 1 of WP:BAND ). I get that the bar must be high, but I caution from putting it too high. WP:RS doesn't exclude local sources (or even university articles, with the caveat of WP:BAND criteria 1), just says that you must verify a level of editorial standards. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us ) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Utah . – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk ) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per nom. A relatively obscure band that doesn't meet notability standards; though the amount of coverage included in the article does seem decent, and therefore the reason for my "weak" ! vote. CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article is filled with promo spam, including: 7. ^ ""Aquafeed.com \| Silver Cup becomes Skretting US"". www.aquafeed.com. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-24." "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow" Spam ref >> 9. ^ Klaper, Rebecca; Rees, Christopher B. ; Drevnick, Paul; Weber, Daniel; Sandheinrich, Mark; Carvan, Michael J. (2006). "Gene Expression Changes Related to Endocrine Function and Decline in Reproduction in Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) after Dietary Methylmercury Exposure". Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (9): 1337–1343. doi:10.1289/ehp.8786. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1570078. PMID 16966085. but these three sources: 13. ^ "LDS singer David Archuleta tells LGBTQ youths at LoveLoud Festival: 'It's a beautiful thing to be queer'". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 10. ^ Jump up to:a b Fuller, Whit. "Silver Cup's Debut EP is a Dreamy Reflection". The Daily Utah Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Family Band Silver Cup Talks Musical Inspirations and Growing Up in Utah". V Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-13. Show some level of notability. #4 is partly interview, but there is some independent content. Article needs cleanup, but I suspect there are more sources to go with the three above. // Timothy :: talk 04:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Yamini Aiyar: May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Academics and educators , Organizations , Delhi , and United Kingdom . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research ; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF . — Moriwen ( talk ) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No longer the head . Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS . Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits ( T ) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [13] . Phil Bridger ( talk ) 19:49, 1 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 ) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 14:43, 12 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 ) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun ( talk ) 15:43, 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.	keep
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: The person is not elected representative, representing government at any level and sources are also scarce. Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions . Admantine123 ( talk ) 19:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Allahabad High Court is an WP:NPOL qualifying position: specifically, judges who have held... state/province–wide office. They're a judge on the highest court of a state with 241 million inhabitants, this is an easy keep. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan.Judge of the Allahabad High Court is a WP:NPOL qualifying position. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes NJUDGE. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ Let's Talk ! 12:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per others above, a clear-cut WP:NPOL pass. Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Elsa Mars: WP:Before mostly came up were Bustle as a source, which is definitely unreliable from it looks. Greenish Pickle! ( 🔔 ) 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to American Horror Story: Freak Show , sourcing is heavy but all trivial in nature. I will gladly re-evaluate it if new sources are brought to light, but I couldn't find anything myself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' Merge per Zxcvbnm. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic, and WP:BEFORE only shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs . Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Glamour , ScreenRant , Bustle , The Atlantic , EW . There's more--this is all from the first page of the basic Google News search--really minimal effort on my part to find RS coverage, it just kinda all popped up. I have no idea whether merging is a better way of presenting this information, but it seems not, and clearly shouldn't be an AfD-enforced outcome given this variety of sourcing. Jclemens ( talk ) 04:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nom fails to note that Bustle is a case-by-case source per WP:RSP , which should indicate it's generally useful for fictional characters. I'm perplexed by the above descriptions of several of these sources as trivial mentions only--are we all using the same search engine here? Jclemens ( talk ) 04:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We have a decent reception section referenced with secondary sources and more have been found. Thus fullfills the basic requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN , so I see no reason for and no benefit in deletion. Daranios ( talk ) 11:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ( Let's discuss together! ) 07:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with American Horror Story: Freak Show : Per Zxcvbnm. No independent SIGCOV found. The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 03:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How on earth do you conclude that This Atlantic article isn't independent SIGCOV? Jclemens ( talk ) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] (Or, for that matter, this earlier Atlantic article. Jclemens ( talk ) 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) ) [ reply ] Keep per the sources by Jclemens. They are independent, discuss the character at length and show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 04:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens, this should easily pass GNG. I don't think the sources cited are trivial at all. Swordman97 talk to me 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Trap (carriage): This page only defines the term Trap (as a carriage). The only reference is to a phrase finder. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Horse racing . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. Blatant WP:NOTDICT violation. JML1148 ( talk \| contribs ) 08:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Keep I think there may be the content and sourcing available to expand the article to more than just a dictionary definition. JML1148 ( talk \| contribs ) 23:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I added some references that are way more than a dictionary definition. They cover a range of designs for traps. Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So you added six sources to verify the dictionary definition in the article, but the deletion proposal is not based on any doubt that a pony-trap is a type of carriage. The problem with this article is it is very clearly just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is the wrong wikiproject for that. I also note that your sources include two glossaries of terms (just reinforcing WP:NOTDICT arguments), a for-sale listing of a trap, and a stock photo of a trap. I suppose these were all added to reinforce the fact that such carriages are called traps, but they are not WP:RS (clearly) and they are reinforcing something over which there is no doubt. The article still fails per WP:NOTDICT . Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No. It is more than just a dictionary definition. Consider Coupe or Pickup truck . Both are types of motor vehicle, but there are many variations of both. The same is true of Trap (carriage) . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This seems to be a nomination based purely on a current thin state of a stub article and that is not the point of DICDEF. The word is widely used, at least in "pony and trap" as both vehicle and propulsion. Yet what is a "trap"? Does it have 2 wheels or 4? How does it differ from other types of cart? What was it used for? We may not be there as yet, but there is certainly scope here for an encyclopedic article more than a DICDEF, just as we've done for other cart and carriage types. Andy Dingley ( talk ) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per WP:HEY . The article now passes WP:GNG per the included sources. There is probably scope for a general reorganisation of all of the articles on similar types of carriages, but there is no particular reason to delete this page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
McKinsey Quarterly: Mimi Ho Kora ( talk ) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you please explain how this is self-promotion, an advert, and out-of-date? Curbon7 ( talk ) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. -- Randykitty ( talk ) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself. It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK ( talk ) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world. To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD . RPSkokie ( talk ) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK. Passes WP:BKCRIT . Sal2100 ( talk ) 21:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Wizardzz: While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for WP:BAND . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Music , and United States of America . InDimensional ( talk ) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . As is almost always the case with bands reviewed by Pitchfork, there are multiple published works covering the band; for instance, Tiny Mix Tapes reviewed the album, and there is a short bio and a substantial review at Allmusic . Meets WP:MUSIC . Chubbles ( talk ) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 19:31, 26 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.	keep
Death of Anatoly Klyan: WP:BIO1E says: When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Russia , and Ukraine . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 03:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep But this article, Death of Anatoly Klyan , is about the event, as recommended by WP:BIO1E . The event is clearly notable as evidenced in the article. Thincat ( talk ) 22:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . You are saying 'Journalist Dying' is a major role in the event 'Death of Journalist', which is obvious an can be said about pretty much any WP:NOTNEWS topic. Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT : Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths , celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena ) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. All the sources in the article are from exactly June 30, 2014, so it has no lasting coverage. And like written above, deaths/crimes/political news are not notable "unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 06:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:BIO1E is already refuted above. And this article clearly passes WP:GNG . And his death isn't just one of those "most deaths" mentioned; it provoked a global response - from the Russian government and UNESCO. That, plus the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [...] the scope of reporting was global, which WP:EVENTCRIT says helps the case for an article The reporting was exactly during one day , June 30, 2014. No more articles after that. Saying "it helps the case" words things in a way as to not consider the other majority of WP:EVENTCRIT which it clearly fails. Namely: 1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). 3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. 4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Looking at things, not much "helps the case for an article", per WP:EVENTCRIT . बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And you're accusing ME of wikilawyering... In any case, 2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources is satisfied by the multitude of different RS cited for this article - from The Guardian to Al Jazeera. PhotogenicScientist ( talk ) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are saying it meets a single point of WP:EVENTCRIT (as a journalist death covered by major outlets for one day) yet you haven't explained why that makes it also pass 1, 3, 4 (all requiring lasting coverage, which it obviously doesn't have). बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's not a biographical article, It is completely fine to keep the article under the present title and scope. Segaton ( talk ) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . It's not a biographical article Then why is there a subheading called Personal life ? बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I agree with EVENTCRIT. MLee1957 ( talk ) 00:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Shubham Sharma: -- Jax 0677 ( talk ) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : No reason to delete valid dab page just because there is a dab page for the given name. Pam D 08:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, are you saying that it's exceedingly unlikely for an average English reader to ever search for "Shubham Sharma"? Because otherwise this is useful. Also, you can use {{ transclude list }} to reduce duplication between those two lists. -- Joy ( talk ) 09:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . There's more than one article about a person called Shubham Sharma. If there's no primary topic for "Shubham Sharma" then there needs to be a way to disambiguate, and a given name list article isn't good enough (note Shubham is a given name WP:Set index article as opposed to a disambiguation page). See, for example, Kevin Newman doesn't redirect to Kevin ; John Quested doesn't redirect to John . Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Kermet Apio: Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment , Hawaii , and Washington . Pepper Beast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only website with more than a passing mention is My Edmonds News [1] ; has several articles about this person. I'm not sure that's enough Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I see consistent coverage in several local outlets ( Kitsap Sun , Salt Lake Tribute , Tri-City Herald , Hawaii Public Radio ) that suggest he meets GNG, if narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per user WhinyTheYounger. Subject was more of a regional comedian but has performed in 47 states and Canada, as well as Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, and Pakistan , and on Sirius/XM satellite radio. Subject is considered a headlining comedian and has been on Comedy Showcase with Louie Anderson . -- Otr500 ( talk ) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per user WhinyTheYounger. His Comedy special on Youtube has 900K views, suggesting notability. BeFriendlyGoodSir ( talk ) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Catherine Willows: Just because an actor won an award for the portrayal of the character doesn't mean the character themselves are notable. A quick Google search doesn't give many sources to prove the character's notability. I may be wrong, thus this AfD nomination. Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy , and Television . Spinixster (chat!) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Beyond those listed in the article, I found sources on this character in USA Today , Deadline , CBS , ET , CBR (also here ), Screenrant , The Wrap , Collider , and Slate . And that is a preliminary search. I'd imagine there are even more sources out there on her, and think this search only scratches the surface. Historyday01 ( talk ) 16:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep coverage meets GNG, what's more likely needed here is a plot summary trim or condensation, not deletion. Jclemens ( talk ) 16:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I knew we'd eventually get to this considering the trim of CSI characters. However, Catherine actually has a lot of WP:SIGCOV per Historyday01's sources. Ideally, the article can be fixed a bit, but AfD requires a WP:BEFORE search. On whether the article reaches WP:GNG , well the plot summary can be trimmed to include character growth and any reliable recaps. Conyo14 ( talk ) 04:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect . The reception section in the article is bad. Awards are for the actor, not character, then we have listicles / trivial recognition like "number 82 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters" and some pasing comments about her from some episode reviews. This takes me to the soruces found above (from Historyday01), who did not however provide any analysis nor suggest they did anything but WP:GOOGLEHITS report. USAToday is a WP:INTERVIEW with the actor about the character, which means issues with independence. deadline is a short piece about her coming back to the show. So-so. CBS reads like a press release. Sorry, I don't have time to review more sources, but they are not impressive, and I distincly note they are not scholarly but rather at celebrity media level or worse. It is onus on those voting keep to argue there is reliable SIGCOV, not throw a list of links and imply they may or may not be helpful here. This is bad AFD practice. The character may be notable, but nobody has estabilished this, the article does not do it, sources presented here that I reviewed are bad. For now, my vote is to redirect this to the list of characters. Ping me if someone wants to argue there are good sources here to improve this with and I'll reconsider my vote. But right now the sources found seem weak. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 06:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the grounds that large numbers of people are likely to want information on this character and come here looking for it. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ITSUSEFUL Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay, I will. Okay, I did. That was neat. I observe that "It's useful/useless" applies to arguments for keeping/deleting unencyclopedic content, which this is not, and it advises participants to say why the information is useful, which I did. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. Good to stay sharp! Hm, but the fact that you said it might mean that my "why" wasn't clear enough for you. I will improve it! Catherine Willows was one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on what was in its day one of the most popular shows in the United States to the point at which the CSI effect changed the way our legal system works, and very large numbers of people will be interested in finding reliable, encyclopedically written, out-of-universe information about her and will come here to find it. To address what @ Spinixster : says, they'll come here specifically because Wikipedia is not Fandom. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 I am very confused about what you said. Even if the series is very popular, if the character is not notable on their own, they do not warrant a page on Wikipedia. See WP:FICTION . Spinixster (chat!) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, but Jclemens and Conyo14 already showed that she is notable on her own. Once the article passes that threshold, we consider things like whether its existence serves Wikipedia's readership. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 21:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They just agreed with what Historyday said, they did not show that she is notable on her own. I already did an assessment of the sources Historyday has provided below, which you have seen. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Aside from what Piotrus said, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom . Spinixster (chat!) 09:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional specific analysis of the proposed sources would be helpful. "A lot of people would like this" is not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The resources linked by Historyday generally point towards constituting significant coverage. Admittedly, to go through the rest of the sources, the amount of independence does go back and forth throughout the list. The source of "The Wrap" is mainly an interview with the actor, and the "ET" source also includes an interview segment with the character's actress as well, meaning those portions are not completely independent. But even then, the rest of the sources do seem to talk about the character individually, and also create notability for Catherine on her own. The article also supplements this with the actress's thoughts during interviews, which can't be really used as "independent sources", but there's enough there in regards to independence throughout the segments focused solely on the character. As for the reception, it does seem appropriate to include accolades the actress won because the actress and character are effectively linked, so I would maintain it. Utopes ( talk / cont ) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources provided by Historyday01 above pass SIGCOV and she is notable enough to have her own article. The article just needs some fixing. Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 03:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As the nominator, I'd like to do an evaluation on the sources that Historyday provided myself. USA Today, ET and TheWrap are interviews, and thus do not prove notability. CBS is the actor's biography: notice how the url says "csi-vegas/cast/216685/" and CSI is a CBS show. First ScreenRant article talks about the show, CSI: Vegas, rather than the character. Obviously, for a major character, she will be mentioned a lot in articles relating to the show, but that does not prove notability of the individual character ( MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) Second ScreenRant article talks about how the aforementioned spinoff of CSI has "wasted" the character. While it does focus on the character's storylines, I don't see how this proves that the character is notable. (also MOS:TRIVIA , WP:NOTTVTROPES ) CBR is similar to the second ScreenRant article. Deadline and Collider are similar to the second ScreenRant article, but about the character's return to the new series. Slate is an opinion piece about the character, which can be used for the Reception section, but other than that is not enough to prove the character's individual notability. I would like to remind you that just because the show is notable doesn't mean that the major characters are. Just because there are multiple sources about the character's appearances on the show does not mean that the character is inherently notable; this is something I've learned myself. I want future voters to keep this in mind before making a decision. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent summary. I found a few hits on Google Scholar. I added one to the article and listed the others on the talk page. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first article I cannot access without paying :(, the third article is a just a mention, the fourth one is also not significant coverage. However, the second article is quite interesting and at least passes a partial if not all the way. It comes from the Texas State Library as a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Research on Women and Gender . Granted the entire article discusses crimes against women as portrayed by the show vs the crimes against men and then analyzes the issues, but it does use Catherine Willows attack against her as a prime example. Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for using what access you have to evaluate the sources that I couldn't reach. I was expecting that they wouldn't all be hits. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 23:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Since it seems like you would be interested in improving the article, I would recommend checking out MOS:FICTION . In short, it should have more information about the real-life aspects of the character and less WP:CRUFT . The article also lacks references. If you need more examples, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content . Spinixster (chat!) 08:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not clear how you find this article to deviate from MOS:FICTION. Which issue causes you to believe that the article should be deleted? Right now, improvements should focus on keeping its head above water rather than perfecting the swim stroke. Darkfrog24 ( talk ) 15:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Darkfrog24 Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I was just saying that because you were interested in improving the article, I did not say it was needed, but it would be preferred. I did a WP:BEFORE search and many of the results were much like the sources Historyday has given, so I started an AfD debate to debate on whether or not the article is notable. I have said in the nomination that I may be wrong, I never said I was correct. Spinixster (chat!) 15:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
VFL Development League: The seven references currently present are a handful of WP:ROUTINE sources describing a couple of key moments in this league's 90-year history; but there is no non-database reference which describes this league in any significant or holistic way. From my extensive experience editing on articles about the VFA/VFL seniors (this article covers the reserves team for that league), I do not believe the necessary SIGCOV exists, and even Fiddian, Marc (2004); The VFA; A History of the Victorian Football Association 1877–1995 – a book widely considered the best overall compendium on all things VFA/VFL – covers the topic of the Development League only in a couple of end-of-book reference lists (list of premiers, list of best-and-fairest winners, list of leading goalkickers) with little in the way of prose. The subject is adequately, and with due weight, covered in Victorian_Football_League#Seconds/reserves as is. Aspirex ( talk ) 11:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 11:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think GNG is clearly met by the press coverage, and merging this into the VFL article would lose the reference tables which you would expect to find in an encyclopedia - and as the nom notes, were still worthy enough to be referenced in the compendium. Simply put, it's properly sourced, notable enough, and deleting the article makes Wikipedia worse. SportingFlyer T · C 15:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Shocker that I'm saying keep but yeah it's referenced properly and I think - similar to the new AFL reserves page - we'll have more info added soon to really differentiate it from what it was as a small section on the main VFL page Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk ) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 18:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think AfD is the right venue here – surely the decision is keep or merge, not keep or delete. – Tera tix ₵ 04:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, this was listed at the wrong deletion category - this is the wrong football code. However, article seems to have some sourcing, and it clearly seems like a notable league to me. Keep. Paul Vaurie ( talk ) 22:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports . Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Clearly passes GNG; the League is definitely notable IMHO. Ekdalian ( talk ) 07:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Rising Shore Roanoke: Skyerise ( talk ) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This novel did not get wide distribution, but it is a book that was discussed on radio shows and had some circulation. I would think this meets the guidelines for an article. I updated the article to include interviews with the author and reviews of the book. Klok000 ( talk ) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That review you added, "Bookpleasures" is not the kind of source that we should cite. Interviews with the author don't help either. The novel is self-published, though the article doesn't say that, and I don't think the author can make a claim for notability. Delete . Drmies ( talk ) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources . Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says: A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources , at least one of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Sources Bird-Guilliams, Mary Kay (August 2007). "Homsher, Deborah. The Rising Shore--Roanoke" . Library Journal . Vol. 132, no. 13. p. 68. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Gale . The review notes: "The invented portions are believable, including the ending--you can debate the details, but it seems quite logical. ... Lots of violence and tragedy in this version of early American history; most public libraries will want to purchase for readers who enjoyed Jane Smiley's The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton." Riddle, Mary Ellen (2007-08-24). "Author's Lost Colony solution is intriguing" . The Virginian-Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "What truly sings in Homsher's work is her amazing ability to understand life. On every page, she analyzes it with a powerful voice. One is astounded to find that the words are unique and apt. ... Homsher writes about women like Elenor who have been involved in American adventure and faced violence. In the end, she crafts a solution to The Lost Colony. It flowered in the mind of a gifted writer." Jacobs, Meredith (2008-03-09). "Tangled love, a Christian trilogy" . The Fayetteville Observer . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "Deborah Homsher, a journalist and author, has written “The Rising Shore — Roanoke.” The novel tells what two women might have experienced as members of the Lost Colony. The story is told from the viewpoint of Elenor Dare, the mother of the first English child born in North America, and her servant, Margaret Lawrence." "The Fiction Shelf: The Rising Shore Roanoke" . Small Press Bookwatch . Vol. 6, no. 4. Midwest Book Review . April 2007. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The article notes: "The Rising Shore Roanoke is a novel of the famous lost American colony, from the perspectives of two women who sailed from London to the shore of Virginia's wilderness in 1587. The adventurous daughter of the expedition's leader chafes at the societal restraints placed upon her gender, while her female servant dares to walk an independent path among the struggling colony. Their journey will take them through the Caribbean and climax in the Outer Banks region of North America. An enthralling saga of a colony presumed doomed, due to historical record of its founder's return from a three-year supply trip to find nothing left of the settlement except the word "Croatoan" carved on a post." Newman, Janis Cooke (2008-01-20). "Faye Dasen: Novel About Mary Lincoln Is a Keeper" . The Pilot . Archived from the original on 2024-01-07 . Retrieved 2024-01-07 . The review notes: "Homsher's historical fiction tells the story of the voyage and settlement via the points of view of Elenor White Dare and Margaret Lawrence, her servant. Elenor, who is an intelligent woman, marries Ananias Dare simply so she can make the journey with her father, John White. She and Margaret both have dreams of bettering themselves in some way. ... Homsher has a way with words." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Rising Shore – Roanoke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline , which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard ( talk ) 05:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources provided by @ Cunard are sufficient for WP:NBOOK . ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me! 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources located. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] comment I don't do book deletion discussions as a rule, but I note that the article ought to be at The Rising Shore — Roanoke , which is the actual title of the book. Mangoe ( talk ) 23:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in line with the references so wonderfully found and added, and support renaming per Mangoe. -- Ouro ( blah blah ) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd probably avoid using the Midwest Book Review source given the criticisms in the Wikipedia article, notably that they were basically accused of being a positive review mill. Other than that, I think that there are enough reviews to establish notability. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Abideen Olasupo: Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions . Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria . Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Deeper search revealed nothing. Chamaemelum ( talk ) 15:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and recent changes to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I'm gonna go keep on this one. Appears to meet WP:NBASIC . Policy-based rationale follows. The rules: Per NBASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. WP:SIGCOV clarifies that "significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As we are ultimately here to decide collectively whether an administrator should use the extraordinary power of deletion to remove this article from the wiki, we must as always be mindful to resolve all doubts against deletion , and to apply the rules flexibly in support of our encyclopedic purpose . The sources: It should be noted at the outset that search results may have been skewed by West African naming practices -- as in the article itself, the subject's name is written "Abideen Olasupo" about as often as "Olasupo Abideen". I'm seeing three categories of potentially relevant sources: (1) actual profiles, one unusable and one possibly usable; (2) interviews and mentions that are largely irrelevant to NBASIC but tend to show the subject's encyclopedic significance and likely relevance to readers, which may be relevant at the margins; (3) coverage of various political and journalistic initiatives in which Olasupo has played significant roles, containing coverage of the subject that is significant although perhaps not substantial and can be combined under NBASIC. 1. Profiles: the first source is the worst. The "Foundation for Investigative Journalism", which might easily be confused with other orgs with similar names, appears to be a project of Fisayo Soyombo with, at best, no clear track record of reliability. That delightfully thorough profile must therefore be cast aside. However, Olasupo has also been the subject of another profile, this one in the The Nation Online . Weighing in at 366 words, it contains substantial biographical information. However, as the "hook" for the profile is Olasupo's past work as a reporter for that newspaper, some might prefer to disregard this source as insufficiently independent. (I do not believe that is warranted, but let's move on.) 2. Neither substantial nor significant, but still illuminating: cited by CNN as a public policy analyst , interviewed by the (UK) Guardian on world youth poll , profiled by Tony Elumelu Foundation for COVID19 fact-checking initiative in 2020 , interviewed on his election fact-checking work in 2023 . 3. Significant though not substantial: Numerous independent reliable sources discuss Olasupo in the context of his FactCheck Elections initiative: [1] , [2] , [3] . Earlier, he received frequent attention as a leader of the Not Too Young To Run initiative in Kwara state: [4] , [5] (contains but is not limited to quotes), [6] . There was also some coverage of his attendance at COP26 : [7] , [8] . Various outlets have covered his appearance at the UN ECOSOC Youth Forum in 2023: [9] , [10] . (I have not attempted to compile a complete list.) None of these require OR to extract the content, and all can therefore properly be combined under NBASIC. Conclusion: Olasupo has been the recipient of sufficiently widespread coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, that it is appropriate and consistent with our encyclopedic purpose to combine the available sources under NBASIC. -- Visviva ( talk ) 03:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you Visviva . I am also agreeing to Keep this per basic . Okoslavia ( talk ) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Emily Piriz: Fails WP:NSINGER . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Women , Television , and Florida . Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - If she only placed 12th on American Idol , then I could understand redirecting this. But she also placed on La Voz . I don't believe that redirecting is the right course for subjects that have gained notability for participating in multiple series. -- Jpcase ( talk ) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I can't access the Telemundo article but reading the headline I think it may amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk ) 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jack4576 and Jpace's decisions. CastJared ( talk ) 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per norm Dancing Dollar ( let's talk ) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Shaun Collier: I do not believe that Ajax's mayoralty is significant enough to automatically award its holder sufficient notability, nor that Collier has otherwise garnered sufficient notability. SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada . SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . DreamRimmer ( talk ) 04:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He has a lot of articles covering his work as mayor including sustained controversies and actions taken during COVID. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Ajax is a large enough city (over 100K) to qualify its mayor as notable. Lots of independent reliable sources referenced in the article. And even if that's not enough to deem notability, his controversies have made national news; the sources in this article are not just local. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Earl Andrew Population alone does not make a city of that size politically notable enough to afford their mayor instant notability by virtue of their office. SecretName101 ( talk ) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case, judge the article by its sources, of which there are plenty, are reliable sources, significant, and many in national scope. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Reliability of sources does not transfer notability. reliable sources publish stories every day that cover subjects that don’t meet notability standards. You have to parse the substance of WHAT the stories/coverage assert about the subject and whether that distinguishes them as having notability. I am pretty unconvinced that the stories cited in this article do that. SecretName101 ( talk ) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I don't think such mayor's are automatically notable - but he was getting national mentions two decades ago when he was elected to council. More significantly is the recent national coverage related to his opposition to Doug Ford 's misuse of Minister's Zoning Orders . I'm surprised this was nominated given the nationally-covered controversy over the Duffins Creek wetland. Nfitz ( talk ) 23:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Bruno Holzträger: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads per WP:NOLY . Geschichte ( talk ) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @ Nenea hartia : Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant ? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times. As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul , and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries. Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Nenea hartia : That book source is a nice find - with 49 mentions of him, it's almost certainly significant coverage on Holztrager; as for the others, looking at the one clipping, it seems to be mainly an interview? Unfortunately I don't think it would help much. Do any of the other matches for his name cover him in-depth? BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BeanieFan11 : There are a couple. Please use the same link , I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee. There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk ) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the great finds by Nenea hartia, especially the book that mentions him on 49 pages and the last two newspaper articles; his obit mentions that he was one of the "greatest handball players in the world in the 1930s" and the other one is an in-depth piece on his life almost 20 years after he died. We've got enough for a pass of WP:GNG . @ Geschichte and FA Myn J : BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , he is clearly notable. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 ( talk ) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Birds of Prey (1973 film): The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews. Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Film , and Utah . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But does it meet WP:NFILM ? At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV . Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them? Both are significant coverage. I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions. RecycledPixels ( talk ) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4. One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia. SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention." Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace. Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk ) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now [61] — siro χ o 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is a review at DVD Talk [62] Donald D23 talk to me 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Have enough references of reviews with good coverage. Strivedi1 ( talk ) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] I have added a couple more references. There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers. — siro χ o 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 07:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Otto Spoerri: Almost 100% of the Google results for him are of his obituary. There is only one Google result from before his death, a passing mention in a 1999 Entertainment Weekly article . There have been only three passing mentions of him ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) in reliable sources since his death per Google. There is absolutely no depth to any of this "coverage," if it can be called that. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Film , and Entertainment . Dennis C. Abrams ( talk ) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep . Who said obituaries did not count??? Substantial coverage in Los Angeles Times , The Denver Post , The Times , The Wall Street Journal , The Philadelphia Inquirer , The San Diego Union-Tribune , Variety (magazine) .... .and that’s only a one-click list.... Please.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . It's not the first time I've seen complaints about obituaries, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them (at least in the context of notability). Especially when it's a RS. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Incest in literature: WP:NOTTVTROPES . If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Literature , Popular culture , Sexuality and gender , and Lists . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The subject is absolutely notable, without the faintest doubt. There are scholarly books on the subject [42] [43] , the subject is of interest to very reliable newspapers (The Guardian) [44] which makes the point that this goes back to Sophocles and Oedipus Rex. I can see that the current article is basically an extended list and needs drastic sorting-out, but I don't think the existing information is of zero use to anyone who wants to make improvements, so I cannot recommend a TNT delete. This is one of those situations where the encyclopaedia would benefit from more improvement and less deletion. Finding good sources on this is ridiculously easy. Elemimele ( talk ) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions . • Gene93k ( talk ) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Best case scenario, the utterly ridiculous example farm that is spread across three different articles should be removed, and a singular article on the topic of "Cultural depictions of incest", or something like that, should be generated instead, using the sources like the ones Elemimele presented. The current state of the articles are such a mess, though, that there's not a super simple way to do this. As both the nom mentioned, and backed up by Elemimele's comment, this one is in marginally better shape than the other two, so I suppose my suggestion would be to Redirect the other two articles here, and use this one as the base of a rewrite. Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article has been rewritten, therefore I am changing to Keep per WP:HEY . ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve. I support Rorshacma 's scenario. The topic is notable as shown by Elemimele , and therefore does not fail WP:NLIST / WP:GNG . There are some references/referenced comments to preserve here. Daranios ( talk ) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No criteria or scope. Purely list cruft. ScriptKKiddie ( talk ) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I agree that this is pure listcruft. There is almost no prose in it whatsoever outside of bullet points. But the title in no way indicates that this is a list article, so it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to stubify it. We can leave a link to this historical version of the article on the talk page for anyone who thinks the lists would be helpful for future expansion. Any objection to handling it in this way? I'll happily write up a stub about the topic in general, but I don't want to do that unilaterally while the AfD is ongoing. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering : Sounds fine to me and in the vein of Rorshacma 's suggestions. Thanks! But please be aware of this parallel discussion . Daranios ( talk ) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for that. I'll get on it a bit later today unless anyone has an objection in the meantime. -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Go for it, that's the constructive way of applying WP:TNT . If you wait, this could be hard deleted (I prefer soft delete myself, some tidbits from history might be useful for someone). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ps. To be constructive, I volunteer to translate the referenced seciton on Japanese literature from Japanese Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be out of scope for literature but it is only about novels and manga, not about anime or other media as I initially thought, so it should fit into the 'literature' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I've stubbed it. Unfortunately I don't have online access to that contemporary lit book Elemimele found, so I couldn't use it as the basis for a stub. There's much more that can be done, obviously, but I've got to take a break for now. Honestly, I don't think there's much useful at all in the previous version; I grabbed the only examples that I thought would be useful in an overview article. -- asilvering ( talk ) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Asilvering That book seems accessible through Wikipedia Library: link (if it does not work, go to WL, OUP collection, and just seearch for the book title). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw . The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and rewritten, addressing all of my concerns. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Aviv String Quartet: - Altenmann >talk 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC per the following significant coverage in reliable sources: Kozinn, Allan (2007-10-23). "A Substitute Steps Up, an Ensemble Settles In" . The New York Times . (Concert review) Adams, Martin (2000-05-12). "Aviv String Quartet Masonic Hall, Molesworth Street, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Dervan, Michael (2001-06-08). "Aviv String Quartet Law Society, Blackhall Place, Dublin" . Irish Times . (Concert review) Ashley, Tim (2004-01-07). "Aviv String Quartet" . The Guardian . Retrieved 2024-01-11 . (Concert review) There's more, but that's more than enough to establish notability. Jfire ( talk ) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Concert reviews are not significant coverage. They say almost nothing about ensemble itself. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree. Concert reviews often contain analysis and critical commentary, which does constitute significant coverage, particularly in the genre of classical music, where concert reviews are one of the primary venues for music criticism. Here's an excerpt from the Guardian review: Aviv String Quartet, founded in 1997, is rapidly emerging as one of today's finest chamber ensembles. Rich, warm and distinctive in sound, their playing combining technical exactitude with instinctive emotional intensity. Their methodology is often striking. With many quartets, the first violinist tends to be the principal figure. Here, however, the second violinist Evgenia Epshtein and viola player Shuli Waterman are predominant, anchoring their performances in rhythmic and harmonic density and gradually prising the music open from within, while the leader, Sergey Ostrovsky and cellist Rachel Mercer weave gracious tendrils of sound around them. Not only is this significant coverage, the fact that this ensemble has concert reviews in major general-audience newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times is strong evidence that it will have also been covered in specialist publications such as The Strad -- and hey, look: [49] , [50] . Jfire ( talk ) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What you cited is an advert. The only fact is that it was founded in 1977. - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The excerpt I posted was written by Tim Ashley , a classical and opera critic for The Guardian . It is not an advertisement. Jfire ( talk ) 03:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Examples provided by Jfire are sufficient to establish notability. Marokwitz ( talk ) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Substantial coverage through critical reviews. Also, the intro does not contain a valid reason to delete. Instead of after the fact inisting that a critical review is an advertisement, why not do a solid BEFORE ahead of nomination? It's not the case that there are insufficient AfD nominations! WP:SNOW outside and here. gidonb ( talk ) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : easily meets GNG. A search shows up plenty more concert reviews and other good sources, but those above already meet GNG. Additionally, I found this quite substantial programming of Shostakovich quartets on BBC Radio 3 , which aired the quartet's recordings over several days on a national radio station. Schminnte [ talk to me ] 10:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Heer Da Hero: We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions . Shellwood ( talk ) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer : Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep meets WP:GNG . Coverage in Daily Times ( [2] ) and Dawn ( [3] ) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 ( talk ) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 188.29.129.61 , I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn , signed by Sadaf Haider , and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": " This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show. .- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib ( talk ) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mushy Yank , But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib ( talk ) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 ( talk ) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used . — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177	keep
Cyriac Abby Philips: Most of the sources cited have only his tweets and the controversy surrounding it. A Google search mostly returns articles with only his tweets in it. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness , Medicine , and Kerala . Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is someone who got in-depth coverage from ThePrint , and whose alleged professional misconduct was covered by an article in The Hindu . Yes, it is true that some of the news articles cited as sources are about claims that the subject made in his tweets, but The Hindustan Times and Mint (newspaper) are good sources who wrote about his tweets because either (a) he is significant or (b) what he is saying seemed to be significant. It is also interesting that his paper in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology was withdrawn because "the scientific methodology, analysis and interpretation of data underlying the article were insufficient for the conclusions drawn, and, with its removal, the article can no longer be relied upon." Being the subject of an article in Wikipedia is not meant to be a mark of approval or praise. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, D u s t i Let's talk! 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as "The Liver Doc" (Twitter: @theliverdr) is a clinician scientist, senior consultant and certified liver disease specialist based at The Liver Institute, Rajagiri Hospital, Kochi, Kerala. His core clinical work and research focus is on severe alcoholic liver disease and drug induced liver injury in the context of Indian traditional systems of medicine. His pioneering work has been the introduction of stool transplant for salvaging patients dying from severe alcohol-related hepatitis and also disruptive peer-reviewed publications that showcases the adverse impact of traditional Indian healthcare practices such as Ayurveda, Siddha and also Homeopathy on public health. Dr. Abby currently is the most published research on Indian systems of medicine related liver injury (called Ayush-liver injury) in the world and has been invited to faculty position on the Guidelines Committee of the Asia-Pacific Association for Study of the Liver (APASL) - Drug Induced Liver Injury consortium. He uses social media to promote evidence based medicine, empathetic care and improve scientific temper on informed healthcare decisions by using his own disruptive peer reviewed medical publications. He is also the winner of the President of India Gold in Hepatology, awarded by the Late (Hon) President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi in 2016. Dr Abby is a three-time American Association for the Study of Liver (AASLD) clinical research plenary and four-time AASLD Young Investigator Award winner, the only Young investigator Hepatologist to do so from India and Asian continent. The Indian Society of Gastroenterology awarded the National Award (Om-Prakash Memorial Rising Star) to Dr Abby in 2022. Dr Abby is a prolific researcher with over 170 peer-reviewed publications in major Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals with over 2300 citations. Dr Abby has been extensively featured by almost all major Indian Media and prominent International Media on his professional, personal and academic work including Germany’s news media behemoth Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider. The Week Magazine featured him as the top “Influencer Doctor” from India in their special feature, and The Hindu featured him on their Special issue on “People Waging War on Medical Science Misinformation.” 49.37.226.196 ( talk ) 16:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly mention the sources for the claims you have made. It will be useful for other editors to make a decision on this. I still think he is a mere internet personality than a notable one. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you read what he/she wrote, you will see that he/she did. Some of the sources he/she mentioned are already cited in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read it and that's why I asked for the source(s). Whatever he/she has written apart from what already exists on the article looks like original research to me. I did look for "Der Spiegel and Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, and The Insider, but only found the insider which is a trivial mention once again. And an IP editor with no other contributions comes and drops 3 paragraphs with 0 refs? Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is an article from Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post in the references in the article. Maybe that is the one the IP editor is talking about. Though it is possible that the South China Morning Post has done more than one article about Cyriac Abby Philips. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I may be wrong here but the South China Morning Post's article revolves around a controversial tweet by him. He has significant coverage just from controversial tweets as a whole. Also, I just checked Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) and feel he may pass one of the criteria listed on it. Jeraxmoira ( talk ) 13:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep – might be the Heymann Standard in action again based on what I have seen so far. The sourcing is very extensive from locally mostly-reputable sources, clearly demonstrating fulfillment of the GNG to me. Invading Invader ( userpage , talk ) 00:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please can someone do a source analysis Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Soso Baike: No zh interwiki, no Chinese name. English name appears in a few places according to my BEFORE but only in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 11:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Basic confirmation it exists [6] and [7] . Most hits in Google are wiki mirrors. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to Soso_(search_engine) which briefly references it. In Chinese Wikipedia this redirects to Sogou Baike [8] but we don't have an article for that. Oblivy ( talk ) 00:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : From zh:搜狗百科 , it sounds like this was a former name of Sogou Baike , which is surely notable. If that's right, then the article should be moved to Sogou Baike , or at worst redirected to Sogou . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep and rename to Sogou Baike @ Mx. Granger 's suggestion makes sense. In fact, the Chinese version was moved from Soso Baike to Sogou Baike in 2014 [9] . Changing my vote to keep and rename. If a consensus was to emerge around merging with Sogou with a redirect I'd be OK with that too. Comment . Interwikis have now been added by User:Yinweiaiqing . I will be happy to see it rescued, although the sources in the zh article don't seem to be very strong - one is Baidu, one is the company itself, the two others are, well, hard to judge for me b/c of the language barrier. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 09:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to the Sogou Baike article is ok. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to Sogou Baike , although I remember it under its original branding. First source at zh:搜狗百科 (the 163 article) is fine; the rest are basically OR. The permanent dead link on the zh.wp article also just needs a domain name update, but I haven't fixed it. It's a primary source anyway. Folly Mox ( talk ) 09:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
List of private schools in San Jose, California: Incomplete and uncited article. 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists . 777burger user talk contribs 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : It is a list of nine Wikipedia articles. Articles are assumed notable until deleted when it comes to list inclusion. Basically, it is just a category in list form, and those are usually kept per WP:NOTDUP . If it drops down to below four or five entries, then I would probably support deletion. Why? I Ask ( talk ) 03:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , meets the purpose criterion of NLIST as a navigational list. — siro χ o 05:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are 9 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. D r e a m Focus 17:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Moral delete (or redirect to the category page, since this has nothing beyond a bare listing) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization . No navigational purpose is served by its existence. Why can't public and private schools be on the same page? Why make a list at the city level instead of the county level? Too many arbitrary decisions to warrant keeping. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Category:Lists of schools in California All of these wouldn't fit well on a single page. If the private and public schools in a county fit together, then by all means merge them. D r e a m Focus 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Useful navigational aid. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable ( talk ) 14:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Basehor-Linwood High School: Article and BEFORE showed no independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Routine local news mentions, database records, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Kansas . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I need to look longer at this, but initial searches show it mentioned in 11 research papers, multiple books (although initial thoughts are these are mostly directories) and many newspaper articles (but per nom, these could be routine). There's a lot of reading to do. But I will just make a point now that this page was only created today. Yes, it was not exactly created in a good state, but couldn't something have been put on the talk page in the first instance? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A quick look at newspapers.com finds that Basehor-Linwood High School was the result of a merger of Basehor High School and Linwood High School in approximately 1966. Newspapers.com shows approximately 3700 results for Basehor High School, dating back to at least 1930. It shows about 2500 for Linwood High School (limited to Kansas), also dating back to 1930. If shows approximately 1700 articles for Basehor-Linwood High School. It would be very surprising if these nearly 8,000 newspaper articles didn't provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Jacona ( talk ) According to this non-reliable source, Basehor High School has roots back to 1885 under the name Prairie Gardens, so we're talking about nearly a century and a half of history to peruse. Jacona ( talk ) 23:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . After wading through a small portion of the material available on newspapers.com, it is readily apparent that there is significant coverage in WP:RS which WP:NEXISTs to meet WP:GNG . I've added a very small portion of this to the article. There are currently 13 references. Many more are available. The difficulty is that there are so many references to wade through to find the ones that are useful. In 150 years, there are probably a lot more sources offline than there are online. These count, but they are hard to find. Jacona ( talk ) 02:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Per Jacona, and WP:HEY as the article is already in much improved state and passes WP:GNG . There is a lot to wade through, but there clearly are multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 06:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of strong, non-transactional sources. Easy meet on GNG. Thanks to Jacona for the HEY , and I think a withdraw from TimothyBlue would be very appropriate. 4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 03:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:GNG . -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per HEY. Great job. Bearian ( talk ) 01:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Datangshan: The location itself is not notable. DirtyHarry991 ( talk ) 02:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and China . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: The relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND . Does Datangshan pass WP:GEOLAND ? Datangshan is a hill and village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , where it is mentioned. Xiaotangshan, Beijing is a possible redirect target if Datangshan found to be non-notable. Here are two sources I found: "北京小汤山，热气腾腾的疗愈之地" [Xiaotangshan, Beijing, a steaming place of healing]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). 2022-01-25. Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: "北京城北约40里，有一座由三个山峰组成的独立小山，山形如笔架，因有温泉泉眼，被古人命名为“大汤山”。大汤山以西约一千米处，有三个低矮山丘，也有温泉，被称为“小汤山”。在因抗疫而被载入史册之前，小汤山就是著名的疗愈之地，并受到多位皇帝青睐，也是民国时的旅游胜地。" From Google Translate: "About 40 miles north of Beijing, there is an independent hill composed of three peaks. The mountain is shaped like a pen stand. It was named "Datang Mountain" by the ancients because of its hot springs. About one thousand meters west of Datang Mountain, there are three low hills and hot springs, which are called "Xiaotang Mountain". Before it was recorded in history for its anti-epidemic work, Xiaotangshan was a famous healing place and was favored by many emperors. It was also a tourist attraction during the Republic of China." Wang, Jiucheng 王久成 (2023-06-23). "北京小湯山" [Beijing Xiaotangshan]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-12 . Retrieved 2023-11-12 . The article notes: 小湯山村發展成小湯山鎮，幾乎人所共知；殊不知還有一個鮮為人知的大湯山村，明代已經形成村落。村北有一個一百三十餘米高的山丘，與小湯山村一樣因山丘得名。原來大湯山村水資源豐富，山腳下有多處泉眼，泉水常年流淌不斷，溫度攝氏二十度左右，足以供村民生活和灌溉附近的農田所用。曾有諺語說：「大湯山好地方，山清水秀好風光。蔬菜四季有，花果滿山崗；池塘黑泥藕兒白，山下熱水稻兒香。」自然資源並非無窮盡，一九六○年代水源枯竭。大湯山村隸屬小湯山鎮，距小湯山村很近，雖然也有些企業單位入住，但村的境況遠不如小湯山村。 From Google Translate: Xiaotangshan Village developed into Xiaotangshan Town, which is almost known to everyone; but little-known is that there is also a little-known Datangshan Village, which was already formed as a village in the Ming Dynasty. There is a hill more than 130 meters high in the north of the village. Like Xiaotangshan Village, it is named after the hill. It turns out that Datangshan Village is rich in water resources. There are many springs at the foot of the mountain. The spring water flows continuously all year round. The temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius, which is enough for the villagers to live and irrigate nearby farmland. A proverb once said: "Datang Mountain is a good place, with clear mountains and beautiful scenery. Vegetables are available all year round, and the hills are full of flowers and fruits; the ponds are black and the mud is white, and the rice is fragrant in the hot water at the foot of the mountain." Natural resources are not endless. In the 1960s, Water sources dry up. Datangshan Village is affiliated to Xiaotangshan Town and is very close to Xiaotangshan Village. Although some corporate units have moved in, the village's situation is far inferior to that of Xiaotangshan Village. Cunard ( talk ) 10:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND per Hzh's rationale below. Cunard ( talk ) 05:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 04:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second opinion on these new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Datangshan looks to be an officially recognized and populated village in Xiaotangshan, Beijing , [55] [56] therefore should qualify under WP:GEOLAND which, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything against the inclusion of a village. If anyone disapprove of a village being considered notable, then that should be taken at the talk page at WP:Notability (geographic features) . Hzh ( talk ) 18:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per User:Hzh . — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs ) 02:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Dan Reisner: I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 15 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 12:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Artists , and Israel . Shellwood ( talk ) 14:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Sources 3, 5 and 9 are about a sculpture he made, seems to pass as an artist. Just notable. Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Oaktree is correct. Reliable sources currently in the article giving significant coverage include The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and The Jerusalem Post. Elspea756 ( talk ) 20:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per Okatree. Marokwitz ( talk ) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Passes the WP:GNG . New user. Not sure why they chose to nominate a notable sulptor. gidonb ( talk ) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I'm having trouble finding notable museums that have collected his work, but it isn't necessary; the sources in the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:GNG by providing reliable independent in-depth coverage of him. — David Eppstein ( talk ) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Independent coverage is more than adequate. Kablammo ( talk ) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The editor who started this AFD has a ... bizarre editing history to say the least and I've blocked them as an obvious sock (the quacking is deafening). Graham87 ( talk ) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for taking action, Graham87 ! Can you also snow keep? There are two more discussions in the Israel queue that can use a speedy snow delete. At one I haven't ! voted, just miss the button. gidonb ( talk ) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Gidonb : Didn't think of that; will do. Graham87 ( talk ) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.	keep
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh: Unreferenced for 17 years and fails GNG. Would reconsider if someone found coverage in Hindi or Marathi. LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maharashtra . LibStar ( talk ) 05:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - first of all, what WP:BEFORE was performed here? There is certainly sufficient material available in English to establish notability. Take for example, Hindustan Times , "Apart from a rise in wages, the union also demanded the scrapping of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a law that allowed only one trade union – Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) – to function. For long, industrial workers had accused RMMS of being hand in glove with owners. " Economic and Political Weekly , "...Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which has enjoyed the right of being the sole bargaining agent for all textile workers in Bombay, [...]" Indian Express , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS),the recognised union of mill workers." The Western Political Quarterly (1958) "...governments for their existence. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh. (RMMS) of Bombay City serves as the major exception to this dual classification and thus constitutes a third type of textile union . In comparison with the “ weak areas " the RMMS is thoroughly entrenched in its legal "representative " status and enjoys a significant degree of independence from political ties ." Economic Times , "The Hindoostan Spinning and Weaving Mills cleared the last tranche of its dues amounting to Rs 3 crore payable to workers belonging to the companyâ€™s Mahalaxmi unit. The mill has 3 units in Mumbai at Mahalaxmi, Dadar and Prabhadevi. Following an agreement signed with the official union the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) in â€˜02, around 2,000 workers opted for VRS." India Today , "But Salunke is steadfast in his support for firebrand union leader Datta Samant, the one man most responsible for the unprecedented strike. "We are prepared to go back to work even if our monetary demands are not conceded," he says. "But the Government must recognise Samant's union as the legitimate one, and kick the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) out of our lives." DNA , "The Congress party had nurtured its “chamcha” union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), and mill owners colluded with it to engineer ... [...] the Khatau saga that had “all the ingredients of a ‘Mollywood’ blockbuster, replete with guns, gangland killings and the subversion of unions." Rediff , "In November 2000, a final agreement on a voluntary retirement scheme was arrived at between the Indian National Trade Unions Congress-affiliated Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and the managements of the Standard Mill (Prabhadevi) and New China Mill (Sewri). Naik and 3,550 others took VRS but got the money only after two years" Hindustan Times , "Ahir, who began his career as a trade union leader, once led the powerful Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), the only recognised union of ..." Economic Times , "While the officially-recognised Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS) is supporting the land development plans, the Left-leaning unions have ..." The Indian Labour Year Book (1948) , ""The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Bombay, handled 218 cases during the year 1948 and realised Rs. 90,911 as compensation. Both the unions have opened special branches to attend all matters relating the claims and to render assistance to all workers whether members of the Union or not", p. 347 indicates a membership of 20,462. The Politics of Labor in a Global Age: Continuity and Change in Late , "Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (National Mill Workers' Union). Under the corporatist Bombay Industrial Relations Act of 1946, a single trade union is ..." Outcaste Bombay: City Making and the Politics of the Poor , "... Bombay Industrial Dispute Act of 1946. The RMMS thus became an important presence in the lives of the workers by the end of the 1940s." The Power of Place: Contentious Politics in Twentieth-Century Shanghai and Bombay , "... Bombay shut down and 250,000 workers (full-time and badli) went out on strike. The Maharashtra government declared the strike illegal. Labor officials and mill owners refused to discuss terms with any union other than the RMMS." Organising Labour in Globalising Asia , "... RMMS is the most extreme example of this phenomenon in Bombay.7 The power of the RMMS was first created by recognition under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, but was boosted by legislation restricting the closure of mills that ..." The Emergence of an Industrial Labor Force in India , "... RMMS is shaped by its legal status under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ( 1946 ) . The view is frequently put forth by government , labor , and management officials in Bombay that the RMMS would even collapse without this ..." A Study of the Labor Movement and Industrial Relations in the Cotton Textile Industry in Bombay, India , "... ( R. M. M. S. ) , Bombay -- the name the organization bears today . The Sangh started a determined effort to remove the Red Flag organization from its position of leader of the Bombay textile workers . Its prestige was greatly enhanced by ..." Bombay Brokers , "... Bombay mill workers to lead them in a conflict between the Bombay Millowners Association and the union: the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), which had represented the mill workers for decades. This led to a complete shutdown of the ..." Workers Education in Asia , "THE WORKERS ' EDUCATION ACTIVITIES OF THE RASHTRIYA MILL MAZDOOR SANGH ( RMMS ) , BOMBAY ( INTUC ) ( a ) Aims and objectives of workers ' education pogrammes for 130,000 members of RMMS ( INTUC ) are as follows : ( i ) To prepare ..." India Today , "... ( RMMS ) , which repre- sents the city's over one- lakh textile mill workers ... " Labour and Unions in Asia and Africa: Contemporary Issues , "discrimination against non-RMMS workers , and arbitrary dismissals . It is these phenomena that gave ... RMMS began to lose its autocratic control over the workers . The alliance between ..." Also here on a scheme for illegal resale of subsidized apartments... perhaps can explain adverts like this one ? All, in all, I think there is sufficient material available to conclude that RMMS is a notable organization and that there is material for the sourcing and expansion of the article. -- Soman ( talk ) 12:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mr. Soman's sources. The article must be expanded though, it contains nothing. MrMkG ( talk ) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I would have draftified it rather than taking it to Afd. Grab Up - Talk 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Grabup : That's not an option for articles older than 90 days without consensus from an AfD discussion. Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hey man im josh , Thanks for the information. Grab Up - Talk 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Challaghatta metro station: Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India . Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) if this cannot be expanded. Members of notable sets that are not individually notable should be merged and redirected to the article about the set in almost all cases, and there is no evidence that this should be an exception. Thryduulf ( talk ) 10:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ Thryduulf , @ Spiderone and @ Timothytyy , Sorry to have forgotten to tag you to my reply. Hoping to see response from your end. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Thryduulf , I've expanded the article. Would you mind taking another look to see whether in your opinion there's now enough for its retention? Rupples ( talk ) 03:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pls let me know what more useful information is needed for this metro station as well as the Benniganahalli metro station. Cause the information which is required for the audience is given. I don't seem to perform the task of adding more information that are not needed for the audience to know more about the above mentioned stations. Sameer2905 ( talk ) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy ( talk ) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations . S5A-0043 Talk 23:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Seems to meet WP:GNG already, and given it's only just opened will doubtless soon meet it even more. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you provide some SIGCOV? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. WP:SIGCOV is a matter of individual assessment. There's not a fantastic amount of coverage but there's enough at present to write a brief yet informative article on the station. Rupples ( talk ) 22:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's only one RS that seems to provide some degree of individual coverage for the subject. Can you provide more? Timothytyy ( talk ) 11:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See what you mean. Running through the sources in the article most are about the line rather than the station. I'd include both the new sources I put in, including the article on the access because it relates specifically to the station, but I'll run a further search. Thanks. Rupples ( talk ) 20:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further material now added. Rupples ( talk ) 23:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting given expansion of the article. Source assessment would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as above - as discussed several times in other AfD debates, I struggle to believe that metro stops which have only been in operation a short time can be considered notable. In time, I'm sure things will happen on the new Bengaluru lines which will be reported in the news. But right now the only coverage is routine. On a personal note, I've traveled on the Namma Metro and quite enjoyed it. I hope it continues to expand and improve. JMWt ( talk ) 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . A further reason I'm favouring keeping this article is the potential for expansion from adding a paragraph or two on the new train depot that's being constructed adjacent to the metro station (which is the western terminus of the Purple Line). I came across a couple of articles on the depot but there may not be sufficient coverage for a separate article. I'd support changing the title of this article to Challaghatta metro station and depot . Rupples ( talk ) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro) per above. // Timothy :: talk 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Dear @ TimothyBlue , This needs to be kept as a proper article since all information has been mentioned in the wikipage. Kind request to remove the deletion bar from the page. Santosh4118 ( talk ) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Santosh4118 The problem is not about the amount of info, it is about the notability of the subject. Timothytyy ( talk ) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You mean like the notability issue with Yuyuan station (Shenzhen Metro) ? Rupples ( talk ) 20:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Rupples 1. I don't understand why you are linking to another article 2. There are 3 sources providing independent coverage on the subject 3. Yes, this article isn't notable due to the lack of sources. 4. There was an SNG years ago that was deprecated as the consensus was train stations do not have inherited notability without enough SIGCOV. Timothytyy ( talk ) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not just a train station, it is a metro (rapid transit) station. I am sure all of them have enough coverage to pass the notability threshhold. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , we seem to be going in circles. Another similar discussion has been just closed as no consensus, there are sufficient sources in this article, and it would be odd if some of the articles in the line get redirected and some not given the same coverage. Ymblanter ( talk ) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OTHERSTUFF . Timothytyy ( talk ) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Timothytyy , I don't think you need to remind an administrator who has been editing for 12 years about this essay. L iz Read! Talk! 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But do you think "some... and some..." is a constructive comment? Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just found out this metro station was part of a recent bundled AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station and kept seemingly on the proviso to check the individual metro stations for sources and expand the article, if possible. It depends on sourcing as to whether the article can be progressed from a stub. If it can't, then yes a redirect/merge solution to a list of metro stations is appropriate. If it can, and I believe that's been demonstrated here, then the page should be kept. I don't see why there shouldn't be a mix of some stations being kept and others redirected/merged. Rupples ( talk ) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Still waiting on an assessment of the expansion of this article by User:Rupples rather than general statements on metro stations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Rupples' expansion work has turned up a good number of sources, and even the ones that are mainly about the Purple Line expansion still discuss the station as a matter of necessity, since it's the new terminus of the line. It's already longer than what I'd consider a stub, and it looks like there's still potential for expansion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction • Creation 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
The Elements of Moral Philosophy: No inline sources and a quick online search found no significant coverage. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions . Mattdaviesfsic ( talk ) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per WP:TEXTBOOKS . This book is the most popular philosophy textbook according to open syllabus, it clearly meets the requirement of "whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - car chasm ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - ( edit conflict ) I have found the following sources which are sufficient for GNG: [6] , [7] , [8] . I would also note that this review of another of Rachels's book begins with: James Rachels's The Elements of Moral Philosophy is one of the most popular philosophy textbooks ever written. At one point nearly a third of all ethics classes in the United States were using this book . WJ94 ( talk ) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Reviews in Teaching Philosophy (1993) [9] , (2000) [10] ; review in Personnel Review (1993) [11] ; obituary of author noting its bestseller status [12] , a "popular textbook" that "contains one of the best-known critiques of moral relativism" [13] , a "widely used textbook" [14] , a "famous textbook" [15] . Jahaza ( talk ) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per discussion. Clearly fulfills WP:TEXTBOOKS and reliable sources exist. ULPS ( talk ) 18:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Andre 🚐 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace: For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries . Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13 . — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Cricket , Lists , and England . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it. There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There would be as good players. People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 ( talk ) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries. Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Don’t make rules by your own. It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not. The minimum threshold of 25 int. centuries is an informal guideline. The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles. Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG . Robo Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST , particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines . Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage. 103.121.36.100 ( talk ) 03:00, 15 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.	keep
Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Note that other wars also don't have "children in... x" articles. The choice of topic dooms this article to be a POV fork, because a country that is very rich can afford to not send its children to war (e.g. by using drones) or when they do they can afford advanced weaponry and armor. Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article. I've removed this photo from the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment How is this a POV fork? There is far more material here on the topic than there is in the alleged parent. The rest of this nomination reads like a political speech, what are the policy reasons for deletion? Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't think its a bit weird to have a photo from the IDF that shows Palestinian children with cancer on a ski trip in an article about " Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict "? This kinda stuff would get reverted in milliseconds on the main article. Its just one example, there are many examples of POV in the article. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NPOV problems are not a reason to delete. Selfstudier ( talk ) 15:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both content and articles get deleted for being POV all the time. Polygnotus ( talk ) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two editors already cannot agree which is the parent article, because there isn't one. Selfstudier ( talk ) 16:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is more than one. This is not uncommon for POV forks (or so I'm told). Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Palestinian child cancer patients on a ski trip organized by Israeli soldiers Merge - “Other stuff doesn’t exist” has never been a good argument at AFD. The article is well sourced and potentially viable as a topic. However, I do have concerns about the Neutrality of the article as it currently exists. While AFD is not for article clean up, I think it best to merge it back to the parent article (where it will get more eyes) and improve its flaws… then, perhaps, split it off again. Blueboar ( talk ) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multi-merge and split : [EC] I don't agree the article will be necessarily a POV fork. (It is already a topic area that is in a state of constant POV chaos, the removal of one photo says little -- I removed another shortly after it was posted for similar reasons -- at least this article is not WP:OWNed the way so many others in this topic are.) However, it is currently an unspecific jumble of topics only related by being in the same multigenerational conflict -- everything from child terrorists to child war victims to propaganda to child welfare and education in the respective states. The content should instead be merged into the main article and appropriate sub-articles ( Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict , Category:War crimes in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (which is an absolute mess if you want to find something in need of TNT) and others apparently not categorized or that need to be created regarding welfare and education in the Israeli state), and parallel articles such as child soldiers and terrorists. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To this point, on article splits with nonspecific titles, see my suggestion for the only appropriate image lead for "Children in X conflict". On the other hand, for a properly scoped fork of longstanding conflict, see for example Child soldiers in Sri Lanka , Healthcare in the State of Palestine vs Healthcare in Israel (could be improved certainly), Education in Afghanistan , etc. "Children" on the other hand is not a specific policy topic from which to split a geopolitics article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The image I'm referring to is nonfree, but it's the one in Think of the children § Lovejoy's Law . I bothered with the meme to make it clear that I am mocking the title and scope of this article. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and work to improve it. The OP's main argument is fallacious. We don't have "Children in the X war" articles because that wasn't a focus of RS coverage. For example, there are not many RS about children in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But children victims in Gaza have certainly been a focus of RS coverage in this case. For good reason, in my opinion (I'm disclosing that I'm not "neutral" about this war.). NightHeron ( talk ) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is clearly untrue. Look at the sources used in the article. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sure there are news articles about specific incidents that involve children, sources that include a portion about children, and sources that talk about Palestinian children. But where are the sources that are about this specific topic (children on both sides of this particular war)? Also, there are RS that discuss children during WW2. Polygnotus ( talk ) 16:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions . Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk ) 17:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: On the subject of WP:PAGESIZE , this page has a readable prose size of 68kB, while the parent page is 74kB, so anyone suggesting a merge back into the parent is suggesting something entirely impractical: it would cause an immediate, glaring WP:TOOBIG issue, in addition to immediately unbalancing the parent page with undue, overweight child material. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In that case its probably best to get rid of it. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bad nom of a page that is clearly not a POVFORK of anything, but a sub-topic/child article on the conflict. The suggestion to merge is meanwhile nonsensical given that the substantial body of material here (extant since 2004) would clearly bloat the parent and be undue there. It is also clearly a viable standalone topic. Aside from the existing body of sourcing here, there are scholarly sources out there that even more expressly address the topic, making it unlikely that WP: BEFORE was done. Examples include: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Meta-analysis of exposure and outcome relations for children of the region , The impact of conflict on children: The Palestinian experience , Young children in intractable conflicts: The Israeli case , The effect of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance in the West Bank , The Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Effects on youth adjustment, available interventions, and future research directions , The age of conflict: Rethinking childhood, law, and age through the Israeli-Palestinian case , etc. It's a bit of an endless river on Google Scholar . This sub-topic likely has its own fair share of sub-topics - not least, for example, a page on child detention in the conflict, as per the sources already on the page, such as the book: Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children . Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Iskandar323 : If you do a WP:BEFORE you'll find that these links are NOT about the topic of the article: 1) A meta-analysis of studies. The studies focus on one of the sides. 2) The Impact of Conflict on Children - The Palestinian Experience 3) The article examines the political socialization of young Jewish-Israeli children 4) In this paper we analyze the impact of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance of Palestinian children in the West Bank 5) "updated review of research". Again, the studies focus on one of the sides. 6) The studies focus on one of the sides. 7) That's just google scholar. 8) incarceration of Palestinian children. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, so two sides, which makes one whole, so no NPOV issue. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The POVFORK is a NPOV issue. And a BEFORE search clearly shows that the article topic does not meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being right isn't how this works; the issue is that there appears to be no obvious cause for deletion, merging, or anything else here. Iskandar323 ( talk ) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Except the fact we are dealing with a WP:POVFORK that does not meet WP:GNG Polygnotus ( talk ) 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can keep repeating that but it doesn't improve the argument any. Selfstudier ( talk ) 18:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge individual sections with corresponding existing articles. The main problem with this agglomeration of unrelated topics with the theme of "children" isn't POV, but WP:SYNTH. The provided sources do not link the use of child soldiers with, say, child victims among civilians, and rightly so. The connection made in this article is an artifact created by the WP author. That said, the article does suffer from an NPOV issue, albeit not the usual one. The choice of 18 as the threshold age for the term "child" reflects a specific POV. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas have both said that they consider children of 16 to be adults, as does Israel in the occupied territories. By us labelling 16- and 17 year olds as "children", we are forcing our Westernized PoV on events where participants consider these people to be adults. To the credit of the article, it does mention this discrepancy in the "Legal issues" section, but plum ignores the issue in the rest of the article. The statistics quoted would be dramatically different if the term "child" was defined as under 16. I don't believe there is a clean way to resolve this problem without splitting the article into separate, topic-based pages, which we need to do anyway to resolve the SYNTH issue. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Won't the parts suffer from the same criticism you are making of the whole? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would they? WP:SYNTH opens with the instruction, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source . Once we've separated the material that was improperly combined by the article, it will no longer suffer from SYNTH. The POV issues can then be fixed per section. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the POV issues can be fixed in the parts, then they can be fixed in the whole. That leaves the SYNTH (original research) assertion but with sources like Children as Victims and Activists in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Book Chapter) , as well as those above, I don't see that assertion as convincing, at any rate not sufficiently convincing that some judicious editing of the article won't fix. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is just a chapter of a book with that title. The book is actually called: "National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"... And the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues can't be fixed without at least splitting the article in two parts. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plenty more if one actually looks, Children in Palestine and Israel continue to suffer as international law is routinely ignored , splitting into two parts is something you just made up. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Imagine if we find a source that actually is about the topic of the article, after ~310 attempts, that still does not fix the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR (whatever you wanna call it) and WP:POV problems. Polygnotus ( talk ) 19:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Selfstudier : the Conversation article you linked to specifically talks about children as victims of military violence. Not a word about child soldiers or children being used as suicide bombers. This further supports what SamuelRiv , Polygnotus , Blueboar and I have been saying about the need to split this article. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sure you can somewhere find a book that talks about the challenges children face in Israel/Palestine holistically. It would just be either a young adult motivational/inspirational/guide book, or else a teachers or parents manual. Not the kind of reference for positing that "children in X" form a coherent topic for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. It's not worth trying to make up some objective lawyery RS argument here though -- it's just how to do expository (i.e. encyclopedic) writing. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 20:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a technical nitpick: the hodgepodge of unrelated children-related topics into a "Children of X" article isn't SYNTH, it's a MOS issue of article titles and organization. While an example like this isn't spelled out in the rulebook (it's sorta alluded to in WP:PRECISE and WP:REORGANIZE ), it shouldn't have to be since this is a pretty straightforward mess. SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps you're right, SamuelRiv . Either way, I think we both agree on what the solution is. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then the solution is to clean up the mess, btw, if your views hold sway, are y'all going to do the work? Y'know, splitting it up and parking the parts wherever, cleaning up? Probably not, right? Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is an AfD. Merge has always been a viable consensus option in such discussions. Don't you think it would be a bad form to start merging the article while the AfD is ongoing, for less than a day even? SamuelRiv ( talk ) 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TNT Polygnotus ( talk ) This article was created in 2004, good luck with that. Selfstudier ( talk ) 19:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Articles on this topic enjoy massive editor participation. But in the unlikely event that no one else does the split/merge job, then yes, I'll be happy to jump in and do the work. I'd also love it if you, Selfstudier , helped with the mergers, seeing as you have ample experience editing articles on this topic, and can probably do a better job than I could with this one. There's really no need to be adversarial about this. We both want the content to stay here, we just need to find a better spot for it. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the goal is to make something better then I'm down of course. I don't know how to split/merge but I can take a critical look at the result. Polygnotus ( talk ) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have listened to the arguments and find them wanting. The idea that an article with a 20 year history suddenly becomes a deletion candidate is entirely ridiculous. If over time, the article has lost focus, presumably due to random additions not strictly speaking within scope, then the remedy is to undo that, not start ripping up an otherwise perfectly good article. Selfstudier ( talk ) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally all articles are candidates for merging or deletion. The problem isn't just that the article "lost focus". The problem is more fundamental than that. Polygnotus ( talk ) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- This is an encyclopaedic topic with clear and persistent sourcing. The article needs cleanup, but WP:DINC . Easily meets WP:GNG on all points. Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 20:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom. This is a POV fork with serious neutrality issues. Coretheapple ( talk ) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Iskandar323. Eladkarmel ( talk ) 16:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep. This is very clearly a WP:NOTABLE topic with a lot of coverage, and the scope is broad enough where WP:NPOV issues can be addressed through standard editing. Deleting this article outright is completely unnecessary. I also agree with the WP:DINC argument. XTheBedrockX ( talk ) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong keep . Due to the significant media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are already articles about some very specific sub-topics of the conflict, for example: school airstrikes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war , attacks on health facilities during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war , etc. Moreover, saying that other wars don't have an article about the affected children misses the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't just a war, it's something much wider and children are being affected also when there is no active war at all, for example by Administrative detentions . The topic of children being affected from the conflict, is heavily discussed as well, some examples: [6] [7] [8] [9] . Moreover, this article presents the topic in a very neutral way, discussing the affected children in both sides. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 13:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HilbertSpaceExplorer : School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is, of course, also a WP:POVFORK and should also be deleted for that reason. If you click on those 4 links you see that none of them are about the topic of the article (children in the conflict as a whole, in both Israel and Palestina, since the beginning of the conflict till now). They are about Gazan children. Based on your choice of links I am surprised that you vote keep; do you really want Wikipedia to keep an article that by its choice of topic is automatically biased against Palestinians and pro-Israeli? Polygnotus ( talk ) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you believe School airstrikes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is a WP:POVFORK that's completely fine, as right now we discuss another article. I mentioned those 2 articles, to emphasize the fact, that creating articles that discuss specific aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common thing, and that claim by itself doesn't justify deletion. I agree that theoretically, this article could have been merged into other articles, but that's not making it a WP:POVFORK . This article's topic is mentioned in researches, for example: [10] , [11] . I can't see why this article is biased against Palestinian children - I find it balanced, and that's one of the reasons I ! voted keep. HilbertSpaceExplorer ( talk ) 09:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - "Other wars also don't have children in x articles" isn't a very policy-based argument. The article clearly has citations to numerous reliable sources, with sources documenting actions by both sides of the conflict. There is more than enough material specifically covering how children are affected by and used in the conflict to justify its own article. While legitimate concerns may be raised on whether the article is NPOV, as well as about the quality of the article, there is nothing that can't be addressed by rewriting the article, the nom's NPOV concerns alone are not sufficient reason for deletion. Take for example the argument 'Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article.' If you really believe indoctrination by one side wasn't covered by the article, just go look up reliable sources documenting said indoctrination and cite them in the article. Also if you think the article doesn't talk enough about children who are victims of the conflict, you could easily add that in - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering that. Combustible Vulpex ( talk ) 12:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Neutrality issues should be addressed, rather than serving as a reason to remove articles. Suitskvarts ( talk ) 10:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . I don't think it is credible to call an article that has existed since 2004, has been edited 1619 times by 445 different users and has 261 incoming links from article space a POVFORK. POVFORKs are normally made by individuals or very small groups of people and are either stomped on quickly or fly under the radar for a while before being detected and dealt with. This is not an under the radar article! Sure, people have had concerns about its neutrality since 2004, and those need to be addressed, but wiping the whole subject out and pretending that it doesn't exist is not a way towards neutrality, or anything else of value. I'm neutral to mildly sympathetic towards a merge but I don't think this AfD is the best place to choose that. It would be better to keep this and then let somebody put together a coherent merge proposal and then to discuss that separately. -- DanielRigal ( talk ) 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep an article with this title. I do not know if the current text is NPOV, but that's not what XFD is for. Andre 🚐 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Andre. Tooncool64 ( talk ) 02:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles . Daniel ( talk ) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Forest, Wildlife & Environment Department, Gilgit-Baltistan: I couldn't find any reliable sources online. A PROD was contested. JML1148 ( talk \| contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Pakistan . JML1148 ( talk \| contribs ) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Coverage exists: The Express Tribune , Daily Times , Daily Ausaf (in Urdu) , Radio Pakistan , APP , mentioned in the book The Snow Leopard and the Goat: Politics of Conservation in the Western Himalayas . Insight 3 ( talk ) 12:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Insight 3 : Thank you for bringing up the sources. I have no clue how I didn't see them. That being said, I had a look through the sources (JSTOR was being really laggy for me so I couldn't see the book source) and most of them seem to be either passing mentions or people from the department speaking. I'll wait until a few more editors input. JML1148 ( talk \| contribs ) 07:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong KEEP Plenty of news coverage exists as shown above by Insight 3 plus the article already has 3 working government websites references. Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 00:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions . Skynxnex ( talk ) 01:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Yakuza (band): No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources . AllMusic citations not ideal . CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians , Japan , and Illinois . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17). "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade" . Chicago Reader . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence" . Pitchfork . Retrieved 2023-07-24 . Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you. Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band. I retract this AfD nomination. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk ) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant coverage. Fulmard ( talk ) 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Joseph R. Volpicelli: Mason ( talk ) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Psychiatry , and Pennsylvania . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC with one article cited over 2300 times, and others cited > 500 times. Lamona ( talk ) 23:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wasn't sure that that meets the criteria for highly impactful, as my impression was that they were a middle author on those highly cited papers . facepalm, I clearly missed this one Mason ( talk ) 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a way to withdraw a nomination? (I'm still new to new page reviewing) Mason ( talk ) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.	keep
Gryzelda Konstancja Wiśniowiecka: Subject non-notable in her own right. Nirva20 ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Royalty and nobility , and Poland . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nom who failed to do WP:BEFORE and whose nomination is just a WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE assertion. The subject is notable, by the virtue of, among others, being a subject of a dedicated biography in Polish Biographical Dictionary , which is even linked from our article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus \| reply here 06:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, and, by the way, her article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (translated into English) seems to be mostly about (not particularly interesting) palace intrigues/tensions. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article indicates nothing about subject but whose daughter, wife, and mother she was. Obviously, I can read the tea leaves on the way this is headed but I stand by redirect proposal based on the article as it is written not how it could be written. Nirva20 ( talk ) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Expand article to tell us abou the portrait, from the sources shown which don't seem to convey much. Pam D 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO #3 per Piotrus. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Meets WP:ANYBIO . And Polish version of the article is lengthy. —Kaliforniyka Hi! 04:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep obviously, per everything that was said Marcelus ( talk ) 19:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per above. Nobody ( talk ) 09:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep fall into WP:ANYBIO . I'm glad that Piotrus gave a speedy keep vote, even though Piotrus rarely votes to keep in AfD discussions. 1.46.91.225 ( talk ) 05:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Surprise! (film): The notability claim here, that it won an award at a regional film festival, would be fine if the article were properly sourced -- but the "awards" criterion in NFILM is looking for top internationally-prominent film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists, so winning an award at the Seattle film festival isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt the film from actually having to have any sources. Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany . Bearcat ( talk ) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll try to find a source for that; SIFF is about one level down from the aforementioned. It is certainly not a "regional film festival". - Jmabel \| Talk 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The source for a film festival award cannot be said film festival's own self-published website about itself, as that isn't independent of the statement — the source has to be a journalist-written newspaper or magazine article, or a book, that shows that the film festival's award announcements are considered newsworthy and/or historically significant by people other than the film festival's own staff. (The awards at the top-level likes of Cannes or TIFF make films notable because those are awards that get reported by media as news — they're special because media tell us they're special by treating them as newsworthy , not just because we like them more than we like smaller film festivals.) But so far the source you've added is SIFF's own website, not a piece of GNG-building third-party coverage — and even if you can find a more GNG-worthy source for that, we would still need to see other GNG-worthy sourcing about the film alongside that anyway. Bearcat ( talk ) 15:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are not citing for the importance of SIFF. We are citing for whether they gave the award. An instutition's own site is the preferred source for an an official action by that institution. - Jmabel \| Talk 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep . A lot of the material here is in German, and a lot of it appears to have come narrowly too early for widespread digitization. Here is unquestionably relevant coverage in a German film studies book. I believe this Google Books snippet view is actually of a magazine article reviewing its release as part of a DVD. Finally, I only have a citation so I can't evaluate the source, but there appears to be a Spanish-language scholarly article about this short film: Meier, A. "Sorpresas educativas en Surprise de Veit Helmer." Posibilidades del análisis cinematográfico (1era ed., Vol. 1, pp. 365-373). Secretaría de Educación del gobierno del Estado de México (2015). Lubal ( talk ) 15:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added another citation (from shortfilm.de) for the film having had 48 festival invitations and 26 awards. Surely that is enough. And, no, I'm not working on this further. - Jmabel \| Talk 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : new sources added and mentioned; awards. A redirect to the director should be considered anyway, so, opposed to deletion. (Will try to add things) (added coverage in various languages including English, more exists)- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Nathan Vasquez (lawyer): One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN , failed WP:BIO . He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Law , Oregon , and North America . 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TOOSOON . That guys been a prosecutor for a long, long time. It maybe created once notability has been established, but at this point, no. Graywalls ( talk ) 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] withdrawn Graywalls ( talk ) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media ( AP , New York Times , New York Times , Oregonian , Willamette Week ). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico . The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT . Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. It would be ridiculous to say he's not notable until the moment he takes office in six months now that he's won. Therequiembellishere ( talk ) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus ( talk ) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject is very notable. His win and the election as a whole have been reported on national news (AP, NY Post, other local sources, etc). PortlandSaint ( talk ) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE , local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling • talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun ( talk ) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Midwest Schools: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc.. source two is malformed: newspaper with no url or title even so cannot confirm if an article exists or mentions the school. Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools , and Wyoming . Lavalizard101 ( talk ) 17:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments News coverage about this school was not hard to find. You can read the USA Today story referenced under "Wyoming" on page 4b here [5] . Here's an AP story about the subsequent reopening of the school after a gas field leak [6] . There's a long write up of the incident in Inside Energy [7] . Another story in the Casper Star Tribune [8] . KGAB [9] , a different AP story [10] , another in the Casper Star Tribune [11] . It's an important policy point that with a publication, date and page number, it doesn't actually matter that there's no link, because sources don't have to be published online. In the past I would have argued for the deletion of this under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT , but in practice, those policies seem to have fallen by the wayside to a large degree. Jahaza ( talk ) 22:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments - no comment on notability here, but deletion wouldn't be appropriate even if it isn't notable. Per ATD and SCHOOLOUTCOMES , if notability can't be shown, the article should be redirected to the school district article. 69.92.163.38 ( talk ) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes WP:NORG , lots of verifiable evidence from outside sources about the school. Plenty of news coverage and sources in the article. Meets WP:GNG , including significant converage that will be able to verify that the school is a real place. Please make sure to diligently review WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion, as AFD is not cleanup . Burgeoning Contracting 04:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Natrona County School District Number 1 . I have been unable to locate any significant coverage in secondary sources that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", per WP:GNG . Aside from a nasty gas leak, there is nothing written about the school , such as when it opened, its unique place in the community, its history, and so forth. The article also fails WP:ORG . Magnolia677 ( talk ) 17:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Change my vote to keep , based on new sources added. Magnolia677 ( talk ) 22:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added two sources with content relating and written about the school. I don't see how fails WP:ORG , would you mind explaining? Burgeoning Contracting 18:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . Kudos to BurgeoningContracting for the WP:HEY effort. I have found clippings on newspapers.com that I will be adding to the article this evening. Besides, non-profit educational institutions are not required to satisfy WP:ORG (including WP:AUD ): The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The notability requirement for public or non-profit schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG . — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Bangladesh Pratidin: M.parvage ( talk ) 11:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I considered WP:BEFORE ; But I encourage contributors to do a search on it before giving an opinion. I also did a source analysis. Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG ? Source 1 Own website; see WP:IIS ? doesn't matter ✘ No Source 2 Own website ? self promotion ✘ No Source 3 Not at all content is just about a refernece ✘ No Source 4 promotional content No significant coverage, WP:SIGCOV ; Just a PR content ✘ No Source 5 not pointing the subject in detail, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV ✘ No Source 6 About an employee not the organization ? ✘ No Source 7 No mention ? No mention ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table }} . M.parvage ( talk ) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Table above shows that WP:GNG has not been met. -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the source table, there is nothing showing notability, or even using RS. Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The largest circulated newspaper by print sales is the type of article we should have in an encyclopedia. It has been the best-selling newspaper in Bangladesh, a country of over 160 million people, for the last ten years; if that does not suggest notability, then I do not what does. The article is in bad shape, but it can be improved. The Daily Star is a rival publication and the article on Bangladesh Pratidin mentions it is the most circulated newspaper based on the government database while the Daily Star's sister concern, Prothom Alo, comes second; this cannot be considered promotional. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 13:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Best selling is not a notable thing.please read WP:IIS and see the examples also. Thanks M.parvage ( talk ) 14:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) , Bangladesh Pratidin is a newspaper of record in Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 14:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to WP:NPERIODICAL , 1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area: But it is not. 2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level: but it is not 3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Unfortunately it is not 4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works: But it is not None of it's source represent those. M.parvage ( talk ) 14:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : The article has been expanded since its nomination, with sources quadrupled. Vinegarymass911 ( talk ) 16:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep extensive article expansion and many sources added by @ Vinegarymass911 - WP:Hey does apply. Note here that the significant expansion has shown the veritable lack of WP:before undertaken by the nominator. Also see WP:NMEDIA #2 have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history : a fair interpretation of significant history is being the most popular print newspaper in a major nation over a sustained period (and this is verified by WP:RS in the article). Resonant Dis tor tion 12:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article was expanded and now it is enough to keep. Mehedi Abedin 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This article is now enough to keep. ≈ Farhan «Talk» 09:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Harland Hand Memorial Garden: I don't see evidence of notability, just a handful of local news stories. Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions . Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources in article, source eval: Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 1. Joyce, Alice (March 27, 2002). "Harland Hand made the most of a hillside with a view". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved February 19, 2009. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 2. ^ Eaton, Joe; Sullivan, Ron (2012-07-17). "Harland Hand Memorial Garden on tour". SFGATE. Retrieved 2023-04-17. Meets IS RS with SIGCOV >> 3. ^ McCormick, Kathleen (September 2000). The Garden Lover's Guide to the West. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1-56898-166-6. Interview, promo >> 4. ^ "East Bay garden tour set for July 22". The Mercury News. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2023-04-17. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Reliable sources available. The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
1974 Sutherland District Council election: Simply does not pass WP:GNG . Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland . Shellwood ( talk ) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman . Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils , all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk ) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Good improvements. I think Template:1974 United Kingdom local elections is a clue. The fact that many of the Sutherland wards were unopposed and none contested by candidates representing political parties should not mean that we exclude this District from coverage that is seemingly non-controversial elsewhere. Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Ramon Reyes: Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" Let'srun ( talk ) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [all do not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominees have not been confirmed as a federal district court judge to date. Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent" ]: [ reply ] Myong J. Joun ( edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views ) Mónica Ramírez Almadani ( edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views ) Jeffrey Cummings ( edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views ) Vernon D. Oliver ( edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views ) Kenly Kiya Kato ( edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views ) Pinging BD2412 , Novemberjazz , care to weigh in? There are others that have been separately nominated as well. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : So here's my question then, if it's "too soon" then are we supposed to wait to create an article until after a nominee is confirmed? Thereby waiting months, maybe years to do so? That seems really counterintuitive to me. Snickers2686 ( talk ) 02:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes! Assuming these nominees will be confirmed is WP:CRYSTAL . Let'srun ( talk ) 18:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Jeffrey Cummings ; move to draft as to the rest . These articles raise an interesting conundrum. If these nominations are confirmed, as the substantial majority of federal judicial nominations eventually are, then notability will be automatic. If the unlikely event that any of these nominations are rejected in a Senate vote, that in itself would be a point in favor of the notability of the subjects. If these linger until the end of the administration and are never acted on, I don't think they confer notability thereby, but would be some evidence of notability in combination with other information on the subjects that might be found. Among these subjects, there is some coverage of notable rulings made by Cummings as a magistrate, and I think that one can likely stand as an article as is. The rest can be moved to draft for further research and/or developments. BD2412 T 03:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , California , Connecticut , Illinois , Massachusetts , and New York . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges ( talk ) 20:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per Tiffany Cartwright precedent, the articles can be moved to the mainspace until when they are actually confirmed. Let'srun ( talk ) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Tiffany Cartwright's page has already been moved back & she has not been confirmed yet. So if you're using that precedent, feel free to remove your deletion request. Thanks MIAJudges ( talk ) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article was moved unilaterally by one user in contradiction to both the AfD and a corresponding deletion review. Curbon7 ( talk ) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . While I think all of these individuals meet GNG, I do think that it might be worth reviewing the policy separately. -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 04:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - meets GNG, and note that all of these judges have not been confirmed due to a hold put on them by a Senator in reaction to Trump's indictment. That is a political move, and should not be a factor in determining Wiki-notability. Beyond My Ken ( talk ) 04:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is my vote as a bundled nomination. Individually they could be assesed and best option would probably be Draftify for those that don't pass GNG before confirmation. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Dingbat the Singing Cat: CoconutOctopus talk 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions . WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Had a look on Archive.org and found reviews from Down Beat , Cash Box , and Variety . Those three are plenty enough. QuietHere ( talk \| contributions ) 00:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Four paragraphs of coverage in the "Sydney Diary" column in The Sun, so it got some mainstream attention as well as industry. -- Nat Gertler ( talk ) 00:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Added a couple of sources. It was apparently a pop music favorite ca.1946-47. — Maile ( talk ) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Per above, and improved with sources. dxneo ( talk ) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America . dxneo ( talk ) 00:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above. Darling ☔ ( talk · contribs ) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani: Already covered in Tirukkural translations . No proof of WP:Notability of the the one transalation on its own accord. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature , Philosophy , History , India , and Rajasthan . Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : More citation added to establish notability. Kural translation is a highly notable topic and the addition of citations asserts the notability of individual translations, as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Rajasthani . Article now passes WP:GNG . Rasnaboy ( talk ) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rasnaboy. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 16:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : per citations in articles. Works into WP:SUMMARYSTYLE format as child articles of Tirukkural translations . // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep
ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data Standards: Fails WP:GNG . - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology . UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 06:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering , Medicine , Computing , and Software . UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per Nom Seawolf35 ( talk ) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . ISO standards have a large effect on the products we use and are well-covered by articles in the technical literature. This one could use some independent sources. We cover ISO/IEEE standards extensively; see Category:ISO standards and Template:ISO standards . There is also ISO/IEEE 11073 and IEEE 11073 service-oriented device connectivity , which has appropriate sources. StarryGrandma ( talk ) 18:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 05:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as @ StarryGrandma says, these standards are important and have a significant impact on industry. That's especially true in a field like personal health devices. Questions of how to implement ISO 11073 have been the subject of entire academic articles. For example: Consideration of the generated network utilization of the IEEE 11073 SDC standard , Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, Volume 8 Issue 2 (2022) Applying the ISO/IEEE 11073 Standards to Wearable Home Health Monitoring Systems, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing (2005) 19: 427–436 DOI: 10.1007/s10877-005-2033-7 (cited in article). Integration of a surgical robotic arm to the connected operating room via ISO IEEE 11073 , SDC Wickel, Noah ; Vossel, Manuel ; Yilmaz, Okan ; Radermacher, Klaus ; Janß, Armin, International journal for computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023, Vol.18 (9), p.1639-1648 It is disheartening to see an article this well developed nominated for deletion, apparently based solely on some editor's decision to add a notability tag 13 years ago. No support given for the claim that it "Fails GNG". In fact, a simple google scholar search (mandated by WP:BEFORE ) shows hundreds of articles entirely devoted to this standard. Admittedly many are from IEEE, but all it takes is a it of additional searching/filtering to find independent sources. Per WP:NEXISTS that should be enough to avoid an AfD. No indication is given by @ UtherSRG as to why no acceptable sources exist. Oblivy ( talk ) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This topic looks to be very widely and deeply covered in the academic literature at least, just from a few minutes of clicking around here . I think that taking your pick of any pair of sources there establishes GNG. - Astrophobe ( talk ) 02:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page.	keep

End of preview. Expand in Dataset Viewer.

Wiki Deletion Discussion Dataset

This dataset contains Deletion discussions for Wikipedia articles with their resolutions as corresponding labels. The dataset contains 3 fields: Title of the Article, Deletion discussion, and Resolution of the discussion as Label. This is a multi-class classification dataset with the following Labels:

"keep": The article should be kept as it is.
"delete": The article should be deleted.
"merge": The article should be merged with another article. Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists.
"redirect": The article should be redirected to another existing article that is a better target for the content.
"withdraw": The nominator withdraws their nomination for deletion, often due to improvements made to the article during the discussion.
"no consensus": When there is no clear agreement on the deletion discussion.
"speedy keep": The article should be kept and there are reasons to bypass deletion discussions to keep the article immediately
"speedy delete": The article should be deleted and there are reasons to bypass deletion discussions to delete the article immediately

The dataset is divided into two non-overlapping splits

Train split: 13032 rows
Test Split: 5496 rows

Downloads last month: 53

Edit dataset card

Size of downloaded dataset files:

55.9 MB

Size of the auto-converted Parquet files:

26.5 MB

Number of rows:

18,528