The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete FamilySearch is a database that compiles primary sources. These are not the type of sources that one needs to show notability. IMDb is also not a reliable source that in any way shows that what it covers is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Argument against deletion: The subject's notability extends beyond his being heir to a deposed monarchy, as described in the article and summarized in the lede.--
Dr.bobbs (
talk)
05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Regardless of the deposed status of the Saxon Thrones, the thousand year old
House of Wettin is still very much in existence. Thus, Prince Daniel's status as disputed but nevertheless heir to the Head of the House is of encyclopedic relevance. The article is also sourced in the Prince's entrepreneurial matters and the fact that he was one of the candidates in contention to become King of Poland, which even though was Polish monarchist propaganda, is not something you see everyday. All in all the article as a whole is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia.
TheRedDomitor (
talk)
11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the sourcing is atrocious, and "some crazy people would like him to be King of Poland, but he doesn't believe in monarchy" (which is what one of the sources say) is not the same as "he was a candidate to become King of Poland" (apart from the fact that Poland hasn't been a monarchy for a very long time either). Are there any proper
WP:RS for this
WP:BLP content? —Kusma (
t·
c)
15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have quite clearly stated in my entry above that the entire King of Poland extravaganza is nothing more than Polish monarchist propaganda. But even as preposterous as it may be (as Poland is a Republic) you don't see every second prince from a former royal family being asked to become titular king of a foreign nation, even if it is by a niche group of fanatics. And even without this entire Poland segment, the prince is still an important member of the House of Wettin. But I do agree on one point that the article definitely needs to be sourced more reliably.
TheRedDomitor (
talk)
16:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep As stated above by Dr.bobbs and TheRedDormitor, the subject's notability is only partially based on the disputed monarchial claim. In any case, it is only the OP's opinion that this claim does not confer notability.
Cherryblossom1982 (
talk)
20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Agree with everything said above; however, I realize that his work might have significance to people interested in dogs, and have therefore added it to another deletion sorting list. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - There is a discussion archived at
WP:ICTFhere. Replying to
this, looks like the person exists
[3][4][5] and the vid linked in the archive. Social media accounts are not verified however. Haven't seen this guy covered in reliable news media, making be wonder whether he passes
WP:NACTOR. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There does not seem to be much media coverage on this topic. There are only 394 likes on the
Facebook page of this NGO.ilmaisin (
talk) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Struck over link to a Facebook page of a completely different thing. --
ilmaisin (
talk)
10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I have tried, but failed, to find any reliable sources on the topic. Furthermore, the organisation seems to be defunct now. (Note also that the above linked Facebook page appears to about a summer camp hosted by the
Party of the Swedes, not this organisation.) ―
Hebsen (
talk)
21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I know, but it may give a rough estimate on whether or not it is a big NGO. That neither is same thing as notability, but it is one thing that affects notability. --
ilmaisin (
talk)
10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
No, it was real, but apparently just a minor fringe organization that never really managed to do anything. It can be found in the Danish corporation database
[6], and old material from it can be found on some fringe websites
[7][8][9]. Neither make it notable, thought. ―
Hebsen (
talk)
13:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure if any of the sources actually mention this NGO. The article seems mostly be an essay arguing for their vision based these sources. No evidence that this NGO, if it's even operational anymore, is notable. --
Pudeo (
talk)
19:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was created by blocked user:Vettipaiyan. I expanded the article, but now realize that all of the sources are gossips about her marriage and Instagram posts.
TamilMirchi (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected to
Prakash Sayami. The contribution history is still available; no objection to merging the content to the redirected article, and no objection to the creator trying again in draft space and this time going through the
WP:AFC review process rather than unilaterally moving an unsuitable draft to main space. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Not enough information to satisfy
book notability. Google search for Kathamandu Selfie finds advertisements for book, and this article in Wikipedia, but no reviews or third-party mentions, and this article does not provide any mention that can be followed up to find sources.
Strong Delete If it has been moved out of Draft once without effective reassume to correct the problems over sources, then it must be a deleted. No effective reference. scope_creepTalk19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or re-drafify the article still needs work and I'm going to
WP:AGF that there are sources in reliable non-English sources. But it needs the effort of editors who know, otherwise it shouldn't be re-created.
Archrogue (
talk)
17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi! Merge and redirect aren't that different; there are cases where they end up being the same. To me, in this case, a merge means adding "A collection of essays title Kathmandu Selfie was published in 2015[1]" or therebouts. The target article is exceedingly poor with next to no verification (or RS); so even this one sentence with its independent RS would be a massive improvement, IMO, which is the complete reason my !vote says merge and not redirect. Closers rarely require this hashed out, to make their decision. Best, Usedtobecool☎️02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -
User:Nirmaljoshi - By telling a reviewer what to search for, you are insulting the reviewers by dumping poorly researched pages into article space and expecting the reviewers to finish the job. It is the responsibility of the author to provide an article that provides useful information to the reader without having to search in two languages. Do not insult the reviewers.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same chap who was subject of an article deleted in 2017, and there's no new claim of notability other than he has now retired. As a football referee, he's not covered by NFOOTIE, so would need to pass GNG; the only source I can find giving him significant depth of coverage is the Football Queensland website, announcing his retirement - this is an affiliated source, since he appears to have worked for them, and so doesn't add any weight to a claim of notability per GNG.
GirthSummit (blether)17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Leave and here is why. I am aware that this article was deleted because he "failed" to be notable other than his retirement. However, there is a chance because the
Hyundai A-League coverage is an official website that he had his only appearance in a
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification match between Timor-Leste and Saudi Arabia. If anyone declares that he fails notability, I will add more sources to this article every way I can, as far as I am concerned, to ensure that he has a year of birth, and a football refereeing career for that matter.
Ivan Milenin (
talk)
18:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, if you can show me three sources which are all independent, reliable and secondary, and which give him significant coverage, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Currently the article has no references that tick all those boxes, but if they're out there, by all means add them.
GirthSummit (blether)18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, unfortunately, none of the ones that give significant coverage are independent of the subject - again, he's worked for the Hyundai league, it's not independent. You need sources that are
reliable,
independent and
secondary, and which give significant coverage. I'm not seeing any that tick all the boxes, sorry.
GirthSummit (blether)20:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, The SMH doesn't give him substantial coverage - it's just about a single controversial refereeing decision, there's no biographical content whatsoever. We don't host articles about every referee whose decisions have been mentioned in a match report.
GirthSummit (blether)09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ymblanter, hi - could I ask whether you'd be willing to expand on that? The reasoning above seems to be either that (a) he is given substantial coverage by an affiliated website (Hyundai A-League, who he worked for), that (b) he officiated in a qualification match for the 2018 World Cup (perhaps there's an SNG for match officials I'm not aware of?), or (c) that passing mentions in match reports are an acceptable substitute for substantial coverage. I can't see a route to notability through any of that, but I'd genuinely be happy to reconsider if there's something I haven't thought of. Cheers
GirthSummit (blether)11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Girth Summit, if you need clarification on notability guidelines on referees, then there it is:
[11] In accordance to what they believe in notability guidelines on referees, “players, coaches (managers) and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.” In this case, as I keep on researching and adding for additional sources, such as from
FIFA,
AFC, and sometimes ESPN, they should prove that he had made a senior international appearance at the
FIFA World Cup and the
AFC Asian Cup, whether if it’s a regular competition, or a qualifying match, or otherwise. If that is the case, then I will see what I will have to do for the matter. Please kindly take a look at the AFC PDF source and other sources if you still doubt it.
Ivan Milenin (
talk)
16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, the discussion you link to is many years old - it's possible that the guidance has changed over time as consensus changes over what we consider notable, but I'm not seeing any verbiage about referees in the current version of
WP:NFOOTIE about refs - unless I'm missing something, they would have to pass regular
WP:GNG. I'll be happy to take a look at the article in its latest state in the days before this discussion is closed, but please don't
WP:REFBOMB it - it's the quality of the sources that counts. Two or three really good, independent sources with in-depth coverage would change my opinion; 50 trivial articles about a controversial decision in a particular match will not.
GirthSummit (blether)16:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi again
Ivan Milenin, I've looked again at the article with its new sourcing. There are a bunch of articles which give him one or two passing mentions, but they're mostly all about the same controversial decision in a single match, and none of them have any biographical detail about him, or discuss him (as opposed to the specific decision) in any depth. There's one which is basically just an announcement that he got his FIFA badge (alongside a couple of other refs), so basically the only sources which go into any depth are sites that he's affiliated with. I'm sorry, but my view remains that he's simply not notable according to our guidelines.
GirthSummit (blether)14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge I feel that refs should be held to the same notability requirements as players. If the SNG include players who represent a professional team then refs who control those games should be given the same courtesy. However I also don't like the SNGs in general and think they run roughshod over GNG in many cases. So on the whole I will stay neutral on whether this is kept or deleted due to notability. However, and this applies to many other referee articles, coverage of even some of the more well known referees consists of just newspaper articles complaining about controversial calls. It can be a nightmare trying to enforce BLP after a game where fans are divided or even in this case where there is a good faith attempt to source the article. In the end it just makes the article very
WP:Undue. So for that reason it tips me to the delete side. As a third option I feel a
List of A-league referees might be a better chance to mention Milliner and other borderline referees.
AIRcorn(talk)21:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No significant coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources, does not meet
WP:GNG, doesn't appear to meet
WP:NARTIST. In addition to reviewing the citations at this article and the linked articles on other language projects, I searched for Babii's name in English, Ukrainian and Russian, as well as his alias VarrIng, on both Google and Yandex. signed, Rosguilltalk17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Co-founder and chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine (2009). Founded and editor-in-chief Sanbyuleten Zdorove Suspilstvo (2003). Artist: 2 books (catalogs 2014, 2016). 6 Ukrainian patents (2005–2008).
Ostap Khanko (
talk)
18:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is hard to assess as the subject is made out to be a master of many fields. However I don't think the fields are particularly interesting or important: e.g. "chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine"? Existing sources do not meet
WP:NARTIST. The overall tone and intent of the article seems to be promotional.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Took a look at some citations I expected to be secondary sources, but they were press releases (e.g. the supposed Business Insider link) or insignificant passing mentions (e.g. the Medium post). Not seeing a depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Promotional piece by COI account. Citobun (
talk)
11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - Here are some things I found: He has several photographs in the collection of the Science & Society Picture Library, which is “The official picture library of the Science Museum Group. Representing the visual collections of the Science Museum, the Science & Industry Museum, the Science & Media Museum, Locomotion and the Railway Museum, as well as select contributors.”[12]...I’m guessing his work is in the Railway Museum collection. Five of his photographs were used on commemorative stamps in 1994:
[13] and there was some exhibition mentioned as well, “Art in the Age of Steam Europe, America and the Railway, 1830-1960” which I believe was at the Mid-Continent Railway Museum. Small blurb about the five commemorative stamps:
[14] and here:
[15] The stamps are in the collection of the Science Museum Group
[16] Had an exhibition at the National Railway Museum in 1996 according to this:
[17] Had an exhibition at the Kidderminster Railway Museum in 2009:
[18] Book review here:
[19] Book review on Mechanical Landscapes (blog)
[20] Article about him here:
[21] also mentions he’s in an exhibition at Newcastle Art Centre.
Netherzone (
talk)
19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I also found five newspaper articles: The Times (London)
[22], Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne),
[23], Evening Chronicle
[24], The Tampa Tribune
[25], and
[26] I think these items plus those above push him over the edge into the keep zone.
Netherzone (
talk)
21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Rathfelder, I added a few citations, and cleaned up quite a bit of the flowery language, rumor and speculation, and also improved the way it is organized. It still needs a lot of work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. My guess is that it was written by someone close to him given the level of detailed anecdotal material.
Netherzone (
talk)
15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: In addition to the sources listed above, I find coverage of Gifford in A Photographer's Guide to Railways by Roger Siviter (1989) which credits Gifford with leading the "New Approach"; there's mention of Gifford on
page 5 and
page 54. There are also a few sentences in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (2005) on
page 534. Added to the sources already listed, I believe that this demonstrates notability. The article does need to be rewritten to remove the puffery. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Being the 113th-largest of a specific type of company in one country is hardly inherent evidence of notability. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - not seeing enough significant, independent, reliable coverage online for this to be included. There are a few passing mentions about certain people being appointed or mergers, but nothing that is in depth. --
IWI (
talk)
03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep 113th largest law firm in the country after its merger in 2019 merger (and name change) which on its face is notable. The article needs updating but AFD is not about the quality of the writing but rather the notability of the business. Its history includes numerous notable attorneys.
Americasroof (
talk)
07:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentAmericasroof what sources are you basing your assertion of notability on? This article is not about the post 2019 merger firm, as that would have the post merger title (and proper sources). Also big != notable.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As it stands, this is nothing more than a dot on a map. Perhaps Durham has more to say, but as it stands I can find nothing but places listing names, and the GNIS entry, and a name at abruptly appears on the topo maps in the 1960s, with nothing around it.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems there's a 1895 Rand McNally New Atlas of the World with Carmen City on it. It's possible the community was tabulated as part of the
1890 Census but the fate of that document is up in smoke for California places. –
The Grid (
talk)
17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NACTOR. Article is majorly cited to YouTube links. She has worked in non notable web series and done a few music videos that were released on YouTube. Google searches do not show any obvious signs of notability.
Umakant Bhalerao (
talk)
15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It just says that the subject is an entrepreneur and brand influencer from Nigeria. Sources are mostly blogs and not reliable. - SUBWAY15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Stay Articles are not promotion nor spam , i will edit them right away with other source , sorry admins pardon me or move page to draft.
Ilovegod112 (
talk)
One does have to be well known globally before he or she is notable, He is well known here in His country
Nigeria And that doesn’t go against A4. I can still add more source if you want me too. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ilovegod112 (
talk •
contribs)
17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I originally created the article. Most sources are reputable national media organisations. The party received significant independent media coverage (as per notability guidelines). The page was created during a time when it was being speculated whether the party may be decisive in the formation of a potential future right-wing coalition government and creating an arch-conservative political current in the country (which - in retrospect - obviously did not happen, but the page might have been of much more general interest if that had been the case). It was also one of the parties often polled in
opinion polling for the 2018 Slovenian parliamentary election.
I agree with Jay, the party received quite some media coverage back then. Among the sources are major Slovenian news outlets, which are reputable sources. --Tone17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There isn't a country in the world that I would broadly claim that their major news outlets are "reputable", and
WP:PUS and
WP:DEPRECATED will back me up. This is a still a non-story even if it was reported in the New York Times, but the fact is, it wasn't. It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed.
Grung0r (
talk)
02:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
"It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed." Even if that would make sources unreliable (are BBC/DW/NPR unreliable sources?) there are plenty of news sources published by privately-owned media in the article, and more could be added if this is actually of concern. In fact, you may find that Slovenian public media organisations often take a more neutral approach in their reporting than private ones. Furthermore, authors are attributed, however, sometimes only initials are given. This is a common practice in multiple Slovenian public and private media organisation and is not unheard of in other countries. -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
In some instances, I used right-wing/party-friendly publications, however, I think I always treated them as basically primary sources (i.e. for citing statements/press releases by proxy). -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Mladina was a former employer of Janez Janša, and seemingly where he made his name. They can hardly be considered reliable source for these purposes. It would be like if Boris Johnson had written for the..oh, wait...
Grung0r (
talk)
07:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, Mladina has been very critical of Janša/SDS for a long time now. In any case, it's coverage is generally held to be reliable. -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
13:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd close myself but I participated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article about a Ukranian company that reads like native advertising, and has been heavily edited by a sockpuppet farm of undisclosed paid editors. Most of the references seem to be adapted press releases and I'm not finding anything here or online that looks independent with a byline.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I was searching for this subject just now and was surprised to discover this Wikipedia article about them. That said, after thoroughly reading the article I can't say outright deletion would be warranted because the company has been significantly covered by in Ukrainian sources.Maybe the article should be redirected to
Glib Zagoriy?
IndyaShri (
talk)
01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the awards and press mentions seem to be utterly trivial. There is no claim to have produced or invented any new haramaceticals, just for manufacturing known one lie all ithe othe such firms in the industry. For a mention to. be more than PR there has to be something significant to base it on, and donating 6 respirators is a just the sort of charitable events firms do for the PR. DGG (
talk )
07:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Abstain. I have some difficulties with checking which Ukrainian sources are realiable, but
TSN.ua lists it among top Ukranian companies, altough with a bit of soubt, saying "We decided to include these two pharmaceutical companies as the leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market",
Delo.ua also mentions this two companies while reviewing Ukrainian pharmaceutical market,
Interfax Ukraine (not to confuse with Russian
Interfax) says "Since 1998, it is a leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market <...>, 13,76% in 2019". Sometimes sockpuppet farms create articles on notable subjects, but someone should surely clean it up and check facts.
Wikisaurus (
talk)
11:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the current sourcing is rubbish but reading the uk.wiki article suggests that the company is highly likely to be notable, but has just paid incompetents to create thus article. I suppose if it is genuinely Nita Oe it wint be hard to create a much better article using RIS if this is deleted.
Mccapra (
talk)
17:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete/draftify. The current article looks spammish, but there is potentially reliable content to expand it like
[27]. Until such a content is used, well, this is SPAM, and at best it should be drafitied. If someone was paid to create it, they need to keep working, this is not yet ready to be public. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I am having a hard time figuring out what's what here as the references are mostly dead links, but there also seems to be a different person with the same name
[28], who is some sort of an oil magnate in Russia and a former classmate of Putin. Google searching can probably easily confuse them.
Nsk92 (
talk)
14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The organization doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NGO. Out of three references, one is organization's own website, second one is a small brief about organization in local coverage of a national daily (probably more like a press release), third one is about the org 's awards detail and not about the org itself. I could only find one more reference to org on news websites which just mentions it in the passing. It seems the org's founder is more notable than the org itself. Also to note is that the creator of this page had in 2011 created page for this org under its full name which got deleted under CSD.
Roller26 (
talk)
18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The organization is active for about 22 years now. Some very prominent people were honored with Award presented by this organization, some of them even later went on win
Padma Awards from the government of India. This is an unique organization in its own rights, as it was few of first organizations completely dedicated to the non-Gandhian freedom fighters. The institute is constantly working towards collection, publication and distribution of information about Indian freedom struggle.
utpalpandey (
talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (IST)
utpalpandey, I have gone through all the other links you have added since the AfD tag. All of them either mention the Organization in passing-by, just contain a quote from an organization representative or don't mention the organization at all. (They talk about the achievements of a person while mentioning that they have also won Maati Ratan award). These do not represent significant and independent coverage. For a stand alone article the organization has to comply either with
WP:GNG or
WP:NGO, which it doesn't. I am sure the purpose and actions of the NGO are extremely noble, but
WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, there many other appropriate forums to do so. If the award given by the organization, Maati Ratan is notable that doesn't mean that the organization it self is notable due to
WP:INHERITORG. If you think that the award Maati Ratan satisfies the criteria of
WP:GNG, you can have a stand-alone page for it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roller26 (
talk •
contribs)
17:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I would disagree that this is a case of TOOSOON, as the drama is verifiable and the subject of significant coverage in numerous
reliable Korean sources, such as:
Yonhap,
Hankyung,
Seoul Economic, and
TenAsia, to name a few, which should be enough to pass GNG. While I understand that
notability is not inherited, the fact that TV series features so many notable actors and actresses points to the likelihood for additional qualifying coverage to emerge soon --
Dps04 (
talk)
17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. No point in deleting this excellent start today if the show will premiere in a matter of hours and will almost certainly be the subject of (additional) SIGCOV shortly thereafter, per the points above.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per
WP:IMPACT, his published insights and coverage of
Dwight D. Eisenhower are evidence enough of this being a notable individual. However, a review of online sources show a suprising number of entries about him and that would be enough to surpass
WP:GNG as well. They need to be added to the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The first link alone is the metadata on a stack of some 200 pages of research. We can disagree, but ultimately it is neither your decision nor mine.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete independent coverage is lacking (I checked the linked sources, which are mostly passing mentions), notability is not inherited from a minor association with Eisenhower. (
t ·
c) buidhe09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the sources are a passing mention in the West Point almanac, one article that mentions him rooming with Ike, and his own papers. Doesn't meet either SOLDIER or the GNG. Non-notable colonel.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I realise that he was only a colonel, but enough material to already create a reasonable article, and there are multiple additional minor claims to fame, such as his friendship with Eisenhower, his membership of the famous class of 1915, which has its own article, and of the 1914 championship football team, which is also famous enough to have its own article. Note the navbox at the bottom! That national championship football team includes Omar Bradley (five stars), James Van Fleet (four stars), William Hoge (four stars) and Vernon Pritchard (two stars). Others are notable as gridiron players, including Alex Weyand (an Olympian), Robert Neyland and Louis A. Merrilat. Notability is not inherited from colleagues, but being surrounded by famous people guarantees lots of mentions - enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment--I've had some disagreement above with an editor about the significance of the sources, but this is the first comment to question the independence and reliability of them. The United States National Archives and several book references are neither independent nor reliable source?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Almost all of those obits in minor newspapers include in the headline "Ike's roommate" or "Ike's classmate", showing that he was not notable himself, merely for his association with Eisenhower.
Mztourist (
talk)
07:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
That's simply not true.
This is a feature story about Hodgson in a major metropolitan daily that dates from a time before Eisenhower was even famous.
This is from The San Francisco Examiner, hardly a "minor newspaper". And
this is an in-depth, two-page obituary that goes into significant depth about Hodgson's life and accomplishments.
Cbl62 (
talk)
13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Irrelevant actor who has played roles in several small budget films. Couldn't find a single source. The creator of the page is blocked.
TamilMirchi (
talk)
00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The last two links in references are dead links - the earlier ones all work. There is no year of birth for this Actor, who, at the moment, lacks notability. A minor actor as mentioned above.
Whiteguru (
talk)
08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as he has had three leading roles in notable feature films as confirmed in multiple reliable sources which have been added to the article since nomination so he passes
WP:NACTOR and deletion is no longer necessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced concert tour fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:CONCERT TOUR that has tags on it needing both additional citations for verification since December 2015 and insufficient inline citations from 4 years ago as of this month.
Pahiy (
talk)
20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment (previous voter) - I am willing to clean up this article and add the sources found by the other voter above, if/when it survives this process. Don't see the need for all these re-listings, when we seem to have a basic consensus calling for improvement rather than deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. has a biography
[35], so sufficient material to create an article. Passes
WP:GNG due to coverage in RS. His experience at the AEC is mentioned in Hewlett and Holl. The AEC and Manhattan Project makes him interesting to me, and his NASA career also turns up hits. Found a picture of him
here.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. per nomination; not notable; source listed (the one link that works) indicates no notability aside from inclusion on a list and brief description. —
Notorious4life (
talk)
23:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
You can read his citation
here, but it is very vague owing to the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project. General Groves submitted a list of personnel for decorations in 1945. The award was not common during World War II, but today due to award inflation most general officers can expect to get one on completion of an assignment.
Hawkeye7(discuss)19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. There are many independent and authoritative sources in the article
Лазарев, Сергей Николаевич (парапсихолог) - they can easily be moved to the article. Unambiguously leave the article. The books have been translated into more than 1.5 dozen languages of the world, published in multi-million copies.
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
11:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The Russian sources are certainly enough for, e.g.,
WP:BOOKCRIT. (Being widely translated or published in big runs doesn't automatically confer notability to a book but it almost always goes hand in hand with a very easy pass of BOOKCRIT.) It looks like the article has some POV problems based on the Russian version flagging it as pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to a deletion debate.
~ oulfis 🌸(
talk)
17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination. @
Алёна Пескова: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at
WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --
Finngalltalk16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Question Which sources, exactly, directly cover the book itself vs. the author's oeuvre? Note that the Russian Wikipedia cited above doesn't have a dedicated article for the book—only its author's biography article. (not
watching, please {{ping}}) czar05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply:
Czar - I answer your question: the following books describe exactly the books "Diagnostics of Karma":
I also think that in the Russian Wikipedia, an article about books "Diagnostics of Karma" can be created in the near future, since there is every reason for this according to the criteria of significance. --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Forgive my machine translations but doesn't the first source not go into depth about Диагностика кармы? It looks like it's more about Lazarev's theories than this book itself. There seems to be plenty more sources on the author. In general, it's better to cover an author's works within their biography and to only split out
summary style when
warranted by an overabundance of secondary sources. Would it make sense here to repurpose this article into one about the author? czar08:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The first source describes Lazarev's theories, set out precisely in the books "Diagnostics of Karma", where the text is accompanied by links to these particular books, and
at the end of the text of the source there are books "Diagnostics of Karma". I also think that both Lazarev himself and the books "Diagnostics of Karma" correspond to independent criteria of significance. You will also forgive my machine translation. --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Translation (for colleagues who do not speak Russian) from an interview with Mark Zakharov: "Sergey Nikolaevich Lazarev is the author of the wonderful book "Diagnostics of Karma". Here, I highly recommend reading it. The book was published in a normal, rather modest, circulation, but then replicated in a pirated manner, which speaks of its indisputable merits and the great interest it arouses. Everything else, in addition to all the other merits of the book, there is one more quality that I have not met before when you come across the word "karma" - that there is some kind of inextricable connection with our Christian worldview, with Orthodox values, and very accurately, so to speak, interpreted and, so to speak, explained this is the unity of some discoveries of Eastern philosophy and our native Orthodoxy. Sergey Nikolaevich, before we turned on the camera, he demonstrated some of his amazing ability to read information, he can do it, he understands it, and he said something about me that, of course, amazed me (...)". --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I am always wary of giving a platform to pseudoscience, but this appears to be barely notable, with enough sources to place it in context.
Archrogue (
talk)
19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yet another non-notable bridge. The one given reference, which isn't cited inline, is one line in a table produced by the highway department that operates the bridge, so it's a primary source.
This just states that there's a boat ramp next to the bridge, without giving any real information about the bridge. It's mentioned, without any accompanying coverage, as a place of note in it's county in
[36], but no significant coverage there. At this point, we're just getting into bridgecruft.
Hog FarmBacon15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is a lot of primary references, profile page, discussion on scores/games, a lot of puff, interviews, PR and so on but I can't see much in the way on quality secondary sources. He should be notable as he has an enormous fan base. scope_creepTalk14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Because this is the english encyclopedia and we are not able to determine the notability; based on reading the editors who have commented before me on this AfD, the nominator, and myself. Until we get an editor with experience in this area who can help determine the notability for the English encyclopedia we should soft delete or
WP:ATD draft.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mere existence is not an indicator of notability. Notability relies on the existence of reliable, in-depth sources, none of which have been brought up here. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: As the maker of the page, I would like to see it kept. I still don't really understand the notability guidelines. The bridge exists, so that should be notability enough for an article to exist. However, I know there is a standard against this, too.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
07:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability not established for military product, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Search results are all mirrors.
Reywas92Talk02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Once part of a Mexican land grant and a ranch. No evidence it was a separate community. Now seems to be a residential neighborhood of San Rafael.
Glendoremus (
talk)
03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. A notable organization in the building trade with several decent independent references. We can do without flippant deletion suggestions.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This nomination was not flippant, although perhaps the bit of attempted humor—which I have now struck—was ill-considered. The majority of references in the article are either dead or primary, and I could not find others. The references that appear reliable and do mention this organization are passing mentions in trade journals.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I just found some additional hits looking for "International Grooving and Grinding Association" (e.g.,
[39]) but they appear to be contributed by the organization itself, which does not help with notability.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly passes
WP:GNG as there is impressive press coverage such as
this
And ever since it opened its doors in 1985, the Ashvale has cast its net wide in attracting some very big fish from showbusiness, politics and sport to sample its suppers. The list – which ranges from
Mel Gibson and
Gregor Fisher to
Sir Elton John and
Lewis Capaldi and
Annie Lennox to
Denis Law – testifies how this Granite City locale has become one of the most famous restaurants in the whole of the north-east.
Delete It seems that this place is pretty well-known locally which is backed by such sources as Evening Express (Aberdeene Newspaper)
1,
2 as well as a source mentioned above
[40]. However this can't be considered a significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by
WP:NCORP especially taking into account the stronger emphasis on the quality of the sources required by the guidelines applied to organizations.
Less Unless (
talk)
15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - The Press and Journal article looks pretty decent, and if there's more than what's linked already I'd happily consider changing my !vote. When I search myself, I haven't found anything else yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are articles published in multiple sources that cover the Ashvale- the Aberdeen restaurant itself appears to be known better than the chain. At the point of nomination there were no references included in the article- a lot of work has been done to add material. While I feel notability has now been established as judged against
WP:COMPANY, there is more material included that appears promotional.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
09:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - the original shop in Aberdeen has certainly had much coverage over the years, not least for the awards it has won. However, I would agree with comments that there is material which is tending towards the promotional rather than being encyclopedic content and so the article could probably do with some editing.
Dunarc (
talk)
20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of
significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An analysis of the references within the article show the following:
The Herald Scotland article from 1994 references one of the restaurants in the chain as being the best takeaway. It provides no information whatsoever on the company as a whole, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
This from intrafish.com relies entirely on information provided by the company and their MD, John Low jr. This fails
WP:ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content" and the article is classic
churnalism.
The Caterer reference just parrots information provided by one of the restaurants and/or the company such as saying *we* have a much lower profit margin, not Independent Content, fails
WP:ORGIND.
The El Pais reference is an article on "24 hours in Aberdeen" where the author mentions one of the restaurants, recounts its closing time, observes the fact it has a green carpet and that they serve battered and fried food and mentions a portion called Whale where if you eat one you get another free. The article fails to provide in-depth information on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Evening Express reference isn't about the company or one of the restaurants but is mentioned in passing as one of their directors received an honour for his services to the seafood industry and charity. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The mentions in the book
Untrodden Grapes are similar to a review of the author's experience eating in the restaurant. There is no in-depth information on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Press and Journal reference is
churnalism, based entirely on an interview with a company director and the tone of the article is promotional. It is not "Independent Content" and fails
WP:ORGIND.
This from the Herald Scotland is a mention-in-passing to the same story referred to in the previous article of how Barry Robson signed for Aberdeen over a fish supper in one of the restaurants. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
Finally,
this reference from The Scotsman is a mention-in-passing where it is announced that a dinner will be held later that night in one of the restaurants. There is no attributed journalist (just By The Newsroom) and reads like PR. In any case, there is no in-depth information provided on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
I don't accept any of that. To start with, an interview is not
churnalism and I should know because I created the article about it. And someone
nominated that for deletion too. And most of the complaints are a lack of focus on the overall company rather than the flagship restaurant. That's just the nature of the topic; the natural focus of the topic is on the founding, flagship establishment. The financials of the company are touched on but, because it is privately held, rather than public, there's not much investment interest. The essential point is that the place has been noticed and the scope of our coverage must naturally follow the sources rather than some editor's pre-conceived ideas.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
23:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The appropriate guideline is
WP:NCORP and the criteria for acceptable references to establish notability are clear and strict - they have to be strict to stem the flow of organizations treating Wikipedia like the Yellow Pages or as a promotional website. The article is about a company, not about an individual restaurant, so we need in-depth details on the company. You say that its just the nature of the topic - I disagree and there's certainly no exceptions in the guidelines that I can see. If the company was notable, somebody somewhere would have written about it and not just about a single restaurant. An interview may not be churnalism, I agree, but both of the ones I referred to are classic examples of churnalism and were created and only serve to promote the restaurant/company. Finally, the "essential point" is not that the place has been noticed but whether it meets our criteria for notability. You are correct that we must be careful to avoid editors' pre-conceived ideas about what they believe is a "good" topic - that is why we have very good and clearly written guidelines. If you want to argue about any of the references meeting our guidelines, that discussion can be held here. On the other hand if you want to argue that this topic should be an exception, that probably belongs at the NCORP talk page.
HighKing++ 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The article is only about a company inasmuch that it mentions that, in addition to the main restaurant, it has expanded to include other branches, then names the locations. Aside from that it is effectively entirely about the original and main restaurant. Accurately reflecting the de facto focus would take a couple of minor word changes.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
A notability guideline is not policy. Guidelines are loose rather than rigid and so a narrow reading is not appropriate per
WP:PETTIFOG. The nutshell for that guideline just restates the
WP:GNG. That general guideline is satisfied and so we're good. If the main restaurant is the focus of the coverage then this is not surprising. I noticed a branch of
The Ivy in Victoria recently and it seems that's another case where a famous restaurant starts spawning other branches but our article doesn't say much about them. This is to be expected and is not a reason to delete.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, guidelines *can* be loose in some ways but when they're not, they're not. As you say, the "nutshell" for NCORP is a restating of GNG with clarification on how to apply the guidelines to GNG, so if one isn't satisfied then neither can the other. GNG is also a guideline but it doesn't take precedence over NCORP. As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and you've not argued that my analysis is incorrect or that I've misinterpreted any of NCORP's guidelines. The only people "wikilawyering" at this AfD are the people trying to pick and choose which parts of which guidelines they'd like to implement for this topic while ignoring the parts they don't want/like.
HighKing++ 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
If by "people" you are including me: you made several points, I responded to one. Entirely legitimate to address issues one by one to narrow the points of contention. If it's alright by you, I'll continue to contemplate the other aspects for now before expressing a view; don't leap to conclusions in that regard.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
16:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a weird pseudo-disambiguation page/minor character list that doesn't really need to exist.
Captain America (disambiguation) exists for any characters actually predominantly associated with the name. Those that don't have articles are likely not important enough to need coverage in the first place.
TTN (
talk)
14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The Captain America page is specifically about Steve Rogers. This (admittedly poorly named) article is a hubpage for the Captain America moniker in general and most of the characters have articles of their own. Unless there is enough room at
Captain America to include everything in a Successors section, I don't see how merging is a good idea. Darkknight214910:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to fail
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNGthe main source is self-published through
Lulu.com, so not reliable. The other sources in the article are passing mentions or don't mention Oglesby at all. On a
before search, I found
a one paragraph obit and Newspapers.com has
a local ad for his performing, and seemingly nothing else besides passing mentions.
this suggests there may be more, but the only one of those sources I found is not SIGCOV, as mentioned above. Notability is not conferred just by having played with some famous people, there needs to be coverage to back it up, coverage that I just don't see.
Eddie891TalkWork22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I don't have access to the full article online, but I found a reference to an obituary published in Living Blues: Brett, Bonner (September 2004). "Erskine Oglesby". Living Blues. 35 (5): 95.
ISSN0024-5232. That, combined with
[41] this from
WOMEX, and some local coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, might be enough for GNG. But without access to a copy of that issue of the magazine, I can't say for sure how in-depth the coverage is.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
04:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reply: Hi
Gerda Arendt, I'd be happy to take another look. If (time permitting) you think of any search terms or Nigerian RS other than what you've provided that may produce results, let me know. I've actually been listening to some of his music. Greetings from Los Angeles, //
Timothy :: talk07:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for asking, and sorry I had no time so far. I have no experience in the field, - what I do is search for his name and the thing missing a reference, - sometimes lucky, sometimes not. Try it. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I looked at the article, trimmed the prose and dropped some dubious sources. I see enough coverage (Nigerian Guardian) and awards to think he is notable enough, already. I'd say that our criteria SINGER are possibly too hard for a Nigerian singer, and we could ignore that rule. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep subject passes
Anybio and
SINGER criteria #2 and #8
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term
Meiniach can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page
Playlet (
talk)
02:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep:@
Playlet and @
Yoninah:The article is very poorly written but the subject is a notable one and not limited to
chabad. The "Choizer" has it's roots going back to Europe in the days before "tape recorders". The Choizer would repeat the Rabbi's lecture giving students who missed part of the Rabbi's lecture a 2nd chance. Currently, the "Choizer" is common in many
Hassidic courts where the
Rebbe delivers his sermon at a
Tisch on
Shabbat when it is forbidden according to
halakah to record it. - So although the article needs a lot of work it is worth keeping--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Meiniach. //
Timothy :: talk14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term Choizer can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page (I have also nominated Choizer for deletion)
Playlet (
talk)
02:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GNG and nom. I don't think it's even necessary to print a list of these terms; they could be translated wherever they appear in the Chabad articles.
Yoninah (
talk)
11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This page has been on Wikipedia unchallenged for 13 years and has an equivalent page in Italian. Like many early pages on Wikipedia, sources are sorely lacking - that should be corrected but isn't grounds to delete the page. I am not familiar with this term but according to the
Chabad wiki page there are roughly 90,000 Chabad Hassidim, so a respected position in their movement should be considered notable. @
Yoninah: this isn't just a term it's the title of position - similar to
Shaliach (Chabad).--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: But this isn't the Chabadapedia. We have a wiktionary for those who think it's important to define every religious term out there.
Shaliach, meanwhile, is referred to all over world media, so it's easy to see why that meets
WP:GNG. If you could show us why this subject is notable by expanding the page with
RS, it would help this AFD.
Yoninah (
talk)
23:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah: I already said that I am not familiar with this term but I am still reluctant to delete a 13 year old established page about a leadership position associated with a 90,000 person movement due to a lack of sources.--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
00:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: I hear you, but you shouldn't put too much stock in pages that were created 13 years ago and still look like this. Back in the early days, editors posted anything, including copyvios, just to put up pages. I fought through two AFDs and lost to someone who insisted on posting a
Haredi journalist whose notability cannot be established; his response was, "Leave it. No one else cares about this." Thankfully we have editors who are now prowling the 'pedia to dig out articles that never satisfied our criteria.
Yoninah (
talk)
11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: As I said above, I do not object to the information being on Wikipedia on another page, but it lacks sources and WP:GNG to have its own page. A bad article is still a bad article even after 13 years.
Playlet (
talk)
15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah (& @
Playlet):I hear you as well, the thing is that when a page is challenged right away, it gives the creator of the page a chance to defend and improve it. When somebody challenges it 13 years later, odds are the person who created it is no longer active on Wikipedia. In general, I get the feeling that you don't have any personal knowledge on this matter and neither do I. Our knowledge on the subject is limited to internet search results, which when it comes to Orthodox Jewish topics isn't necessarily a valid indicator on notability. Especially, since the position was essentially abolished in 1994 when the last Lubavicher Rebbe died. Let's assume that this was a notable position in Chabbad- Lubavich since it was founded in 1775. There may have have been hundreds of Meiniachs between 1775 and 1994. So I am reluctant to endorse deleting something possibly very historical just because I don't know enough about it.--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: I am aware of Chabad and of these positions. Many of the members of the sect would not be aware of these positions. The fact that the author of the article is no longer an active editor is hardly a reason to keep the article for all eternity. If it does not meet notability guidelines the time frame of deletion is irrelevant.
Playlet (
talk)
00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Choizer //
Timothy :: talk15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I cannot find that this term is notable. If there is a
WP:ATD-M we could redirect or merge to
Rabbi. Note: merge or redirect only if an editor can show that the word is notable with RS.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG. A Google search provides articles that mention the subject in passing. The only significant mention are local news articles about a team leaving the conference, which I don't think establishes notability. No results found on JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale or NYT.
Z1720 (
talk)
15:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that the article subject is notable based on sufficient discussion of the subject in sources independent of the subject. I note that there is one participant in the discussion who appears to have arisen as an SPA to this topic (their own protestations notwithstanding), and two other editors who have relatively little overall participation in Wikipedia, but does appear to have worked on a number of articles unrelated to the subject of discussion, and for a longer time than would be typical of an SPA. I do not find either of these to particularly match the descriptor of a "dormant account".
BD2412T06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Alleged to be A7 article, but there is enough coverage in past version to imply a degree of notability. Listing for community input.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep (I started the article years ago). Looking over the sources, I see multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. There are 2 interviews as well as sources detailing awards he has received. They're not perfect but there is enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba03:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While there is some reliable coverage, this all appears to be in local sources (Indy Weekly for example is very localized to the Raleigh-Durham area), or brief mentions in other things with a quote or two. The article appears to have been rewritten in a promotional fashion. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources covering a subject is the standard. The scope and reach of the source is not relevant, at least as far as our notability guidelines go.--
User:Namiba14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, I think standard practice is that local news sources are not the same as regional/national sources. This is why we do not encourage people to write articles about every town councilmen or commissioner, despite there likely being lots of reliable source coverage about those people. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)reply
If you can point to where it states that, I would appreciate it. I do not see it in
WP:N. In fact, it suggests otherwise "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Anyway, Lilly was the vice-presidential nominee of a national political party and was interviewed in a variety of sources so this argument is irrelevant.--
User:Namiba15:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Namiba: Per
WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" so that's just flat out wrong. One of the notes in that policy says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The only feature articles I've seen on Lilly are from Indy Week and The Roanoke Tribune. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't argue that he was guaranteed notability because he was a vice-presidential candidate; I said that he is the subject of a number of in-depth independent articles, which you concede in your previous statement. I am glad that we seem to agree that there are multiple, in-depth sources covering him in detail. That's the standard for notability at
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are 2 very good sources, multiple interviews, and many more which briefly mention or describe Lilly's activism. There are 54 references on the article itself so forgive me if I am unconvinced by your minimization.--
User:Namiba20:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Indy beetle: I do not have a conflict of interest, I am just familiar with this person's activism. Each citation is credible in that it confirms either his involvement at the demonstrations listed and/or the subject's political stances, which is relevant to an article about an activist/political figure. I do not know why this article is still being considered for deletion and is still receiving so much editing, particularly from
Indy beetle. It meets every requirement for notability and source trustworthiness. -
Tarcanes
I've been busy cleaning up things that have been sourced to blogs (which are not "trustworthy") and details which are not backed up by the sources, such as the assertion that he was born in Charlotte (reliable sources say Fayetteville) or the absolutely bogus propaganda line that he "helped encourage a wave of revolutionary activism among oppressed and working-class youth". I'm curious as to how you would know that he organized "Mixed Mic Mondays" when none of the sources you provided supported that or that you know the exact day of his birthday (reliable sources only give the year he was born, not the day). If you are friends with Mr. Lilly you should not be editing this article. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have removed much of the subjective language to prevent this article appearing promotional, keeping it strictly factual and objectively informative. I've also added a significant number of sources, both primary sources where the subject states his presence in the location/event mentioned, or secondary articles confirming the subjects involvement and expounding upon the subject's actions
Tarcanes (
talk)
05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Tarcanes: "I've made several contributions to multiple articles. Just not on this account." Are you using multiple accounts to edit, or dod you mean that you've edited while logged out?
TomStar81 (
Talk)
07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Given that this afd has brought three editors with redlinked talk pages out here I wonder if this is being matched by special interests. Seems odd largely dormant accounts would suddenly take an interest in the page.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
03:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: (weak) I don't see an indication of notability outside of the local level, clearly doesn't meet
WP:NPOL and fails
WP:NAUTHOR and
WP:GNG as well. The article has been
refbombed, but
no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. There is some good coverage in Indy Week, but multiple sources from the same publication (and a localized one at that) doesn't establish notability by itself for me. National sources only establish the non-notability of this person, see for instance
this CNN article describing him as a "local activist". Worker's World newspaper is not independent and it seems most of the other sources quote him as a
MOTS, not establishing notability. I would like to see a clear indication that he is notable outside of Durham before considering him notable. Best,
Eddie891TalkWork12:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The article shows that he has been published widely, he was the vice-presidential nominee of a nationally-organized political party and there are multiple independent sources which cover him in detail. That many of those sources come from one region is irrelevant. This seems like a "I don't like it" argument or a "I am going to create my own standard for deletion" argument than one based on policy.--
User:Namiba12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The fact that they are from one region is incredibly relevant to their notability. A profile in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal is generally more indicative of notability than a profile in The Smalltown Tribune. I would direct you towards Indy beetle's argument above, but it's clear you have already discounted his points. The fact of the matter is that small and local publications by-and-large write about small and local news, and small and local news is not what Wikipedia should include. This is not to say that they aren't reliable, just that they don't indicate notability. If we used your standard to establish notability, we would have articles on every high school student who joined the thousand point club, on every school superintendent who had improper relations with somebody, on every local businessman who defrauded people, on every local activist who hasn't gotten all that much attention, because that's what local publications write about. While he is (presumably) not a corporation,
WP:AUD is in some ways a good rule of thumb for people too. It's generally been my experience that this is the case, particularly for political figures. I point you towards numerous extensive discussions on the topic,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. It's a controversial topic that there isn't agreement upon-- We just appear to be on different sides of the debate. And That Is Just Fine. Best,
Eddie891TalkWork13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
A candidate for vice-president of the United States is not a local activist. One quoted and publishing in national and internationally trusted sources isn't equivalent to a high school student. It's a nice strawman you've built but it's definitely not comparable. It's fine to disagree but let's not disregard the facts.--
User:Namiba13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
That's beside the point. You argued that because the most in-depth coverage of Lilly is from a regional newspaper, he isn't notable despite passing
WP:GNG. I pointed out that he received coverage (including a full-length interview from The North Star) as part of his campaign for vice-president. How many votes he received is inconsequential, as your comment about another candidate. Again, facts, not your opinion or bias, matter.--
User:Namiba14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article must be deleted, a duplication of the section in the
Puteri Indonesia. It does not need a separate article in view of the fact that it's a runner up position in the Puteri Indonesia pageant, not a separate pageant.
Richie Campbell (
talk)
14:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. While in the west, beauty pageants are seen as no big deal, and rather looked down upon (female objectification!), in several countries in Asia (Indonesia, India, Phillipines) they are a Big Deal. So while Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata is awarded as a runner up position to Puteri Indonesia, it is an important title of its own. She gets to tour and perform in a way that the runners-up to Miss America or Miss USA, for example, just don't. And the three top winners of Puteri Indonesia go on to compete in three different important and unrelated international pageants, with the main Puteri Indonesia competing for
Miss Universe,
Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan (which I see you've also nominated for deletion, so we'll be arguing there as well) competing for
Miss International, and Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata competing for
Miss Supranational. They have three separate substantial articles in the Indonesian Wikipedia (which has many fewer articles than ours does):
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesiahttps://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Pariwisatahttps://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Lingkungan. Most importantly for our purposes, Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata gets significant coverage on its own, enough to meet the
Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline without Puteri Indonesia. For example, all these are unrelated non-trivial articles from reliable sources about Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata, not about Puteri Indonesia:
Ah, I see you've combined them (I was writing the reply while these were separate AfDs). Well, the same logic applies to
Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan, and here are some non-trivial articles about that as well:
Hi
GRuban. The fact remains that it is part of Puteri Indonesia pageant and the article is a duplication of the section of the Puteri Indonesia article. Regarding the sources you provided, the same is true for
Miss Earth or even in the
Miss Philippines Earth elemental queens i.e., Miss Earth Water, Miss Earth Air, and Miss Earth Fire; these titles (not a runner up position as per organizers) are being awarded during the finals, they perform their duties and get to travel the whole year, they get publicities and with plethora of reliable sources but I just don't see them having a separate article because they are held in one pageant night but you can use these sources to cite the winners. The sources that you provided should be used to support the Puteri Indonesia and also the annual article of Puteri Indonesia e.,g
Puteri Indonesia 2019,
Puteri Indonesia 2020 to indicate the list of winners.---
Richie Campbell (
talk)
16:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That's like saying the
Vice President of the United States is just part of the
President of the United States, so we shouldn't have a separate article for it. They are separate offices, even if they are elected at the same time in the same way at the same location, and they are each sufficiently notable. If there are enough independent in-depth articles from reliable sources about Miss Earth Water, then we can have a Miss Earth Water article, when someone gets around to writing it. That's the point of
Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline, that's how we tell which deserves its own article, not just "what is part of what". We've got separate articles for
Miss New York, even though that's just part of
Miss America, and these winners are much more notable in every way than Miss New York, they represent more people, they get more articles written about them, they do more national and international events, etc. Heck, it seems we have separate articles for each of the
Category:Miss America state pageants! --
GRuban (
talk)
17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep Clearly reaches GNG with non-routine sources such as
this one or
this other one. And most of the sources focusing on his transfer also cover several other aspect of the player's career. Furthermore
WP:INHERITED is about not using the argument "he's the son of **** so he is notable", it does not invalidate sources focused on the subject of the article that also mention his origins. For example the
Goal reference clearly covers the subject of the player far beyond the fact he is the son of someone. --
Coco (
talk)
18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it matters, but so does
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:FOOTY, and
WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he retired tomorrow, would it make sense for him to have a page? Every youth footballer in elite academies has transfer rumours or interviews, but I don't think it makes sense for them to have a page until they professionally debut.@
Cocô53:--
Ortizesp (
talk)
18:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Ortizesp: Here is a litteral quote from
WP:FOOTYN: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under
Wikipedia:Notability". As for
WP:TOOSOON, it only applies to articles that do not meet notability requirement and are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" (aka GNG). As for
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it really does not apply here, as the article is mainly about what the player has already done (at youth club and international level), not about some hypothetical future career.
So as per shown above, one cannot talk about the notability of an article ignoring the GNG, and as a matter of fact you even end up talking about sources such as "transfer rumours or interviews". But if you do so you must have the intellectual honesty of talking about the quality of the actual sources. Are those only routine? Do they give a significant coverage of the subject?
And about the question "if its career stoped etc.", do you think that such an article with a lot of good quality sources would be really less worthy of being on the encyclopedia than one about a player with only one little match played and only primary sources? --
Coco (
talk)
18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, clearly meets
WP:GNG, having received far more coverage than the majority of our WP:NFOOTY-passing articles. Regularly a headline in the sports section of the major Icelandic newspaper
[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] (some of these are game descriptions, but they're not routine transfer news). There is no
WP:CRYSTALBALL material here, and the above voters haven't explained how they think the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, even WP:NFOOTY mentions Youth players are not notable unless [...] they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur(talk)14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although being the creator of this article, I am dubious if this article should be on Wikipedia, I'm not also sure if it qualifies for
WP:NOS or not. If this article qualifies for
WP:NOS and shouldn't be deleted, then I can continue on with the other articles (i.e. The CAF, AFC,UEFA,OFC and CONMEBOL versions).
Josedimaria237 (
talk)
09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for
soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --
Cewbot (
talk)
00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will salt both titles. There is consensus here (and in all the other afd's) that McCullough is not notable, and isn't likely to become so in the future.
Eddie891TalkWork22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is the 5th AfD for this person. If this AfD is not closed as keep, I believe this page (and
J. J. McCullough (See AfDs:
12)) should be salted (or fully protected if redirected) to prevent its repeated recreation. The sources I have found are:
This interview with True North, not contributing toward GNG because all the coverage is his opinion on this interview. I'm also not sure about the reliability of this source, given
Andrew Scheer grouped it with
The Post Millenial, which nearly got deprecated.
Delete, with salt at both titles. As with the prior attempts, this is still referenced not to
reliable sources that properly contextualize his notability, but primarily to his own
self-published content. As always, a journalist is not automatically notable just because his work technically metaverifies its own existence in contribution directories on the websites of his own employers — notability as a journalist requires other media outlets, who are not the issuers of his paycheques, to independently establish the significance of his journalism by writing analytical content about him and his impact in the third person. Content on Twitter and YouTube also does not speak to notability at all, because those are
user generated platforms, and neither do Q&A interviews in which the subject of the article is doing the speaking about himself or other things. So once you toss all the footnotes here that are doing nothing to establish his notability, there's literally only one GNG-worthy footnote left in the article — and even it's not about him strongly enough to carry him over GNG all by itself as the only acceptable source in the article, either, because it's about an incident rather than him as a person and thus flunks
WP:BLP1E. This is not how you establish the notability of a journalist, regardless of whether he's of the left or the right.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That appears to be part of additional criteria. Later in the guideline, it says If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context. The best places to merge would probably be a list of Washington Post columnists or to
Anti-Quebec sentiment given that's what most sources talk about. Also, "Large fan base" is incredibly vague. I see no sources translating his 200K subscribers into a "large" fan base (his recent videos have around 70-105K views, so I guess about 70K would be the fanbase if nobody watches his videos more than once). Username689213:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
We have no evidence that YouTube subscriber counts are trustworthy, meaningful or indicative of much at all, really. What's a big number? What's a small one? Who are we comparing against? (
3Blue1Brown has 15 times as many subscribers as McCullough, and that's for talking about math in a sedate voice.) How many views are from actual humans? Etc. See
WP:ITEXISTS and
WP:ARBITRARY.
XOR'easter (
talk)
18:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It appears that I have misinterpreted Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should have looked at more than just
WP:ENTERTAINER. I was also wrong to cite his subscriber count, because
WP:INVALIDBIO advises against this. The lack of independent coverage (which I was aware of) means that it does not meet
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. An article that depends on sef-published sources to exist is not likely to be encyclopedic. For that reason, I am changing my vote. However, my vote would still stand if more appropriate sources existed.
Scorpions13256 (
talk)
20:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tragic but fails General notability guidelines with very poor sources, and just not enough of anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Re-direct to a Let L-410 accident section?
Petebutt (
talk)
22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: As the creator of the article, while I would like to be able to provide a strong keep argument, I concede that I can only provide a weak one. I decided to create the article after the article on the
2020 Juba AN-26 crash was created, on the basis that the accidents were similar. I realize, however, that
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument at best in a deletion discussion, and that even if it weren't, that the Juba crash has much better sources, hence my weak keep comment on my own article — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pizzaguy875 (
talk •
contribs)
22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An incomplete collection of miscellaneous storylines and highlights from several years of this running soap, 1992-2005 and 2007-2013. Complete lack of sourcing verifying significant coverage of any events, written mostly like an essay.
WP:FANCRUFT. No other soap show has storyline articles like this.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Hi @
Temur:. It might be worth posting on here. Very few folk actually look at the talk page of an Afd, as the discussion takes place on the main page. If you can find your top
three sources and post them here, we can examine them. We can use the top three sources to determine if the person is notable. The best three sources are a reasonably quick way of verifying if it is notable, without wading through perhaps dozens of other sources that don't necessarily add any value. scope_creepTalk13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per crystal-ball, this is all future stuff. Who knows what may happen, and when - this is not encyclopedic. Best to wait until there is something definite, as always.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd actually have to say Keep, as more can be said about the game beyond its announcement.
IGN details with game's narrative designer,
Eurogamer on some art direction, and as there was more discussed this weekend (via virtual Gamescom) more may come this week. We have a publisher-planned release window of next year as well, and know the game has been in the works (this isn't some yet-to-be-started project). (If we didn't have any in-depth coverage of the type of gameplay, and just teaser trailers, merging would be better) --
Masem (
t)
14:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
To further elaborate: Crystalball does not prohibit articles about planned or expected future events (
Heat death of the universe,
Eurovision Song Contest 2021), so long as they are backed up by sources, aren't original research, and are phrased appropriately. This is not a case of "I think it's likely that a Gollum game will happen, so I'm going to write an article based on my speculation and present it as fact".--
AlexandraIDV07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the IGN and Eurogamer articles. Eurogamer's is particularly focused on a small detail (Gollum's hair), so it's clear that there is interest in the upcoming game. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Alleged to be an A7 article, but there's enough information in the article's history tab that I'd feel better letting the community decide whether to swing the axe in this case.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
08:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - It is worth mentioning that half of the article's references are from the same website. I'm curious to know if the artist has enoguh significant coverage or not.
Foxnpichu (
talk)
09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, unless someone can deliver reliable sources that are translated from Korean to English. This guy's manager should advise him to change his stage name because it is hideously unsearchable in any language. Searching for his birth name in English (Jo Tae-kyoung) or stage name in Korean (어바웃) in conjunction with something like "singer" brings up what look like exclusively Korean social media promotions and streaming sites, like those already in the article. I was unable to find an entry on him at Korean Wikipedia, but again I may have been thwarted by his pointless name. Even less comes up in sites that use English. Unless someone proficient in Korean can deliver something useful, I must conclude that this article is just an attempted
promotion for a singer with little media notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)13:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that this satisfies the threshold needed to avert speedy deletion, so I'm listing here for community input
TomStar81 (
Talk)
08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:NALBUM... the DJ who compiled this album has no article himself (the blue link is a redirect) and I can't find any information about this record at all. This was created by an author who is in the process of creating dozens of articles every day, despite being warned that most of them are non-notable, like this one, and that AllMusic listings without a rating or review and using the album's own liner notes as a citation do not demonstrate notability.
Richard3120 (
talk)
15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - In agreement with the reasoning given by the nominator and previous voter. The article's creator is a veteran editor who should know better, and perhaps should be talked to about a recent rush of articles on obscure non-notable albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)18:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Having a Wikipedia page is not a reward or honor, and not a mechanism to give credit to someone who did something we think is deserving of recognition but is not notable as Wikipedia defines it.
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - the page was moved to a name without the typo, but I moved it back pending a decision on this AfD, else it would apply just to the redirect. If the conclusion is to retain the page, then it will need to be moved again to the correct spelling. That being said . . . .
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - None of the cited sources provide any biographical detail on the subject, nor does any other non-primary source I have found. The Scientific American item is a summary of the invention that only gives the inventor's name and address as it appears on the patent documentation (not his only address - he seems to be living somewhere else in every record I find). The second reference is that patent itself, and again the only information it provides about the subject is his name and address. The third reference is a list of patents relevant to railroads, and gives nothing more than his name, and the fourth is a map that he drafted, which has his name on it. A Google Books search for "Sidney A. Beers" returns just eleven hits that name him, which are all either a summary of the American patent or mention of the map without further describing Beers or providing any further details on the man. A search using his full middle name turns up another 13 hits, all of them British sources either listing or briefly describing the same patent when he applied for it in Britain. He did have a passport application and shows up in censuses, Brooklyn city directories, and the 1863 tax rolls, but this is just the typical detritus of a run-of-the-mill mid-19th century life and does not constitute personal
WP:NOTABILITY.
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The current content has no article-quality (WP:GNG-satisfying) sourcing, no matter what name you give it. Bare patent announcements do not establish notability for either
Sydney Beers or for
Improved elastic railroad, nor does parroting the descriptions and claims made in an original patent application indicate that any of the content is reliable or noteworthy (patents are usually granted by default, as long as the application satisfies the appropriate forms, and their accuracy is only tested when challenged). Moving this only puts the same problematic content (most of which deals with Beers and not the railroad) under a different namespace, but doesn't resolve the inherent lack of notability. It is not even clear to me that
Improved elastic railroad is really 'a thing' and not just the description Beers used for his invention in the patent application. For a stand-alone article specifically on Beers' track design, we would need multiple later sources indicating the importance of that specific design, and we don't have that. Simply having a patent granted is insufficient for WP:GNG, not for the inventor, not for the invented item, and moving this fails to address the core problem that it just isn't notable.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Searched in JSTOR, found a lot of ideas for reducing maintenance costs on railroads, but nothing about this. His name brings up nothing. //
Timothy :: talk12:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently non-notable initiative. As far as I can tell, it released one report in 2008 and did very little else. The report did get some coverage in the Toronto Star (
[56],
[57]) and
CityNews (
[58]). By article count alone, you might think that passes
WP:THREE. But I just have a hard time believing that a single report released 12 years ago with no apparent long-term impact is an encyclopedic topic. Would be nice to get some clarity on this one way or another, since it's been tagged for notability for over 11 years.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Merging sounds like a great idea! I would suggest that the eventual merger (I'd do it myself, if consensus is to merge) be selective—there's a lot of peacocks, weasels, and puffery hanging out in this article at the moment.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
15:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG does not appear to pass alternate criteria for
WP:ANYBIO either
"1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -does not appear so.
"2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." - being the largest "individual sheep farmer" restricted to within Fresno County, CA isn't even close to being historically significant in the field of animal husbandry.
"3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." The things he does appear in are tailored to somewhat important local figures and it maybe of important to the local community and I don't believe they're anything even remotely similar to Dictionary of National Biography.
Moreover, it's a condensed copy-and-paste from a self-published family genealogy website. Since copyright release is in file, copyright isn't an issue, but the contents aren't really encyclopedic.
copyvios report
It's essentially an article that was created off Wiki for what seems like a family memorial purposes than encyclopedic that has been imported into Wikipedia from that point of view through copyright release. From my assessment of the GNG and ANYBIO criteria, it doesn't serve encyclopedic purpose to have that article on Wikipedia.
Graywalls (
talk)
05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Based on
WP:BASIC, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable. The following citations show that
William Helm was notable:
Comment on triviality, on one end of the scale is a one line mention in the news paper and on the other end is an entire book written about them. From the WP:BASIC page, "A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". So the range is very wide.
Going over those sources one by one The Valley's Legends & Legacies III is a 368 page book; and it is a volume of a series of six volumes that's devoted to the Central Valley of the US State of California. A page in a collection that with a narrow focus would be relatively trivial. These are books that talk about somewhat important people in that area, like people who were shop keepers, herders and like.
History of the State of California with Biographical Record "noteworthy among the pioneer settlers of Fresno county is William Helm, a respected and valued citizen of Fresno." about a page in a 1643 page book.
History of Fresno County California with Biographical Sketches 1 1/2 pages in a 2603 page book.
Somewhat of an importance in the local history, but keep in mind that even local city politicians aren't automatically notable for Wikipedia and I don't think this person's notability rises to a level of importance of having their own stand alone article. On the level of interest, I am seeing a daily average of 3 over the last five years; with the all time high daily view occurring as a result of the AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
So, if I were to use an encyclopedia to look up notable sheep farmers in California, shouldn't I be able to find
William Helm? There is even a city named after him. BTW, since 2015, there has been 5,615 pageviews! --
Greg Henderson (
talk)
17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
No more so than being able to find the name of biggest potato grower in the State of Idaho that was an individual in 1900s. There is indeed a lot of articles that shouldn't have been put on Wikipedia in the first place. If you happen to find others exist, there's good chance those don't meet notability standards and you're free to nominate them for AfD as well.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It appears that you have a differrent interpretation of
WP:BASIC. To me, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources is what has been cited for
William Helm. It will be interesting to see what other Keep/Delete votes we get. --
Greg Henderson (
talk)
18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Subject appears notable enough. An independently published page on someone is a page on them whether it's half of a two-page pamphlet or 1/10,000 of a multi-volume work. His obituary in The Fresno Morning Republican was also quite substantial, running two columns and covering much the same ground.
BD2412T19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep a prominent early pioneer with some fairly extensive coverage in local and state histories. With the exception of the Family Search and Find-a-grave references, this article doesn't seem to be based on genealogical research, and looks fine for the most part.
Curiocurio (
talk)
21:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
May be a
WP:FRINGEBLP. The lone RS included as a source does indeed mention the subject of the article (see
[59], by
David M. Jacobs), but just once. There are also hits in in-universe ufology newsletters, but we can't use those. I could not find reviews of her books to establish
WP:NAUTHOR. Previous AfD was in 2009, so I think this deserves fresh consideration.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete these pages are so frustrating. I would love to keep it as I'm sure it is interesting reading and even a good psychological study for future researchers. But we can't give Wikipedia pages to people just because they are authors. Otherwise Wikipedia would be overrun. Whomever wrote this page sadly misunderstood what notability on Wikipedia means.
Sgerbic (
talk)
21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
New page review: BLP of a tv and radio host sourced to interviews and PR pieces with no genuine sustained coverage in independent sources. Her name makes an online search for other sources rather difficult. There’s another Faith Temitope in Zambia who’s obviously not the same person.
Mccapra (
talk)
04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. An article filled with meaningless puffery on a completely
run-of-the-mill golf course. The sole claim to notability I could find was its being named the 32nd best golf course in Massachusetts by "top100golfcourses.com" (
[60])—and that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Subject doesn't appear to meet
WP:BROADCAST or
WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find at all is a handful of
reprintedpressreleasechurnalism from the time of the channel's launch. In Nov 2008. And then absolutely nothing after that. This type of coverage confirms that the subject existed (or at least was launched) and that the PR department managed to get some noise out in advance. But this type of coverage is not "independent of the subject" and doesn't confirm notability. Lasting or otherwise. That there is no coverage at all after that, even to the extent that the subject's apparent demise was not worthy of coverage, suggests that it is/was not notable. If, for some reason, there is consensus to keep the title, then it should be redirected to
Magnet Networks. As the content of the article is entirely uncited, a decade or more out-of-date, and generally of little to no value independent of the parent company/operator.
Guliolopez (
talk)
08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete in addition to not passing Beauty Pageants notability guidelines as stated by nom, sections on being a young investor and fashion trendsetter are
WP:PROMO in nature. Refs are mainly interviews. Information about her appearing in various publications as model or representing the various brands are not immediate verifiable in stated sources.
– robertsky (
talk)
07:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a journalist/activist who does not seem meet the requirements of
WP:GNG There is a lot of noise from organizations directly attached to his causes. The others that come from reliable sources are barely mentions of him. The sources used in the actual article cannon be considered reliable for the purposes of notability.
McMatter(
talk)/(
contrib)02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per
WP:NOTPROMO. The current state of the article is edging close to
G11 territory. Would also point out that the author of the article was a
SPA and little has changed since then in terms of the tone of the article. --
Dps04 (
talk)
04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Having existed since 1770, it's highly unlikely that a fairly large church would have went unnoticed in the media. Sources are quite likely to exist in print media and in the native language. The Thrissur city police website notes "... and Chittattukara St. Sebstian's Church Thirunal are the most important festivals conducted by Christian community within Pavaratty ..." which indicates potential notability. The church is mentioned in
this book but I can't see full extract. –
SD0001 (
talk) (
talk)
14:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I certainly sympathize with the views noted above, I would note that—as far as I can see—no one has pointed to a reliable source indicating that that this church was founded in 1770, as the article currently claims. Fwiw, the church's website
[61] does not appear to mention this date. I find arguments based on
WP:NEXIST less persuasive if we do not have clear evidence of the church's age and prominence.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, I just found
[62], which is a primary source from the archdiocese in which the church is located. It does give a founding date of 1770, which I find reasonably persuasive. I'd love to find some sort of independent confirmation of this, however.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentAleatoryPonderings's concern on lack of sources is valid. However, I found some mentions of this church in
this book titled "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times", the details cannot be accessed to know whether the church really belongs to that period. If the church is really that old, it should be in a government list of historic heritage sites like the Indian equivalent of
National Register for Historic Places. That could make it pass
WP:NCHURCH or
WP:NBUILD, marginally at least.
Nomian (
talk)
01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per
WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass
WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass - it speculation to say that the ancestors were baptised by St Thomas Apostle. Listing mass times and chapels under the auspice of this church does not make this notable. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The contents of the article at present are irrelevant to notability. Churches are not inherently notable, ok, but how can you claim that it does not meet GNG without having access to sources like
this (also linked above) -- from which quite frankly it looks as if the subject is covered significantly, although GBooks is displaying only a snippet. –
SD0001 (
talk)
14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The
site cited suggests the current building does not in fact date to 1770, though the Catholic parish would. Regardless,
WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument and there is not automatic notability for age. Not shown to have significant coverage.
Reywas92Talk18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Well, the present church isn't the one who have been used as parish church since the formation of the parish in 1770. The present church is actually the third church of the parish, and is a few decade younger than the parish itself, probably built shortly after the year 1800, but the exact year/date dosen't seem to be remembered any more (I've updated an improved the article on various points). I agree, that it would be to rash to conclude lack of sources when a search in the local language haven't been done. For what I can see, there are lot of printed material in the local language, but if any of this deals whit the history of the church, I can't tell - but what is evident is 1) The church is mentioned in "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times" and 2) The church has significant coverage (found on the internet) in various languages 3) We haven't fully established to what extent the church is mentioned in older printed material & 4) The "Kambidi Thirunnal" seem to be a well known feast also attracting visitors from beyond the borders of the parish - "famed by it's fireworks". All in all I can't recommend a deletion of the article.
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Several participants in this discussion have noted that there does not appear to have been a search in non-English texts. I posted
this note at
WP:INDIA to ask if anyone was able to do that (I can't). Note to closer and others: I assume that this is not inappropriate canvassing—if anything, it would make deletion less likely—but I am open to a reprimand if so.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete FamilySearch is a database that compiles primary sources. These are not the type of sources that one needs to show notability. IMDb is also not a reliable source that in any way shows that what it covers is notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Argument against deletion: The subject's notability extends beyond his being heir to a deposed monarchy, as described in the article and summarized in the lede.--
Dr.bobbs (
talk)
05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: Regardless of the deposed status of the Saxon Thrones, the thousand year old
House of Wettin is still very much in existence. Thus, Prince Daniel's status as disputed but nevertheless heir to the Head of the House is of encyclopedic relevance. The article is also sourced in the Prince's entrepreneurial matters and the fact that he was one of the candidates in contention to become King of Poland, which even though was Polish monarchist propaganda, is not something you see everyday. All in all the article as a whole is notable enough to remain in Wikipedia.
TheRedDomitor (
talk)
11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, the sourcing is atrocious, and "some crazy people would like him to be King of Poland, but he doesn't believe in monarchy" (which is what one of the sources say) is not the same as "he was a candidate to become King of Poland" (apart from the fact that Poland hasn't been a monarchy for a very long time either). Are there any proper
WP:RS for this
WP:BLP content? —Kusma (
t·
c)
15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have quite clearly stated in my entry above that the entire King of Poland extravaganza is nothing more than Polish monarchist propaganda. But even as preposterous as it may be (as Poland is a Republic) you don't see every second prince from a former royal family being asked to become titular king of a foreign nation, even if it is by a niche group of fanatics. And even without this entire Poland segment, the prince is still an important member of the House of Wettin. But I do agree on one point that the article definitely needs to be sourced more reliably.
TheRedDomitor (
talk)
16:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep As stated above by Dr.bobbs and TheRedDormitor, the subject's notability is only partially based on the disputed monarchial claim. In any case, it is only the OP's opinion that this claim does not confer notability.
Cherryblossom1982 (
talk)
20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Agree with everything said above; however, I realize that his work might have significance to people interested in dogs, and have therefore added it to another deletion sorting list. --
Hoary (
talk)
22:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - There is a discussion archived at
WP:ICTFhere. Replying to
this, looks like the person exists
[3][4][5] and the vid linked in the archive. Social media accounts are not verified however. Haven't seen this guy covered in reliable news media, making be wonder whether he passes
WP:NACTOR. -
Fylindfotberserk (
talk)
14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There does not seem to be much media coverage on this topic. There are only 394 likes on the
Facebook page of this NGO.ilmaisin (
talk) 19:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Struck over link to a Facebook page of a completely different thing. --
ilmaisin (
talk)
10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I have tried, but failed, to find any reliable sources on the topic. Furthermore, the organisation seems to be defunct now. (Note also that the above linked Facebook page appears to about a summer camp hosted by the
Party of the Swedes, not this organisation.) ―
Hebsen (
talk)
21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I know, but it may give a rough estimate on whether or not it is a big NGO. That neither is same thing as notability, but it is one thing that affects notability. --
ilmaisin (
talk)
10:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
No, it was real, but apparently just a minor fringe organization that never really managed to do anything. It can be found in the Danish corporation database
[6], and old material from it can be found on some fringe websites
[7][8][9]. Neither make it notable, thought. ―
Hebsen (
talk)
13:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not sure if any of the sources actually mention this NGO. The article seems mostly be an essay arguing for their vision based these sources. No evidence that this NGO, if it's even operational anymore, is notable. --
Pudeo (
talk)
19:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was created by blocked user:Vettipaiyan. I expanded the article, but now realize that all of the sources are gossips about her marriage and Instagram posts.
TamilMirchi (
talk)
19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected to
Prakash Sayami. The contribution history is still available; no objection to merging the content to the redirected article, and no objection to the creator trying again in draft space and this time going through the
WP:AFC review process rather than unilaterally moving an unsuitable draft to main space. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Not enough information to satisfy
book notability. Google search for Kathamandu Selfie finds advertisements for book, and this article in Wikipedia, but no reviews or third-party mentions, and this article does not provide any mention that can be followed up to find sources.
Strong Delete If it has been moved out of Draft once without effective reassume to correct the problems over sources, then it must be a deleted. No effective reference. scope_creepTalk19:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or re-drafify the article still needs work and I'm going to
WP:AGF that there are sources in reliable non-English sources. But it needs the effort of editors who know, otherwise it shouldn't be re-created.
Archrogue (
talk)
17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi! Merge and redirect aren't that different; there are cases where they end up being the same. To me, in this case, a merge means adding "A collection of essays title Kathmandu Selfie was published in 2015[1]" or therebouts. The target article is exceedingly poor with next to no verification (or RS); so even this one sentence with its independent RS would be a massive improvement, IMO, which is the complete reason my !vote says merge and not redirect. Closers rarely require this hashed out, to make their decision. Best, Usedtobecool☎️02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -
User:Nirmaljoshi - By telling a reviewer what to search for, you are insulting the reviewers by dumping poorly researched pages into article space and expecting the reviewers to finish the job. It is the responsibility of the author to provide an article that provides useful information to the reader without having to search in two languages. Do not insult the reviewers.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same chap who was subject of an article deleted in 2017, and there's no new claim of notability other than he has now retired. As a football referee, he's not covered by NFOOTIE, so would need to pass GNG; the only source I can find giving him significant depth of coverage is the Football Queensland website, announcing his retirement - this is an affiliated source, since he appears to have worked for them, and so doesn't add any weight to a claim of notability per GNG.
GirthSummit (blether)17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Leave and here is why. I am aware that this article was deleted because he "failed" to be notable other than his retirement. However, there is a chance because the
Hyundai A-League coverage is an official website that he had his only appearance in a
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification match between Timor-Leste and Saudi Arabia. If anyone declares that he fails notability, I will add more sources to this article every way I can, as far as I am concerned, to ensure that he has a year of birth, and a football refereeing career for that matter.
Ivan Milenin (
talk)
18:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, if you can show me three sources which are all independent, reliable and secondary, and which give him significant coverage, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Currently the article has no references that tick all those boxes, but if they're out there, by all means add them.
GirthSummit (blether)18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, unfortunately, none of the ones that give significant coverage are independent of the subject - again, he's worked for the Hyundai league, it's not independent. You need sources that are
reliable,
independent and
secondary, and which give significant coverage. I'm not seeing any that tick all the boxes, sorry.
GirthSummit (blether)20:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, The SMH doesn't give him substantial coverage - it's just about a single controversial refereeing decision, there's no biographical content whatsoever. We don't host articles about every referee whose decisions have been mentioned in a match report.
GirthSummit (blether)09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ymblanter, hi - could I ask whether you'd be willing to expand on that? The reasoning above seems to be either that (a) he is given substantial coverage by an affiliated website (Hyundai A-League, who he worked for), that (b) he officiated in a qualification match for the 2018 World Cup (perhaps there's an SNG for match officials I'm not aware of?), or (c) that passing mentions in match reports are an acceptable substitute for substantial coverage. I can't see a route to notability through any of that, but I'd genuinely be happy to reconsider if there's something I haven't thought of. Cheers
GirthSummit (blether)11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Girth Summit, if you need clarification on notability guidelines on referees, then there it is:
[11] In accordance to what they believe in notability guidelines on referees, “players, coaches (managers) and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.” In this case, as I keep on researching and adding for additional sources, such as from
FIFA,
AFC, and sometimes ESPN, they should prove that he had made a senior international appearance at the
FIFA World Cup and the
AFC Asian Cup, whether if it’s a regular competition, or a qualifying match, or otherwise. If that is the case, then I will see what I will have to do for the matter. Please kindly take a look at the AFC PDF source and other sources if you still doubt it.
Ivan Milenin (
talk)
16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Ivan Milenin, the discussion you link to is many years old - it's possible that the guidance has changed over time as consensus changes over what we consider notable, but I'm not seeing any verbiage about referees in the current version of
WP:NFOOTIE about refs - unless I'm missing something, they would have to pass regular
WP:GNG. I'll be happy to take a look at the article in its latest state in the days before this discussion is closed, but please don't
WP:REFBOMB it - it's the quality of the sources that counts. Two or three really good, independent sources with in-depth coverage would change my opinion; 50 trivial articles about a controversial decision in a particular match will not.
GirthSummit (blether)16:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi again
Ivan Milenin, I've looked again at the article with its new sourcing. There are a bunch of articles which give him one or two passing mentions, but they're mostly all about the same controversial decision in a single match, and none of them have any biographical detail about him, or discuss him (as opposed to the specific decision) in any depth. There's one which is basically just an announcement that he got his FIFA badge (alongside a couple of other refs), so basically the only sources which go into any depth are sites that he's affiliated with. I'm sorry, but my view remains that he's simply not notable according to our guidelines.
GirthSummit (blether)14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge I feel that refs should be held to the same notability requirements as players. If the SNG include players who represent a professional team then refs who control those games should be given the same courtesy. However I also don't like the SNGs in general and think they run roughshod over GNG in many cases. So on the whole I will stay neutral on whether this is kept or deleted due to notability. However, and this applies to many other referee articles, coverage of even some of the more well known referees consists of just newspaper articles complaining about controversial calls. It can be a nightmare trying to enforce BLP after a game where fans are divided or even in this case where there is a good faith attempt to source the article. In the end it just makes the article very
WP:Undue. So for that reason it tips me to the delete side. As a third option I feel a
List of A-league referees might be a better chance to mention Milliner and other borderline referees.
AIRcorn(talk)21:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No significant coverage in secondary, independent reliable sources, does not meet
WP:GNG, doesn't appear to meet
WP:NARTIST. In addition to reviewing the citations at this article and the linked articles on other language projects, I searched for Babii's name in English, Ukrainian and Russian, as well as his alias VarrIng, on both Google and Yandex. signed, Rosguilltalk17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Co-founder and chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine (2009). Founded and editor-in-chief Sanbyuleten Zdorove Suspilstvo (2003). Artist: 2 books (catalogs 2014, 2016). 6 Ukrainian patents (2005–2008).
Ostap Khanko (
talk)
18:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This is hard to assess as the subject is made out to be a master of many fields. However I don't think the fields are particularly interesting or important: e.g. "chair of the board of the Association of Public Service Announcement Customers and Producers in Ukraine"? Existing sources do not meet
WP:NARTIST. The overall tone and intent of the article seems to be promotional.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Took a look at some citations I expected to be secondary sources, but they were press releases (e.g. the supposed Business Insider link) or insignificant passing mentions (e.g. the Medium post). Not seeing a depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Promotional piece by COI account. Citobun (
talk)
11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - Here are some things I found: He has several photographs in the collection of the Science & Society Picture Library, which is “The official picture library of the Science Museum Group. Representing the visual collections of the Science Museum, the Science & Industry Museum, the Science & Media Museum, Locomotion and the Railway Museum, as well as select contributors.”[12]...I’m guessing his work is in the Railway Museum collection. Five of his photographs were used on commemorative stamps in 1994:
[13] and there was some exhibition mentioned as well, “Art in the Age of Steam Europe, America and the Railway, 1830-1960” which I believe was at the Mid-Continent Railway Museum. Small blurb about the five commemorative stamps:
[14] and here:
[15] The stamps are in the collection of the Science Museum Group
[16] Had an exhibition at the National Railway Museum in 1996 according to this:
[17] Had an exhibition at the Kidderminster Railway Museum in 2009:
[18] Book review here:
[19] Book review on Mechanical Landscapes (blog)
[20] Article about him here:
[21] also mentions he’s in an exhibition at Newcastle Art Centre.
Netherzone (
talk)
19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I also found five newspaper articles: The Times (London)
[22], Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne),
[23], Evening Chronicle
[24], The Tampa Tribune
[25], and
[26] I think these items plus those above push him over the edge into the keep zone.
Netherzone (
talk)
21:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Rathfelder, I added a few citations, and cleaned up quite a bit of the flowery language, rumor and speculation, and also improved the way it is organized. It still needs a lot of work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. My guess is that it was written by someone close to him given the level of detailed anecdotal material.
Netherzone (
talk)
15:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: In addition to the sources listed above, I find coverage of Gifford in A Photographer's Guide to Railways by Roger Siviter (1989) which credits Gifford with leading the "New Approach"; there's mention of Gifford on
page 5 and
page 54. There are also a few sentences in The Oxford Companion to the Photograph (2005) on
page 534. Added to the sources already listed, I believe that this demonstrates notability. The article does need to be rewritten to remove the puffery. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Being the 113th-largest of a specific type of company in one country is hardly inherent evidence of notability. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - not seeing enough significant, independent, reliable coverage online for this to be included. There are a few passing mentions about certain people being appointed or mergers, but nothing that is in depth. --
IWI (
talk)
03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep 113th largest law firm in the country after its merger in 2019 merger (and name change) which on its face is notable. The article needs updating but AFD is not about the quality of the writing but rather the notability of the business. Its history includes numerous notable attorneys.
Americasroof (
talk)
07:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentAmericasroof what sources are you basing your assertion of notability on? This article is not about the post 2019 merger firm, as that would have the post merger title (and proper sources). Also big != notable.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As it stands, this is nothing more than a dot on a map. Perhaps Durham has more to say, but as it stands I can find nothing but places listing names, and the GNIS entry, and a name at abruptly appears on the topo maps in the 1960s, with nothing around it.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems there's a 1895 Rand McNally New Atlas of the World with Carmen City on it. It's possible the community was tabulated as part of the
1890 Census but the fate of that document is up in smoke for California places. –
The Grid (
talk)
17:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NACTOR. Article is majorly cited to YouTube links. She has worked in non notable web series and done a few music videos that were released on YouTube. Google searches do not show any obvious signs of notability.
Umakant Bhalerao (
talk)
15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It just says that the subject is an entrepreneur and brand influencer from Nigeria. Sources are mostly blogs and not reliable. - SUBWAY15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Stay Articles are not promotion nor spam , i will edit them right away with other source , sorry admins pardon me or move page to draft.
Ilovegod112 (
talk)
One does have to be well known globally before he or she is notable, He is well known here in His country
Nigeria And that doesn’t go against A4. I can still add more source if you want me too. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ilovegod112 (
talk •
contribs)
17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I originally created the article. Most sources are reputable national media organisations. The party received significant independent media coverage (as per notability guidelines). The page was created during a time when it was being speculated whether the party may be decisive in the formation of a potential future right-wing coalition government and creating an arch-conservative political current in the country (which - in retrospect - obviously did not happen, but the page might have been of much more general interest if that had been the case). It was also one of the parties often polled in
opinion polling for the 2018 Slovenian parliamentary election.
I agree with Jay, the party received quite some media coverage back then. Among the sources are major Slovenian news outlets, which are reputable sources. --Tone17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
There isn't a country in the world that I would broadly claim that their major news outlets are "reputable", and
WP:PUS and
WP:DEPRECATED will back me up. This is a still a non-story even if it was reported in the New York Times, but the fact is, it wasn't. It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed.
Grung0r (
talk)
02:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
"It was published by state owned media companies using reporters who are anonymous and unattributed." Even if that would make sources unreliable (are BBC/DW/NPR unreliable sources?) there are plenty of news sources published by privately-owned media in the article, and more could be added if this is actually of concern. In fact, you may find that Slovenian public media organisations often take a more neutral approach in their reporting than private ones. Furthermore, authors are attributed, however, sometimes only initials are given. This is a common practice in multiple Slovenian public and private media organisation and is not unheard of in other countries. -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
In some instances, I used right-wing/party-friendly publications, however, I think I always treated them as basically primary sources (i.e. for citing statements/press releases by proxy). -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Mladina was a former employer of Janez Janša, and seemingly where he made his name. They can hardly be considered reliable source for these purposes. It would be like if Boris Johnson had written for the..oh, wait...
Grung0r (
talk)
07:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, Mladina has been very critical of Janša/SDS for a long time now. In any case, it's coverage is generally held to be reliable. -J
Jay Hodec (
talk)
13:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd close myself but I participated in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An article about a Ukranian company that reads like native advertising, and has been heavily edited by a sockpuppet farm of undisclosed paid editors. Most of the references seem to be adapted press releases and I'm not finding anything here or online that looks independent with a byline.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I was searching for this subject just now and was surprised to discover this Wikipedia article about them. That said, after thoroughly reading the article I can't say outright deletion would be warranted because the company has been significantly covered by in Ukrainian sources.Maybe the article should be redirected to
Glib Zagoriy?
IndyaShri (
talk)
01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the awards and press mentions seem to be utterly trivial. There is no claim to have produced or invented any new haramaceticals, just for manufacturing known one lie all ithe othe such firms in the industry. For a mention to. be more than PR there has to be something significant to base it on, and donating 6 respirators is a just the sort of charitable events firms do for the PR. DGG (
talk )
07:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Abstain. I have some difficulties with checking which Ukrainian sources are realiable, but
TSN.ua lists it among top Ukranian companies, altough with a bit of soubt, saying "We decided to include these two pharmaceutical companies as the leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market",
Delo.ua also mentions this two companies while reviewing Ukrainian pharmaceutical market,
Interfax Ukraine (not to confuse with Russian
Interfax) says "Since 1998, it is a leader of Ukrainian pharmaceutical market <...>, 13,76% in 2019". Sometimes sockpuppet farms create articles on notable subjects, but someone should surely clean it up and check facts.
Wikisaurus (
talk)
11:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the current sourcing is rubbish but reading the uk.wiki article suggests that the company is highly likely to be notable, but has just paid incompetents to create thus article. I suppose if it is genuinely Nita Oe it wint be hard to create a much better article using RIS if this is deleted.
Mccapra (
talk)
17:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak delete/draftify. The current article looks spammish, but there is potentially reliable content to expand it like
[27]. Until such a content is used, well, this is SPAM, and at best it should be drafitied. If someone was paid to create it, they need to keep working, this is not yet ready to be public. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I am having a hard time figuring out what's what here as the references are mostly dead links, but there also seems to be a different person with the same name
[28], who is some sort of an oil magnate in Russia and a former classmate of Putin. Google searching can probably easily confuse them.
Nsk92 (
talk)
14:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The organization doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NGO. Out of three references, one is organization's own website, second one is a small brief about organization in local coverage of a national daily (probably more like a press release), third one is about the org 's awards detail and not about the org itself. I could only find one more reference to org on news websites which just mentions it in the passing. It seems the org's founder is more notable than the org itself. Also to note is that the creator of this page had in 2011 created page for this org under its full name which got deleted under CSD.
Roller26 (
talk)
18:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The organization is active for about 22 years now. Some very prominent people were honored with Award presented by this organization, some of them even later went on win
Padma Awards from the government of India. This is an unique organization in its own rights, as it was few of first organizations completely dedicated to the non-Gandhian freedom fighters. The institute is constantly working towards collection, publication and distribution of information about Indian freedom struggle.
utpalpandey (
talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (IST)
utpalpandey, I have gone through all the other links you have added since the AfD tag. All of them either mention the Organization in passing-by, just contain a quote from an organization representative or don't mention the organization at all. (They talk about the achievements of a person while mentioning that they have also won Maati Ratan award). These do not represent significant and independent coverage. For a stand alone article the organization has to comply either with
WP:GNG or
WP:NGO, which it doesn't. I am sure the purpose and actions of the NGO are extremely noble, but
WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, there many other appropriate forums to do so. If the award given by the organization, Maati Ratan is notable that doesn't mean that the organization it self is notable due to
WP:INHERITORG. If you think that the award Maati Ratan satisfies the criteria of
WP:GNG, you can have a stand-alone page for it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roller26 (
talk •
contribs)
17:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I would disagree that this is a case of TOOSOON, as the drama is verifiable and the subject of significant coverage in numerous
reliable Korean sources, such as:
Yonhap,
Hankyung,
Seoul Economic, and
TenAsia, to name a few, which should be enough to pass GNG. While I understand that
notability is not inherited, the fact that TV series features so many notable actors and actresses points to the likelihood for additional qualifying coverage to emerge soon --
Dps04 (
talk)
17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. No point in deleting this excellent start today if the show will premiere in a matter of hours and will almost certainly be the subject of (additional) SIGCOV shortly thereafter, per the points above.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per
WP:IMPACT, his published insights and coverage of
Dwight D. Eisenhower are evidence enough of this being a notable individual. However, a review of online sources show a suprising number of entries about him and that would be enough to surpass
WP:GNG as well. They need to be added to the article.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The first link alone is the metadata on a stack of some 200 pages of research. We can disagree, but ultimately it is neither your decision nor mine.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
20:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete independent coverage is lacking (I checked the linked sources, which are mostly passing mentions), notability is not inherited from a minor association with Eisenhower. (
t ·
c) buidhe09:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete the sources are a passing mention in the West Point almanac, one article that mentions him rooming with Ike, and his own papers. Doesn't meet either SOLDIER or the GNG. Non-notable colonel.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
08:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I realise that he was only a colonel, but enough material to already create a reasonable article, and there are multiple additional minor claims to fame, such as his friendship with Eisenhower, his membership of the famous class of 1915, which has its own article, and of the 1914 championship football team, which is also famous enough to have its own article. Note the navbox at the bottom! That national championship football team includes Omar Bradley (five stars), James Van Fleet (four stars), William Hoge (four stars) and Vernon Pritchard (two stars). Others are notable as gridiron players, including Alex Weyand (an Olympian), Robert Neyland and Louis A. Merrilat. Notability is not inherited from colleagues, but being surrounded by famous people guarantees lots of mentions - enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment--I've had some disagreement above with an editor about the significance of the sources, but this is the first comment to question the independence and reliability of them. The United States National Archives and several book references are neither independent nor reliable source?--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Almost all of those obits in minor newspapers include in the headline "Ike's roommate" or "Ike's classmate", showing that he was not notable himself, merely for his association with Eisenhower.
Mztourist (
talk)
07:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
That's simply not true.
This is a feature story about Hodgson in a major metropolitan daily that dates from a time before Eisenhower was even famous.
This is from The San Francisco Examiner, hardly a "minor newspaper". And
this is an in-depth, two-page obituary that goes into significant depth about Hodgson's life and accomplishments.
Cbl62 (
talk)
13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Irrelevant actor who has played roles in several small budget films. Couldn't find a single source. The creator of the page is blocked.
TamilMirchi (
talk)
00:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The last two links in references are dead links - the earlier ones all work. There is no year of birth for this Actor, who, at the moment, lacks notability. A minor actor as mentioned above.
Whiteguru (
talk)
08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as he has had three leading roles in notable feature films as confirmed in multiple reliable sources which have been added to the article since nomination so he passes
WP:NACTOR and deletion is no longer necessary in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced concert tour fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:CONCERT TOUR that has tags on it needing both additional citations for verification since December 2015 and insufficient inline citations from 4 years ago as of this month.
Pahiy (
talk)
20:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment (previous voter) - I am willing to clean up this article and add the sources found by the other voter above, if/when it survives this process. Don't see the need for all these re-listings, when we seem to have a basic consensus calling for improvement rather than deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)20:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. has a biography
[35], so sufficient material to create an article. Passes
WP:GNG due to coverage in RS. His experience at the AEC is mentioned in Hewlett and Holl. The AEC and Manhattan Project makes him interesting to me, and his NASA career also turns up hits. Found a picture of him
here.
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. per nomination; not notable; source listed (the one link that works) indicates no notability aside from inclusion on a list and brief description. —
Notorious4life (
talk)
23:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)reply
You can read his citation
here, but it is very vague owing to the secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project. General Groves submitted a list of personnel for decorations in 1945. The award was not common during World War II, but today due to award inflation most general officers can expect to get one on completion of an assignment.
Hawkeye7(discuss)19:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. There are many independent and authoritative sources in the article
Лазарев, Сергей Николаевич (парапсихолог) - they can easily be moved to the article. Unambiguously leave the article. The books have been translated into more than 1.5 dozen languages of the world, published in multi-million copies.
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
11:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The Russian sources are certainly enough for, e.g.,
WP:BOOKCRIT. (Being widely translated or published in big runs doesn't automatically confer notability to a book but it almost always goes hand in hand with a very easy pass of BOOKCRIT.) It looks like the article has some POV problems based on the Russian version flagging it as pseudoscience, but that's irrelevant to a deletion debate.
~ oulfis 🌸(
talk)
17:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination. @
Алёна Пескова: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at
WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --
Finngalltalk16:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Question Which sources, exactly, directly cover the book itself vs. the author's oeuvre? Note that the Russian Wikipedia cited above doesn't have a dedicated article for the book—only its author's biography article. (not
watching, please {{ping}}) czar05:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Reply:
Czar - I answer your question: the following books describe exactly the books "Diagnostics of Karma":
I also think that in the Russian Wikipedia, an article about books "Diagnostics of Karma" can be created in the near future, since there is every reason for this according to the criteria of significance. --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Forgive my machine translations but doesn't the first source not go into depth about Диагностика кармы? It looks like it's more about Lazarev's theories than this book itself. There seems to be plenty more sources on the author. In general, it's better to cover an author's works within their biography and to only split out
summary style when
warranted by an overabundance of secondary sources. Would it make sense here to repurpose this article into one about the author? czar08:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The first source describes Lazarev's theories, set out precisely in the books "Diagnostics of Karma", where the text is accompanied by links to these particular books, and
at the end of the text of the source there are books "Diagnostics of Karma". I also think that both Lazarev himself and the books "Diagnostics of Karma" correspond to independent criteria of significance. You will also forgive my machine translation. --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
09:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Translation (for colleagues who do not speak Russian) from an interview with Mark Zakharov: "Sergey Nikolaevich Lazarev is the author of the wonderful book "Diagnostics of Karma". Here, I highly recommend reading it. The book was published in a normal, rather modest, circulation, but then replicated in a pirated manner, which speaks of its indisputable merits and the great interest it arouses. Everything else, in addition to all the other merits of the book, there is one more quality that I have not met before when you come across the word "karma" - that there is some kind of inextricable connection with our Christian worldview, with Orthodox values, and very accurately, so to speak, interpreted and, so to speak, explained this is the unity of some discoveries of Eastern philosophy and our native Orthodoxy. Sergey Nikolaevich, before we turned on the camera, he demonstrated some of his amazing ability to read information, he can do it, he understands it, and he said something about me that, of course, amazed me (...)". --
Uchastnik1 (
talk)
09:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I am always wary of giving a platform to pseudoscience, but this appears to be barely notable, with enough sources to place it in context.
Archrogue (
talk)
19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yet another non-notable bridge. The one given reference, which isn't cited inline, is one line in a table produced by the highway department that operates the bridge, so it's a primary source.
This just states that there's a boat ramp next to the bridge, without giving any real information about the bridge. It's mentioned, without any accompanying coverage, as a place of note in it's county in
[36], but no significant coverage there. At this point, we're just getting into bridgecruft.
Hog FarmBacon15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is a lot of primary references, profile page, discussion on scores/games, a lot of puff, interviews, PR and so on but I can't see much in the way on quality secondary sources. He should be notable as he has an enormous fan base. scope_creepTalk14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Because this is the english encyclopedia and we are not able to determine the notability; based on reading the editors who have commented before me on this AfD, the nominator, and myself. Until we get an editor with experience in this area who can help determine the notability for the English encyclopedia we should soft delete or
WP:ATD draft.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mere existence is not an indicator of notability. Notability relies on the existence of reliable, in-depth sources, none of which have been brought up here. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)19:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: As the maker of the page, I would like to see it kept. I still don't really understand the notability guidelines. The bridge exists, so that should be notability enough for an article to exist. However, I know there is a standard against this, too.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
07:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability not established for military product, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Search results are all mirrors.
Reywas92Talk02:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Once part of a Mexican land grant and a ranch. No evidence it was a separate community. Now seems to be a residential neighborhood of San Rafael.
Glendoremus (
talk)
03:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. A notable organization in the building trade with several decent independent references. We can do without flippant deletion suggestions.
Rathfelder (
talk)
10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This nomination was not flippant, although perhaps the bit of attempted humor—which I have now struck—was ill-considered. The majority of references in the article are either dead or primary, and I could not find others. The references that appear reliable and do mention this organization are passing mentions in trade journals.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I just found some additional hits looking for "International Grooving and Grinding Association" (e.g.,
[39]) but they appear to be contributed by the organization itself, which does not help with notability.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Clearly passes
WP:GNG as there is impressive press coverage such as
this
And ever since it opened its doors in 1985, the Ashvale has cast its net wide in attracting some very big fish from showbusiness, politics and sport to sample its suppers. The list – which ranges from
Mel Gibson and
Gregor Fisher to
Sir Elton John and
Lewis Capaldi and
Annie Lennox to
Denis Law – testifies how this Granite City locale has become one of the most famous restaurants in the whole of the north-east.
Delete It seems that this place is pretty well-known locally which is backed by such sources as Evening Express (Aberdeene Newspaper)
1,
2 as well as a source mentioned above
[40]. However this can't be considered a significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as required by
WP:NCORP especially taking into account the stronger emphasis on the quality of the sources required by the guidelines applied to organizations.
Less Unless (
talk)
15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - The Press and Journal article looks pretty decent, and if there's more than what's linked already I'd happily consider changing my !vote. When I search myself, I haven't found anything else yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep There are articles published in multiple sources that cover the Ashvale- the Aberdeen restaurant itself appears to be known better than the chain. At the point of nomination there were no references included in the article- a lot of work has been done to add material. While I feel notability has now been established as judged against
WP:COMPANY, there is more material included that appears promotional.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
09:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - the original shop in Aberdeen has certainly had much coverage over the years, not least for the awards it has won. However, I would agree with comments that there is material which is tending towards the promotional rather than being encyclopedic content and so the article could probably do with some editing.
Dunarc (
talk)
20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of
significant coverage with
in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing
"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An analysis of the references within the article show the following:
The Herald Scotland article from 1994 references one of the restaurants in the chain as being the best takeaway. It provides no information whatsoever on the company as a whole, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
This from intrafish.com relies entirely on information provided by the company and their MD, John Low jr. This fails
WP:ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content" and the article is classic
churnalism.
The Caterer reference just parrots information provided by one of the restaurants and/or the company such as saying *we* have a much lower profit margin, not Independent Content, fails
WP:ORGIND.
The El Pais reference is an article on "24 hours in Aberdeen" where the author mentions one of the restaurants, recounts its closing time, observes the fact it has a green carpet and that they serve battered and fried food and mentions a portion called Whale where if you eat one you get another free. The article fails to provide in-depth information on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Evening Express reference isn't about the company or one of the restaurants but is mentioned in passing as one of their directors received an honour for his services to the seafood industry and charity. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The mentions in the book
Untrodden Grapes are similar to a review of the author's experience eating in the restaurant. There is no in-depth information on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Press and Journal reference is
churnalism, based entirely on an interview with a company director and the tone of the article is promotional. It is not "Independent Content" and fails
WP:ORGIND.
This from the Herald Scotland is a mention-in-passing to the same story referred to in the previous article of how Barry Robson signed for Aberdeen over a fish supper in one of the restaurants. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH.
Finally,
this reference from The Scotsman is a mention-in-passing where it is announced that a dinner will be held later that night in one of the restaurants. There is no attributed journalist (just By The Newsroom) and reads like PR. In any case, there is no in-depth information provided on the company, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
I don't accept any of that. To start with, an interview is not
churnalism and I should know because I created the article about it. And someone
nominated that for deletion too. And most of the complaints are a lack of focus on the overall company rather than the flagship restaurant. That's just the nature of the topic; the natural focus of the topic is on the founding, flagship establishment. The financials of the company are touched on but, because it is privately held, rather than public, there's not much investment interest. The essential point is that the place has been noticed and the scope of our coverage must naturally follow the sources rather than some editor's pre-conceived ideas.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
23:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The appropriate guideline is
WP:NCORP and the criteria for acceptable references to establish notability are clear and strict - they have to be strict to stem the flow of organizations treating Wikipedia like the Yellow Pages or as a promotional website. The article is about a company, not about an individual restaurant, so we need in-depth details on the company. You say that its just the nature of the topic - I disagree and there's certainly no exceptions in the guidelines that I can see. If the company was notable, somebody somewhere would have written about it and not just about a single restaurant. An interview may not be churnalism, I agree, but both of the ones I referred to are classic examples of churnalism and were created and only serve to promote the restaurant/company. Finally, the "essential point" is not that the place has been noticed but whether it meets our criteria for notability. You are correct that we must be careful to avoid editors' pre-conceived ideas about what they believe is a "good" topic - that is why we have very good and clearly written guidelines. If you want to argue about any of the references meeting our guidelines, that discussion can be held here. On the other hand if you want to argue that this topic should be an exception, that probably belongs at the NCORP talk page.
HighKing++ 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The article is only about a company inasmuch that it mentions that, in addition to the main restaurant, it has expanded to include other branches, then names the locations. Aside from that it is effectively entirely about the original and main restaurant. Accurately reflecting the de facto focus would take a couple of minor word changes.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
A notability guideline is not policy. Guidelines are loose rather than rigid and so a narrow reading is not appropriate per
WP:PETTIFOG. The nutshell for that guideline just restates the
WP:GNG. That general guideline is satisfied and so we're good. If the main restaurant is the focus of the coverage then this is not surprising. I noticed a branch of
The Ivy in Victoria recently and it seems that's another case where a famous restaurant starts spawning other branches but our article doesn't say much about them. This is to be expected and is not a reason to delete.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, guidelines *can* be loose in some ways but when they're not, they're not. As you say, the "nutshell" for NCORP is a restating of GNG with clarification on how to apply the guidelines to GNG, so if one isn't satisfied then neither can the other. GNG is also a guideline but it doesn't take precedence over NCORP. As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and you've not argued that my analysis is incorrect or that I've misinterpreted any of NCORP's guidelines. The only people "wikilawyering" at this AfD are the people trying to pick and choose which parts of which guidelines they'd like to implement for this topic while ignoring the parts they don't want/like.
HighKing++ 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
If by "people" you are including me: you made several points, I responded to one. Entirely legitimate to address issues one by one to narrow the points of contention. If it's alright by you, I'll continue to contemplate the other aspects for now before expressing a view; don't leap to conclusions in that regard.
Mutt Lunker (
talk)
16:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a weird pseudo-disambiguation page/minor character list that doesn't really need to exist.
Captain America (disambiguation) exists for any characters actually predominantly associated with the name. Those that don't have articles are likely not important enough to need coverage in the first place.
TTN (
talk)
14:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The Captain America page is specifically about Steve Rogers. This (admittedly poorly named) article is a hubpage for the Captain America moniker in general and most of the characters have articles of their own. Unless there is enough room at
Captain America to include everything in a Successors section, I don't see how merging is a good idea. Darkknight214910:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to fail
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:GNGthe main source is self-published through
Lulu.com, so not reliable. The other sources in the article are passing mentions or don't mention Oglesby at all. On a
before search, I found
a one paragraph obit and Newspapers.com has
a local ad for his performing, and seemingly nothing else besides passing mentions.
this suggests there may be more, but the only one of those sources I found is not SIGCOV, as mentioned above. Notability is not conferred just by having played with some famous people, there needs to be coverage to back it up, coverage that I just don't see.
Eddie891TalkWork22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I don't have access to the full article online, but I found a reference to an obituary published in Living Blues: Brett, Bonner (September 2004). "Erskine Oglesby". Living Blues. 35 (5): 95.
ISSN0024-5232. That, combined with
[41] this from
WOMEX, and some local coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, might be enough for GNG. But without access to a copy of that issue of the magazine, I can't say for sure how in-depth the coverage is.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
04:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reply: Hi
Gerda Arendt, I'd be happy to take another look. If (time permitting) you think of any search terms or Nigerian RS other than what you've provided that may produce results, let me know. I've actually been listening to some of his music. Greetings from Los Angeles, //
Timothy :: talk07:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for asking, and sorry I had no time so far. I have no experience in the field, - what I do is search for his name and the thing missing a reference, - sometimes lucky, sometimes not. Try it. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I looked at the article, trimmed the prose and dropped some dubious sources. I see enough coverage (Nigerian Guardian) and awards to think he is notable enough, already. I'd say that our criteria SINGER are possibly too hard for a Nigerian singer, and we could ignore that rule. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep subject passes
Anybio and
SINGER criteria #2 and #8
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term
Meiniach can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page
Playlet (
talk)
02:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep:@
Playlet and @
Yoninah:The article is very poorly written but the subject is a notable one and not limited to
chabad. The "Choizer" has it's roots going back to Europe in the days before "tape recorders". The Choizer would repeat the Rabbi's lecture giving students who missed part of the Rabbi's lecture a 2nd chance. Currently, the "Choizer" is common in many
Hassidic courts where the
Rebbe delivers his sermon at a
Tisch on
Shabbat when it is forbidden according to
halakah to record it. - So although the article needs a lot of work it is worth keeping--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Meiniach. //
Timothy :: talk14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A phrase without any sources, and rather obscure. Perhaps with the term Choizer can be incorporated into another article about Chabad, but both articles are too niche and lack sources to be notable enough for their own page (I have also nominated Choizer for deletion)
Playlet (
talk)
02:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:GNG and nom. I don't think it's even necessary to print a list of these terms; they could be translated wherever they appear in the Chabad articles.
Yoninah (
talk)
11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This page has been on Wikipedia unchallenged for 13 years and has an equivalent page in Italian. Like many early pages on Wikipedia, sources are sorely lacking - that should be corrected but isn't grounds to delete the page. I am not familiar with this term but according to the
Chabad wiki page there are roughly 90,000 Chabad Hassidim, so a respected position in their movement should be considered notable. @
Yoninah: this isn't just a term it's the title of position - similar to
Shaliach (Chabad).--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: But this isn't the Chabadapedia. We have a wiktionary for those who think it's important to define every religious term out there.
Shaliach, meanwhile, is referred to all over world media, so it's easy to see why that meets
WP:GNG. If you could show us why this subject is notable by expanding the page with
RS, it would help this AFD.
Yoninah (
talk)
23:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah: I already said that I am not familiar with this term but I am still reluctant to delete a 13 year old established page about a leadership position associated with a 90,000 person movement due to a lack of sources.--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
00:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: I hear you, but you shouldn't put too much stock in pages that were created 13 years ago and still look like this. Back in the early days, editors posted anything, including copyvios, just to put up pages. I fought through two AFDs and lost to someone who insisted on posting a
Haredi journalist whose notability cannot be established; his response was, "Leave it. No one else cares about this." Thankfully we have editors who are now prowling the 'pedia to dig out articles that never satisfied our criteria.
Yoninah (
talk)
11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: As I said above, I do not object to the information being on Wikipedia on another page, but it lacks sources and WP:GNG to have its own page. A bad article is still a bad article even after 13 years.
Playlet (
talk)
15:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Yoninah (& @
Playlet):I hear you as well, the thing is that when a page is challenged right away, it gives the creator of the page a chance to defend and improve it. When somebody challenges it 13 years later, odds are the person who created it is no longer active on Wikipedia. In general, I get the feeling that you don't have any personal knowledge on this matter and neither do I. Our knowledge on the subject is limited to internet search results, which when it comes to Orthodox Jewish topics isn't necessarily a valid indicator on notability. Especially, since the position was essentially abolished in 1994 when the last Lubavicher Rebbe died. Let's assume that this was a notable position in Chabbad- Lubavich since it was founded in 1775. There may have have been hundreds of Meiniachs between 1775 and 1994. So I am reluctant to endorse deleting something possibly very historical just because I don't know enough about it.--
Steamboat2020 (
talk)
16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Steamboat2020: I am aware of Chabad and of these positions. Many of the members of the sect would not be aware of these positions. The fact that the author of the article is no longer an active editor is hardly a reason to keep the article for all eternity. If it does not meet notability guidelines the time frame of deletion is irrelevant.
Playlet (
talk)
00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability for a stand alone article. There should be an article for Hanochos and this function and history could be incorporated into it along with Choizer //
Timothy :: talk15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I cannot find that this term is notable. If there is a
WP:ATD-M we could redirect or merge to
Rabbi. Note: merge or redirect only if an editor can show that the word is notable with RS.
Wm335td (
talk)
20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG. A Google search provides articles that mention the subject in passing. The only significant mention are local news articles about a team leaving the conference, which I don't think establishes notability. No results found on JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale or NYT.
Z1720 (
talk)
15:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete this article, and a reasonable argument that the article subject is notable based on sufficient discussion of the subject in sources independent of the subject. I note that there is one participant in the discussion who appears to have arisen as an SPA to this topic (their own protestations notwithstanding), and two other editors who have relatively little overall participation in Wikipedia, but does appear to have worked on a number of articles unrelated to the subject of discussion, and for a longer time than would be typical of an SPA. I do not find either of these to particularly match the descriptor of a "dormant account".
BD2412T06:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Alleged to be A7 article, but there is enough coverage in past version to imply a degree of notability. Listing for community input.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep (I started the article years ago). Looking over the sources, I see multiple, independent sources covering the subject in detail. There are 2 interviews as well as sources detailing awards he has received. They're not perfect but there is enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba03:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete While there is some reliable coverage, this all appears to be in local sources (Indy Weekly for example is very localized to the Raleigh-Durham area), or brief mentions in other things with a quote or two. The article appears to have been rewritten in a promotional fashion. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
05:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources covering a subject is the standard. The scope and reach of the source is not relevant, at least as far as our notability guidelines go.--
User:Namiba14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, I think standard practice is that local news sources are not the same as regional/national sources. This is why we do not encourage people to write articles about every town councilmen or commissioner, despite there likely being lots of reliable source coverage about those people. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
19:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)reply
If you can point to where it states that, I would appreciate it. I do not see it in
WP:N. In fact, it suggests otherwise "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Anyway, Lilly was the vice-presidential nominee of a national political party and was interviewed in a variety of sources so this argument is irrelevant.--
User:Namiba15:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Namiba: Per
WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" so that's just flat out wrong. One of the notes in that policy says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The only feature articles I've seen on Lilly are from Indy Week and The Roanoke Tribune. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
16:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't argue that he was guaranteed notability because he was a vice-presidential candidate; I said that he is the subject of a number of in-depth independent articles, which you concede in your previous statement. I am glad that we seem to agree that there are multiple, in-depth sources covering him in detail. That's the standard for notability at
WP:GNG.--
User:Namiba16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are 2 very good sources, multiple interviews, and many more which briefly mention or describe Lilly's activism. There are 54 references on the article itself so forgive me if I am unconvinced by your minimization.--
User:Namiba20:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Indy beetle: I do not have a conflict of interest, I am just familiar with this person's activism. Each citation is credible in that it confirms either his involvement at the demonstrations listed and/or the subject's political stances, which is relevant to an article about an activist/political figure. I do not know why this article is still being considered for deletion and is still receiving so much editing, particularly from
Indy beetle. It meets every requirement for notability and source trustworthiness. -
Tarcanes
I've been busy cleaning up things that have been sourced to blogs (which are not "trustworthy") and details which are not backed up by the sources, such as the assertion that he was born in Charlotte (reliable sources say Fayetteville) or the absolutely bogus propaganda line that he "helped encourage a wave of revolutionary activism among oppressed and working-class youth". I'm curious as to how you would know that he organized "Mixed Mic Mondays" when none of the sources you provided supported that or that you know the exact day of his birthday (reliable sources only give the year he was born, not the day). If you are friends with Mr. Lilly you should not be editing this article. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
01:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have removed much of the subjective language to prevent this article appearing promotional, keeping it strictly factual and objectively informative. I've also added a significant number of sources, both primary sources where the subject states his presence in the location/event mentioned, or secondary articles confirming the subjects involvement and expounding upon the subject's actions
Tarcanes (
talk)
05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Tarcanes: "I've made several contributions to multiple articles. Just not on this account." Are you using multiple accounts to edit, or dod you mean that you've edited while logged out?
TomStar81 (
Talk)
07:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Given that this afd has brought three editors with redlinked talk pages out here I wonder if this is being matched by special interests. Seems odd largely dormant accounts would suddenly take an interest in the page.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
03:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: (weak) I don't see an indication of notability outside of the local level, clearly doesn't meet
WP:NPOL and fails
WP:NAUTHOR and
WP:GNG as well. The article has been
refbombed, but
no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. There is some good coverage in Indy Week, but multiple sources from the same publication (and a localized one at that) doesn't establish notability by itself for me. National sources only establish the non-notability of this person, see for instance
this CNN article describing him as a "local activist". Worker's World newspaper is not independent and it seems most of the other sources quote him as a
MOTS, not establishing notability. I would like to see a clear indication that he is notable outside of Durham before considering him notable. Best,
Eddie891TalkWork12:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The article shows that he has been published widely, he was the vice-presidential nominee of a nationally-organized political party and there are multiple independent sources which cover him in detail. That many of those sources come from one region is irrelevant. This seems like a "I don't like it" argument or a "I am going to create my own standard for deletion" argument than one based on policy.--
User:Namiba12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The fact that they are from one region is incredibly relevant to their notability. A profile in The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal is generally more indicative of notability than a profile in The Smalltown Tribune. I would direct you towards Indy beetle's argument above, but it's clear you have already discounted his points. The fact of the matter is that small and local publications by-and-large write about small and local news, and small and local news is not what Wikipedia should include. This is not to say that they aren't reliable, just that they don't indicate notability. If we used your standard to establish notability, we would have articles on every high school student who joined the thousand point club, on every school superintendent who had improper relations with somebody, on every local businessman who defrauded people, on every local activist who hasn't gotten all that much attention, because that's what local publications write about. While he is (presumably) not a corporation,
WP:AUD is in some ways a good rule of thumb for people too. It's generally been my experience that this is the case, particularly for political figures. I point you towards numerous extensive discussions on the topic,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. It's a controversial topic that there isn't agreement upon-- We just appear to be on different sides of the debate. And That Is Just Fine. Best,
Eddie891TalkWork13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
A candidate for vice-president of the United States is not a local activist. One quoted and publishing in national and internationally trusted sources isn't equivalent to a high school student. It's a nice strawman you've built but it's definitely not comparable. It's fine to disagree but let's not disregard the facts.--
User:Namiba13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
That's beside the point. You argued that because the most in-depth coverage of Lilly is from a regional newspaper, he isn't notable despite passing
WP:GNG. I pointed out that he received coverage (including a full-length interview from The North Star) as part of his campaign for vice-president. How many votes he received is inconsequential, as your comment about another candidate. Again, facts, not your opinion or bias, matter.--
User:Namiba14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article must be deleted, a duplication of the section in the
Puteri Indonesia. It does not need a separate article in view of the fact that it's a runner up position in the Puteri Indonesia pageant, not a separate pageant.
Richie Campbell (
talk)
14:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. While in the west, beauty pageants are seen as no big deal, and rather looked down upon (female objectification!), in several countries in Asia (Indonesia, India, Phillipines) they are a Big Deal. So while Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata is awarded as a runner up position to Puteri Indonesia, it is an important title of its own. She gets to tour and perform in a way that the runners-up to Miss America or Miss USA, for example, just don't. And the three top winners of Puteri Indonesia go on to compete in three different important and unrelated international pageants, with the main Puteri Indonesia competing for
Miss Universe,
Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan (which I see you've also nominated for deletion, so we'll be arguing there as well) competing for
Miss International, and Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata competing for
Miss Supranational. They have three separate substantial articles in the Indonesian Wikipedia (which has many fewer articles than ours does):
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesiahttps://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Pariwisatahttps://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puteri_Indonesia_Lingkungan. Most importantly for our purposes, Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata gets significant coverage on its own, enough to meet the
Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline without Puteri Indonesia. For example, all these are unrelated non-trivial articles from reliable sources about Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata, not about Puteri Indonesia:
Ah, I see you've combined them (I was writing the reply while these were separate AfDs). Well, the same logic applies to
Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan, and here are some non-trivial articles about that as well:
Hi
GRuban. The fact remains that it is part of Puteri Indonesia pageant and the article is a duplication of the section of the Puteri Indonesia article. Regarding the sources you provided, the same is true for
Miss Earth or even in the
Miss Philippines Earth elemental queens i.e., Miss Earth Water, Miss Earth Air, and Miss Earth Fire; these titles (not a runner up position as per organizers) are being awarded during the finals, they perform their duties and get to travel the whole year, they get publicities and with plethora of reliable sources but I just don't see them having a separate article because they are held in one pageant night but you can use these sources to cite the winners. The sources that you provided should be used to support the Puteri Indonesia and also the annual article of Puteri Indonesia e.,g
Puteri Indonesia 2019,
Puteri Indonesia 2020 to indicate the list of winners.---
Richie Campbell (
talk)
16:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That's like saying the
Vice President of the United States is just part of the
President of the United States, so we shouldn't have a separate article for it. They are separate offices, even if they are elected at the same time in the same way at the same location, and they are each sufficiently notable. If there are enough independent in-depth articles from reliable sources about Miss Earth Water, then we can have a Miss Earth Water article, when someone gets around to writing it. That's the point of
Wikipedia:General Notability Guideline, that's how we tell which deserves its own article, not just "what is part of what". We've got separate articles for
Miss New York, even though that's just part of
Miss America, and these winners are much more notable in every way than Miss New York, they represent more people, they get more articles written about them, they do more national and international events, etc. Heck, it seems we have separate articles for each of the
Category:Miss America state pageants! --
GRuban (
talk)
17:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep Clearly reaches GNG with non-routine sources such as
this one or
this other one. And most of the sources focusing on his transfer also cover several other aspect of the player's career. Furthermore
WP:INHERITED is about not using the argument "he's the son of **** so he is notable", it does not invalidate sources focused on the subject of the article that also mention his origins. For example the
Goal reference clearly covers the subject of the player far beyond the fact he is the son of someone. --
Coco (
talk)
18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I think it matters, but so does
WP:TOOSOON,
WP:FOOTY, and
WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he retired tomorrow, would it make sense for him to have a page? Every youth footballer in elite academies has transfer rumours or interviews, but I don't think it makes sense for them to have a page until they professionally debut.@
Cocô53:--
Ortizesp (
talk)
18:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Ortizesp: Here is a litteral quote from
WP:FOOTYN: "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under
Wikipedia:Notability". As for
WP:TOOSOON, it only applies to articles that do not meet notability requirement and are not "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources" (aka GNG). As for
WP:CRYSTALBALL, it really does not apply here, as the article is mainly about what the player has already done (at youth club and international level), not about some hypothetical future career.
So as per shown above, one cannot talk about the notability of an article ignoring the GNG, and as a matter of fact you even end up talking about sources such as "transfer rumours or interviews". But if you do so you must have the intellectual honesty of talking about the quality of the actual sources. Are those only routine? Do they give a significant coverage of the subject?
And about the question "if its career stoped etc.", do you think that such an article with a lot of good quality sources would be really less worthy of being on the encyclopedia than one about a player with only one little match played and only primary sources? --
Coco (
talk)
18:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, clearly meets
WP:GNG, having received far more coverage than the majority of our WP:NFOOTY-passing articles. Regularly a headline in the sports section of the major Icelandic newspaper
[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] (some of these are game descriptions, but they're not routine transfer news). There is no
WP:CRYSTALBALL material here, and the above voters haven't explained how they think the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, even WP:NFOOTY mentions Youth players are not notable unless [...] they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur(talk)14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although being the creator of this article, I am dubious if this article should be on Wikipedia, I'm not also sure if it qualifies for
WP:NOS or not. If this article qualifies for
WP:NOS and shouldn't be deleted, then I can continue on with the other articles (i.e. The CAF, AFC,UEFA,OFC and CONMEBOL versions).
Josedimaria237 (
talk)
09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for
soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --
Cewbot (
talk)
00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will salt both titles. There is consensus here (and in all the other afd's) that McCullough is not notable, and isn't likely to become so in the future.
Eddie891TalkWork22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is the 5th AfD for this person. If this AfD is not closed as keep, I believe this page (and
J. J. McCullough (See AfDs:
12)) should be salted (or fully protected if redirected) to prevent its repeated recreation. The sources I have found are:
This interview with True North, not contributing toward GNG because all the coverage is his opinion on this interview. I'm also not sure about the reliability of this source, given
Andrew Scheer grouped it with
The Post Millenial, which nearly got deprecated.
Delete, with salt at both titles. As with the prior attempts, this is still referenced not to
reliable sources that properly contextualize his notability, but primarily to his own
self-published content. As always, a journalist is not automatically notable just because his work technically metaverifies its own existence in contribution directories on the websites of his own employers — notability as a journalist requires other media outlets, who are not the issuers of his paycheques, to independently establish the significance of his journalism by writing analytical content about him and his impact in the third person. Content on Twitter and YouTube also does not speak to notability at all, because those are
user generated platforms, and neither do Q&A interviews in which the subject of the article is doing the speaking about himself or other things. So once you toss all the footnotes here that are doing nothing to establish his notability, there's literally only one GNG-worthy footnote left in the article — and even it's not about him strongly enough to carry him over GNG all by itself as the only acceptable source in the article, either, because it's about an incident rather than him as a person and thus flunks
WP:BLP1E. This is not how you establish the notability of a journalist, regardless of whether he's of the left or the right.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That appears to be part of additional criteria. Later in the guideline, it says If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context. The best places to merge would probably be a list of Washington Post columnists or to
Anti-Quebec sentiment given that's what most sources talk about. Also, "Large fan base" is incredibly vague. I see no sources translating his 200K subscribers into a "large" fan base (his recent videos have around 70-105K views, so I guess about 70K would be the fanbase if nobody watches his videos more than once). Username689213:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
We have no evidence that YouTube subscriber counts are trustworthy, meaningful or indicative of much at all, really. What's a big number? What's a small one? Who are we comparing against? (
3Blue1Brown has 15 times as many subscribers as McCullough, and that's for talking about math in a sedate voice.) How many views are from actual humans? Etc. See
WP:ITEXISTS and
WP:ARBITRARY.
XOR'easter (
talk)
18:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It appears that I have misinterpreted Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I should have looked at more than just
WP:ENTERTAINER. I was also wrong to cite his subscriber count, because
WP:INVALIDBIO advises against this. The lack of independent coverage (which I was aware of) means that it does not meet
WP:GNG and
WP:SIGCOV. An article that depends on sef-published sources to exist is not likely to be encyclopedic. For that reason, I am changing my vote. However, my vote would still stand if more appropriate sources existed.
Scorpions13256 (
talk)
20:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tragic but fails General notability guidelines with very poor sources, and just not enough of anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Re-direct to a Let L-410 accident section?
Petebutt (
talk)
22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep: As the creator of the article, while I would like to be able to provide a strong keep argument, I concede that I can only provide a weak one. I decided to create the article after the article on the
2020 Juba AN-26 crash was created, on the basis that the accidents were similar. I realize, however, that
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument at best in a deletion discussion, and that even if it weren't, that the Juba crash has much better sources, hence my weak keep comment on my own article — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pizzaguy875 (
talk •
contribs)
22:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An incomplete collection of miscellaneous storylines and highlights from several years of this running soap, 1992-2005 and 2007-2013. Complete lack of sourcing verifying significant coverage of any events, written mostly like an essay.
WP:FANCRUFT. No other soap show has storyline articles like this.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Hi @
Temur:. It might be worth posting on here. Very few folk actually look at the talk page of an Afd, as the discussion takes place on the main page. If you can find your top
three sources and post them here, we can examine them. We can use the top three sources to determine if the person is notable. The best three sources are a reasonably quick way of verifying if it is notable, without wading through perhaps dozens of other sources that don't necessarily add any value. scope_creepTalk13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per crystal-ball, this is all future stuff. Who knows what may happen, and when - this is not encyclopedic. Best to wait until there is something definite, as always.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd actually have to say Keep, as more can be said about the game beyond its announcement.
IGN details with game's narrative designer,
Eurogamer on some art direction, and as there was more discussed this weekend (via virtual Gamescom) more may come this week. We have a publisher-planned release window of next year as well, and know the game has been in the works (this isn't some yet-to-be-started project). (If we didn't have any in-depth coverage of the type of gameplay, and just teaser trailers, merging would be better) --
Masem (
t)
14:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
To further elaborate: Crystalball does not prohibit articles about planned or expected future events (
Heat death of the universe,
Eurovision Song Contest 2021), so long as they are backed up by sources, aren't original research, and are phrased appropriately. This is not a case of "I think it's likely that a Gollum game will happen, so I'm going to write an article based on my speculation and present it as fact".--
AlexandraIDV07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the IGN and Eurogamer articles. Eurogamer's is particularly focused on a small detail (Gollum's hair), so it's clear that there is interest in the upcoming game. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Alleged to be an A7 article, but there's enough information in the article's history tab that I'd feel better letting the community decide whether to swing the axe in this case.
TomStar81 (
Talk)
08:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - It is worth mentioning that half of the article's references are from the same website. I'm curious to know if the artist has enoguh significant coverage or not.
Foxnpichu (
talk)
09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, unless someone can deliver reliable sources that are translated from Korean to English. This guy's manager should advise him to change his stage name because it is hideously unsearchable in any language. Searching for his birth name in English (Jo Tae-kyoung) or stage name in Korean (어바웃) in conjunction with something like "singer" brings up what look like exclusively Korean social media promotions and streaming sites, like those already in the article. I was unable to find an entry on him at Korean Wikipedia, but again I may have been thwarted by his pointless name. Even less comes up in sites that use English. Unless someone proficient in Korean can deliver something useful, I must conclude that this article is just an attempted
promotion for a singer with little media notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)13:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that this satisfies the threshold needed to avert speedy deletion, so I'm listing here for community input
TomStar81 (
Talk)
08:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:NALBUM... the DJ who compiled this album has no article himself (the blue link is a redirect) and I can't find any information about this record at all. This was created by an author who is in the process of creating dozens of articles every day, despite being warned that most of them are non-notable, like this one, and that AllMusic listings without a rating or review and using the album's own liner notes as a citation do not demonstrate notability.
Richard3120 (
talk)
15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - In agreement with the reasoning given by the nominator and previous voter. The article's creator is a veteran editor who should know better, and perhaps should be talked to about a recent rush of articles on obscure non-notable albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)18:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Having a Wikipedia page is not a reward or honor, and not a mechanism to give credit to someone who did something we think is deserving of recognition but is not notable as Wikipedia defines it.
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - the page was moved to a name without the typo, but I moved it back pending a decision on this AfD, else it would apply just to the redirect. If the conclusion is to retain the page, then it will need to be moved again to the correct spelling. That being said . . . .
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - None of the cited sources provide any biographical detail on the subject, nor does any other non-primary source I have found. The Scientific American item is a summary of the invention that only gives the inventor's name and address as it appears on the patent documentation (not his only address - he seems to be living somewhere else in every record I find). The second reference is that patent itself, and again the only information it provides about the subject is his name and address. The third reference is a list of patents relevant to railroads, and gives nothing more than his name, and the fourth is a map that he drafted, which has his name on it. A Google Books search for "Sidney A. Beers" returns just eleven hits that name him, which are all either a summary of the American patent or mention of the map without further describing Beers or providing any further details on the man. A search using his full middle name turns up another 13 hits, all of them British sources either listing or briefly describing the same patent when he applied for it in Britain. He did have a passport application and shows up in censuses, Brooklyn city directories, and the 1863 tax rolls, but this is just the typical detritus of a run-of-the-mill mid-19th century life and does not constitute personal
WP:NOTABILITY.
Agricolae (
talk)
23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The current content has no article-quality (WP:GNG-satisfying) sourcing, no matter what name you give it. Bare patent announcements do not establish notability for either
Sydney Beers or for
Improved elastic railroad, nor does parroting the descriptions and claims made in an original patent application indicate that any of the content is reliable or noteworthy (patents are usually granted by default, as long as the application satisfies the appropriate forms, and their accuracy is only tested when challenged). Moving this only puts the same problematic content (most of which deals with Beers and not the railroad) under a different namespace, but doesn't resolve the inherent lack of notability. It is not even clear to me that
Improved elastic railroad is really 'a thing' and not just the description Beers used for his invention in the patent application. For a stand-alone article specifically on Beers' track design, we would need multiple later sources indicating the importance of that specific design, and we don't have that. Simply having a patent granted is insufficient for WP:GNG, not for the inventor, not for the invented item, and moving this fails to address the core problem that it just isn't notable.
Agricolae (
talk)
21:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Searched in JSTOR, found a lot of ideas for reducing maintenance costs on railroads, but nothing about this. His name brings up nothing. //
Timothy :: talk12:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apparently non-notable initiative. As far as I can tell, it released one report in 2008 and did very little else. The report did get some coverage in the Toronto Star (
[56],
[57]) and
CityNews (
[58]). By article count alone, you might think that passes
WP:THREE. But I just have a hard time believing that a single report released 12 years ago with no apparent long-term impact is an encyclopedic topic. Would be nice to get some clarity on this one way or another, since it's been tagged for notability for over 11 years.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Merging sounds like a great idea! I would suggest that the eventual merger (I'd do it myself, if consensus is to merge) be selective—there's a lot of peacocks, weasels, and puffery hanging out in this article at the moment.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
15:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG does not appear to pass alternate criteria for
WP:ANYBIO either
"1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -does not appear so.
"2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." - being the largest "individual sheep farmer" restricted to within Fresno County, CA isn't even close to being historically significant in the field of animal husbandry.
"3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." The things he does appear in are tailored to somewhat important local figures and it maybe of important to the local community and I don't believe they're anything even remotely similar to Dictionary of National Biography.
Moreover, it's a condensed copy-and-paste from a self-published family genealogy website. Since copyright release is in file, copyright isn't an issue, but the contents aren't really encyclopedic.
copyvios report
It's essentially an article that was created off Wiki for what seems like a family memorial purposes than encyclopedic that has been imported into Wikipedia from that point of view through copyright release. From my assessment of the GNG and ANYBIO criteria, it doesn't serve encyclopedic purpose to have that article on Wikipedia.
Graywalls (
talk)
05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Based on
WP:BASIC, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable. The following citations show that
William Helm was notable:
Comment on triviality, on one end of the scale is a one line mention in the news paper and on the other end is an entire book written about them. From the WP:BASIC page, "A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like many wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion". So the range is very wide.
Going over those sources one by one The Valley's Legends & Legacies III is a 368 page book; and it is a volume of a series of six volumes that's devoted to the Central Valley of the US State of California. A page in a collection that with a narrow focus would be relatively trivial. These are books that talk about somewhat important people in that area, like people who were shop keepers, herders and like.
History of the State of California with Biographical Record "noteworthy among the pioneer settlers of Fresno county is William Helm, a respected and valued citizen of Fresno." about a page in a 1643 page book.
History of Fresno County California with Biographical Sketches 1 1/2 pages in a 2603 page book.
Somewhat of an importance in the local history, but keep in mind that even local city politicians aren't automatically notable for Wikipedia and I don't think this person's notability rises to a level of importance of having their own stand alone article. On the level of interest, I am seeing a daily average of 3 over the last five years; with the all time high daily view occurring as a result of the AfD.
Graywalls (
talk)
17:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
So, if I were to use an encyclopedia to look up notable sheep farmers in California, shouldn't I be able to find
William Helm? There is even a city named after him. BTW, since 2015, there has been 5,615 pageviews! --
Greg Henderson (
talk)
17:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
No more so than being able to find the name of biggest potato grower in the State of Idaho that was an individual in 1900s. There is indeed a lot of articles that shouldn't have been put on Wikipedia in the first place. If you happen to find others exist, there's good chance those don't meet notability standards and you're free to nominate them for AfD as well.
Graywalls (
talk)
18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
It appears that you have a differrent interpretation of
WP:BASIC. To me, significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources is what has been cited for
William Helm. It will be interesting to see what other Keep/Delete votes we get. --
Greg Henderson (
talk)
18:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Subject appears notable enough. An independently published page on someone is a page on them whether it's half of a two-page pamphlet or 1/10,000 of a multi-volume work. His obituary in The Fresno Morning Republican was also quite substantial, running two columns and covering much the same ground.
BD2412T19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep a prominent early pioneer with some fairly extensive coverage in local and state histories. With the exception of the Family Search and Find-a-grave references, this article doesn't seem to be based on genealogical research, and looks fine for the most part.
Curiocurio (
talk)
21:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
May be a
WP:FRINGEBLP. The lone RS included as a source does indeed mention the subject of the article (see
[59], by
David M. Jacobs), but just once. There are also hits in in-universe ufology newsletters, but we can't use those. I could not find reviews of her books to establish
WP:NAUTHOR. Previous AfD was in 2009, so I think this deserves fresh consideration.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete these pages are so frustrating. I would love to keep it as I'm sure it is interesting reading and even a good psychological study for future researchers. But we can't give Wikipedia pages to people just because they are authors. Otherwise Wikipedia would be overrun. Whomever wrote this page sadly misunderstood what notability on Wikipedia means.
Sgerbic (
talk)
21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
New page review: BLP of a tv and radio host sourced to interviews and PR pieces with no genuine sustained coverage in independent sources. Her name makes an online search for other sources rather difficult. There’s another Faith Temitope in Zambia who’s obviously not the same person.
Mccapra (
talk)
04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. An article filled with meaningless puffery on a completely
run-of-the-mill golf course. The sole claim to notability I could find was its being named the 32nd best golf course in Massachusetts by "top100golfcourses.com" (
[60])—and that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
05:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Subject doesn't appear to meet
WP:BROADCAST or
WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find at all is a handful of
reprintedpressreleasechurnalism from the time of the channel's launch. In Nov 2008. And then absolutely nothing after that. This type of coverage confirms that the subject existed (or at least was launched) and that the PR department managed to get some noise out in advance. But this type of coverage is not "independent of the subject" and doesn't confirm notability. Lasting or otherwise. That there is no coverage at all after that, even to the extent that the subject's apparent demise was not worthy of coverage, suggests that it is/was not notable. If, for some reason, there is consensus to keep the title, then it should be redirected to
Magnet Networks. As the content of the article is entirely uncited, a decade or more out-of-date, and generally of little to no value independent of the parent company/operator.
Guliolopez (
talk)
08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete in addition to not passing Beauty Pageants notability guidelines as stated by nom, sections on being a young investor and fashion trendsetter are
WP:PROMO in nature. Refs are mainly interviews. Information about her appearing in various publications as model or representing the various brands are not immediate verifiable in stated sources.
– robertsky (
talk)
07:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about a journalist/activist who does not seem meet the requirements of
WP:GNG There is a lot of noise from organizations directly attached to his causes. The others that come from reliable sources are barely mentions of him. The sources used in the actual article cannon be considered reliable for the purposes of notability.
McMatter(
talk)/(
contrib)02:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per
WP:NOTPROMO. The current state of the article is edging close to
G11 territory. Would also point out that the author of the article was a
SPA and little has changed since then in terms of the tone of the article. --
Dps04 (
talk)
04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Having existed since 1770, it's highly unlikely that a fairly large church would have went unnoticed in the media. Sources are quite likely to exist in print media and in the native language. The Thrissur city police website notes "... and Chittattukara St. Sebstian's Church Thirunal are the most important festivals conducted by Christian community within Pavaratty ..." which indicates potential notability. The church is mentioned in
this book but I can't see full extract. –
SD0001 (
talk) (
talk)
14:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I certainly sympathize with the views noted above, I would note that—as far as I can see—no one has pointed to a reliable source indicating that that this church was founded in 1770, as the article currently claims. Fwiw, the church's website
[61] does not appear to mention this date. I find arguments based on
WP:NEXIST less persuasive if we do not have clear evidence of the church's age and prominence.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
13:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Fwiw, I just found
[62], which is a primary source from the archdiocese in which the church is located. It does give a founding date of 1770, which I find reasonably persuasive. I'd love to find some sort of independent confirmation of this, however.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
CommentAleatoryPonderings's concern on lack of sources is valid. However, I found some mentions of this church in
this book titled "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times", the details cannot be accessed to know whether the church really belongs to that period. If the church is really that old, it should be in a government list of historic heritage sites like the Indian equivalent of
National Register for Historic Places. That could make it pass
WP:NCHURCH or
WP:NBUILD, marginally at least.
Nomian (
talk)
01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - as per
WP:NCHURCH, churches are not inherently notable and need to pass
WP:GNG; this church doesn't pass - it speculation to say that the ancestors were baptised by St Thomas Apostle. Listing mass times and chapels under the auspice of this church does not make this notable. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
The contents of the article at present are irrelevant to notability. Churches are not inherently notable, ok, but how can you claim that it does not meet GNG without having access to sources like
this (also linked above) -- from which quite frankly it looks as if the subject is covered significantly, although GBooks is displaying only a snippet. –
SD0001 (
talk)
14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The
site cited suggests the current building does not in fact date to 1770, though the Catholic parish would. Regardless,
WP:ITSOLD is not a valid argument and there is not automatic notability for age. Not shown to have significant coverage.
Reywas92Talk18:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Well, the present church isn't the one who have been used as parish church since the formation of the parish in 1770. The present church is actually the third church of the parish, and is a few decade younger than the parish itself, probably built shortly after the year 1800, but the exact year/date dosen't seem to be remembered any more (I've updated an improved the article on various points). I agree, that it would be to rash to conclude lack of sources when a search in the local language haven't been done. For what I can see, there are lot of printed material in the local language, but if any of this deals whit the history of the church, I can't tell - but what is evident is 1) The church is mentioned in "Father Nidhiry, 1842-1904: A History of His Times" and 2) The church has significant coverage (found on the internet) in various languages 3) We haven't fully established to what extent the church is mentioned in older printed material & 4) The "Kambidi Thirunnal" seem to be a well known feast also attracting visitors from beyond the borders of the parish - "famed by it's fireworks". All in all I can't recommend a deletion of the article.
Oleryhlolsson (
talk)
14:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. Several participants in this discussion have noted that there does not appear to have been a search in non-English texts. I posted
this note at
WP:INDIA to ask if anyone was able to do that (I can't). Note to closer and others: I assume that this is not inappropriate canvassing—if anything, it would make deletion less likely—but I am open to a reprimand if so.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
16:44, 3 September 2020 (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.