The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Nothing in the article suggests it will pass
WP:NMUSIC, my search did not find anything else. I glanced at the band members with pages, they should probably have their notability checked as well.
Jeepday (
talk)
14:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTNEWS. After all these months, it's clear this is a non-notable crime. The sole victim survived his gunshot injury, and the crime was motivated by a personal dispute, not terrorism of any sort.
Love of Corey (
talk)
22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable voice actress who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The claim to have won awards seems spurious as I couldn’t find reliable sources substantiating them. Celestina007 (
talk)
05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:ENTERTAINER. The article as it stands is a bit rough but if fleshed out with all of her major voice acting working she would certainly meet the criteria.
PvOberstein (
talk)
Keep per
WP:ENTERTAINER I understand there is not much information on this individual but believe the page is fitting and can be expanded upon in the future.
Hawkilloo (
talk)
Delete Fails notability per
WP:GNGand per
WP:ENTERTAINER standards, by some margin. I guess those award nominations were the reason why this couldn't be speedied, fair enough, but they certainly aren't enough to justify an article. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The article as currently written is weak and needs additional sourcing and justifiable expansion. Having said that, there is no doubt that this individual has distinguished herself in her niche. The frequency and ubiquity of her work suggests ample
WP:GNG and it would be a disservice to the community to simply eliminate the article rather than attempt to improve it.
Carmelhighlander09 (
talk)
07:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. This is an unsourced article for which I can find no sources. If anyone doubts the insignificance of this pond, just look at the picture in the article, the average backyard swimming pool is probably bigger than this. Article was DEPRODed with comment "Although the article is still missing sources, significant coverage shurely (sic) exists in Austrian sources, especially because it is near a castle." I do not understand why its proximity to a castle would add to its notability.
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Tiny body of water with what is essentially a drainage ditch as its primary water flow source. This doesn't even seem to really have a formal name. About as
WP:MILL as the pond in the cow pasture next to my parent's house.
Hog FarmTalk04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Several sites list this as "One of the earliest shareware games". A proper source for that would be good, but at least there are enough mentions of this game to make it notable. --
Bensin (
talk)
21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete unless proper sources are found (then ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). I failed to find a single source that is reliable and contains SIGCOV. Note that there is a new piece of software named the same which is mentioned by a few academic works (
[1]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - The game certainly existed, but I am finding no real coverage of it in reliable sources. The few sources that do mention it seem to be user-generated or non-reliable sources. The only real piece of information in a reliable source was
this article from
Eurogamer, but it only has a single sentence discussing it. If anyone can suggest a potential Redirect target, I would probably be fine with that, as well.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. If this is indeed the first shareware game, this should be mentioned with a source at
Shareware#Games. There is far from enough sourcing to justify a separate article.
IceWelder [
✉]
00:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify: No one said it's the first, but rather "One of the earliest shareware games". As for sources, since this game likely had its peak around its release in 1984, there is a good chance that more sources or reviews can be found in print rather than online, and it would be sad to see this article go because of that. I don't think anyone doubts the game's existence or that it was wide spread. --
Bensin (
talk)
11:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:GNG. Probably also fails
WP:NASTRO, the spirit if not the letter. A couple of scientific papers discuss this and a small number of other star systems, but mainly in the context of showing that they don't have a previously-suggested exoplanet. Not having an exoplanet isn't yet a cause for notability ... maybe one day. Otherwise a dim red dwarf with zero popular coverage.
Lithopsian (
talk)
13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: I only saw two papers that have any substantial discussion: one was the discovery paper and the other rejects the finding. There isn't a list of rejected exoplanet candidates, so no redirect.
Praemonitus (
talk)
14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete There are plenty of things that are notable for not existing, but this exoplanet is not one of them. Alternatively, we could redirect it to
List of exoplanets discovered in 2014, where it is mentioned, but BD-21 784 doesn't strike me as a plausible search term.
Tercer (
talk)
16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think you have misunderstood my position. The only substantial discussions I found about the star were about the non-existent planet. If you disregard those, the star itself is completely non-notable.
Praemonitus (
talk)
01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, aside from the non-existent exoplanet mentioned, it looks like some of the papers cited in this article just have trivial mentions of the star. And some aren't even about BD-21 784, like Cinadon36 said. Unfortunately these aren't enough to pass
WP:NASTRO.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
02:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
References 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the article don't appear to mention BD-21 784 at all. Or anything else that it's known as, for that matter. (Gliese 160.2, Gliese 9144, LHS 1628 or HIP 19165) Even if they did mention it, a simple mention isn't enough to meet
WP:NASTRO, an object has to have significant commentary about it to do so.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
02:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For ref. 6 you likely use wrong link. Template {{Cite Gaia EDR3}} do create multiple links, and one marked "Gaia EDR3 record for this source" is leading to exact entry. Reference 8 lists BD-21 784 properly as alias GJ 160.2. Reference 9 had a typo in arxiv link (you should have noticed it yourself). Fixed now. Finally, reference 10 lists star properly under alias GJ 160.2
Trurle (
talk)
02:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree I may not have looked thoroughly enough at the references, and I apologize for that. I am however still concerned about the notability of this star. The one reference that talks about BD-21 784 outside of it being an entry in a table or database (which again, does not demonstrate notability) is reference 10. The mention is 2 paragraphs which talk about how it might have a planet, and I doubt that 2 paragarphs qualify as "significant commentary" per
WP:NASTRO.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak Keep: So, I found
this. Pretty much looks like his own CV uploaded online, thought it was interesting but could also lead us in a direction.
Soccerwire has an article saying that he has played professionally in Venezuela BUT that could mean anything.
worldfootball.net has it that he played in six
Copa Libertadores matches in 1995.
Ceroacero has a match lineup with a Luis Mendoza of Caracas FC. Also, this
RSSSF states that "Luis Carlos Mendoza" played for Caracas FC against
Deportivo Táchira and
Botafogo. Also,
this article is interesting. Essentially,
Bernardo Añor scored for Caracas and set a record for being the son of another former Caracas player who scored for the club. The article also lists this also being done by Luis Mendoza "Mendocita" in 1986 and his sons, Luis Enrique and Luis Carlos while listing this Carlos as being with the club from 1987 to 1995. So I am pretty confident that this article for sure passes NFOOTY. He has plenty of appearances at a level that I would think leads to notability, just needs sources and revisions. Also
this nugget of old html. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I would say so. The gradadigital source says that Luis Mendoza is the son of this Luis Carlos Mendoza... and that older Mendoza was with Caracas FC in 1986. They 100% father/son. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Mendoza was one of the first Venezuelan footballers to enter in the Hall of Fame, he played in eight
Copas Libertadores, three
Copas América and three World Cup classifications,[1] and this comes from someone that isn't quite interested in sports. I have added the "Expand" tag and linked the article to other languages in Wikidata. The page is currently in a deplorable state, but the subject meets the notability standards to have an article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: Wrong Mendoza. Your article and source for Venezuela national caps is for the Mendoza born June 21, 1945. The one in this discussion is on the one born in 1970. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
13:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that since the previous discussion closed as no consensus and since more than 4 years have passed, I am okay to start a second discussion on Henderson. In the last 4 years, it does not appear that any further coverage has developed and Henderson still appears to fail
WP:GNG.
I am of the belief that none of the sources currently cited show significant coverage addressing Henderson directly and in depth. The
Futsal4all source is not sufficient. Outside of the article, I have found a
Telegraph source,
a Perth Now picture and
Women Soccer. All of these mentions are completely trivial and there is no depth at all.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
You claim that playing in the W-League provides a presumption of notability and I'm curious as to where that presumption comes from. For example
Rachael Smith appeared in the same league and there was clear consensus to delete per GNG failure. Same with
Ashlee Faul,
Lauren Chilvers and
Jodie Bain. How is this case any different? GNG was why
Sammie Wood,
Stella Rigon and
Angela Fimmano were kept so if a similar amount of sourcing could be provided for Henderson then maybe we can keep this article too but I'd much rather work on evidence of notability rather than presumptions in an AfD. For what it's worth, there are many articles on GNG-failing male footballers that get deleted every week despite passing NFOOTBALL.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
CommanderWaterford: You are capable of bringing to light the essay you think is relevant if you want, but no need to belittle me in the process. I am well aware of this essay and will highlight for you This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. --
SuperJew (
talk)
22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
SuperJew. Can I just say that some editors' zeal for AfD'ing women footballers on WP can be better spent elsewhere? Especially in this case where it had happened once already and where the footballer in question already retired from playing when the first AfD discussion occurred, so it's unlikely there would be additional coverage in the interim. Honestly it feels all of our time could be better spent doing some actual improvements rather than this over and over again...
Seany91 (
talk)
12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Also, if we are to disregard GNG and NFOOTBALL for female footballers, what would be an alternative guideline? Or do we just keep all female footballers as long as we can prove that they exist and played at least one game somewhere at some point? If the current guidelines are a problem, then that's fine to state that, but, as far as I can see, nobody has come up with a viable alternative.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Spiderone: Neither you, nor any of the other deletionists, have answered the counter: can you provide three sources discussing
Jais Malsarani directly and in detail? (And the point is to show that there is a double-standard. If we agree on that, I'd like to see your zeal for mass AfD'ing such men footballers too and I'm sure that the "Keep" arguments there will be relevant to such women footballer AfD's such as this one). --
SuperJew (
talk)
12:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Malsarani is completely non-notable from a GNG perspective but meets NFOOTBALL as an international player. Wikipedia community consensus is that all international players are considered notable regardless of GNG. Please note that this applies to female footballers such as
Victoria Balomenos,
Linda Oe and
Tessy Bamberg-Schitter as well so it's not in fact a sexist double standard at all. Henderson only has youth caps so this same consensus does not apply. Any male footballer that passes NFOOTBALL but has no caps and clearly fails GNG can and, in most cases, will be deleted as even a cursory glance at recent AfDs will show.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Please, there's no difference notability-wise between playing 5 minutes in an international match between Vanuatu and Fiji and between playing 5 minutes in a Premier League match or in a W-League match. --
SuperJew (
talk)
19:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. GNG has not been demonstrated, and keeping an article that also doesn't even meet NFOOTY only perpetuates harmful stereotypes that women are only capable of notability if we lower our standards.
JoelleJay (
talk)
04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Spiderone, we'll note that his article was deleted due to doubt cast over his appearance for Vanuatu - the actual
WP:GNG met by him is the same amount - no new sources were found or disappeared. I can find you plenty of other examples of what we previously thought the case was for Jais Malsarani - for example
King Moe (great name btw!). Therefore still the main argument stays: a player can play 1 minute for a Pacific nation team and you'd argue for their keeping regardless of if any sources covering them at all, but for a woman playing in Australia's top league, you require a whole heap of sources to prove notability. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
SuperJew - this presumption of notability for playing international football applies to women as well as men, so is not a sexist double standard. For example,
Oloa Tofaeono is a woman with 1 cap for American Samoa. A search reveals no significant coverage of her either, just passing mentions in match reports as with King Moe. If Henderson has played international football then she would be presumed notable but she hasn't therefore we must look for evidence of notability rather than a presumption...
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Spiderone: That's part of the issue here... it's a mix of gender issue and domestic v international issue. But something is wrong when
a sub who came on for the last 3 minutes of the match where the 191st ranked team lost 8-1 to the 161st ranked team (rankings slightly anachronistic as of today) in front of
140 people is inherently more notable than
a squad player in a top-10 ranking country's top league in front of
crowds ranging between 300-714 (at minimum twice the crowd and that's not including TV watchers). It's honestly quite a shock that said "international player" gets a free pass, while it is a battle to try and keep the top league squad player. Bottom line btw, I'm not trying to say "delete the 'international player'" either. I would be happy for both to stay - as this is an online encyclopedia, I don't see the problem with some articles being only a couple of paragraphs as that is what is known about them, while others are longer. And I don't see what is burning for a few editors to push many articles to PROD and AfD. --
SuperJew (
talk)
21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm sneaking in before this is re-closed, but I did spend some time on a source search for the DRV just to see if a mistake was made but unfortunately I could not find any articles which demonstrated she passes
WP:GNG.
SportingFlyerT·C17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Passing
WP:NFOOTBALL does not mean that a subject is automatically notable, it only means that the subject is supposedly likely to have the
significant coverage to pass
WP:GNG. Male, femlale, international, professional or amateur - does't matter. The subject still has to have significant coverage which Henderson unfortunately does not.
Alvaldi (
talk)
22:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - I note that the assessment table above simply ignores the half-dozen or so sources that aren't available online. With the known
WP:BIAS that exist with women footballers, it's hard to objectively apply the same standards that are used for males. That being said, we have one source that's borderline, and years of play at the highest level of the sport. And lots of peripheral media mentions. If this was a male player, it could go both ways, but to counter bias, we shouldn't be quick to delete articles for women players that have survived here already for years, and do have sources. Also, I fixed a broken reference in the article.
Nfitz (
talk)
23:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - GNG is applied equally to both genders. We have no idea what the Hills Gazette sources contain and therefore can't consider them for GNG. Mere mentions of her don't make her pass GNG, significant coverage does. An article being here for years/having sources are not reasons to keep.
Dougal18 (
talk)
10:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The Hills Avon Valley Gazette is a newspaper for a local region of WA about 40km east of Perth. I can't find those articles online, but I'd expect a professional sportsperson to have received coverage from places other than the place they came from.
SportingFlyerT·C10:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Can't wait until this same standard is applied to the academy boys scraping by NFOOTY with a few appearances off the bench in, say, USL League One...
Seany91 (
talk)
08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
...and yet female footballers (and women in general) continue to be disproportionately & negatively impacted by WP notability criteria, so take that how you want.
Seany91 (
talk)
17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why the focus here is on the missing Hills Avon Valley Gazette references. The missing reference that jumps out is the June 21 2010 reference from
The West Australian, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in Australia. As for GNG applying equal to "both" genders (and I don't understand the need for a binary reference here) - that's only true if the media reported equally on all genders. I hope no one here believes that they do!
Nfitz (
talk)
17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what "having it both ways" means. GNG is the issue.
WP:YOUNGATH tells us that teenage athletes have to have very substantial coverage in order to be notable. If there are no GNG-qualifying sources from her professional career, YOUNGATH means we don't keep on the grounds that her local paper covered her amateur youth sports career.
SportingFlyerT·C13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still having some good conversation here. Let's do one more relist and hopefully it'll be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: I mean if that league isnt fully pro then she fails the relevance, and she also hasnt done anything in 4 years.
Muur (
talk)
22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The league she is playing in has no bearing on her notability. A player playing in an amateur league can be notable while a player in a professional league can be non-notable.
Alvaldi (
talk)
09:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 did some digging and found newspaper coverage in Newspapers.com - @
JayzBox: if you don't have a subscription to this site, you can request this
here. It's pretty handy, although you do have to sometimes wade through a ton of false positives when there are relatively common terms. (Like Monster, which brought up a ton of random things until I started limiting the search fields more and more.)
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
ReaderofthePack:, thank you for your response and for suggesting me to use
Wikipedia:Newspapers.com (of which I wasn't aware existed). My perspective has greatly changed regarding this article (I've decided to withdraw). I see myself using Newspapers.com in a nearby future if the information I'm looking can't be found in either Google Books (via Scholar), or Google News. Regards.
JayzBox (
talk)
23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Google Books is good, but it feels like their offerings have gotten a little weaker lately, as more and more things seem to be hidden behind paywalls. This might be due to publishers fighting against the preview option, which isn't a new phenomenon with GB unfortunately.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)03:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I’ve definitely noticed that, but I can’t complain since if I were in their shoes I would’ve completely understand and most likely done about the same. Local libraries really come in handy since they always have a variety of subjects, with the perk being they’re free to view.
JayzBox (
talk)
16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 The sources supplied in the article are either primary otherwise unreliable, or passing mentions. I cannot find any RSes to support the subject's notability. Possibly
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Using
WP:NLIST,
Martins Osodi is notable as a musician more than an entrepreneur, most Nigerian blogs appear to be primary because of their low blogging standards, additionally, more Nigerian notable people are not on wikipedia and that is why, as a part of improving the Wikipedia community we keep contribute and bringing notable people’s knowledge to the public. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.217.75.93 (
talk) 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete - As the musician YungBilo he is only present in the usual streaming services, and a couple of the notoriously unreliable Nigerian "media" websites that only reprint press releases and don't even moderate the uproarious language of how famous and amazing the musician is. (e.g.
[3]). As the businessman Martins Osodi he is only visible in his own LinkedIn account and a few basic industry directory entries for his company. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 02:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested draftify, moved back to main space by
User:Lilianasri (see
Draft:Saad Al-Nasser for original article). His
11 mins of football to date were against an Uzbek team, the Uzbek league is not listed at
WP:FPL as 'fully professional', therefore Al-Nasser does not yet meet
WP:NFOOTBALL. Only passing mentions found in an Arabic search;
Alyaum gives a passing mention of his debut,
Al-Jazirah mentions him in a squad list and another passing mention in
Dawri Plus. There are a few other small mentions of him but I couldn't see anything that indicates
WP:GNG.
Delete main space article and keep the draft, per Spiderones reasoning that makes good sense as they may pass GNG/NFOOTY in the near future
JW 1961Talk19:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 first demo album by a now famous and legendary death metal band. Unfortunately it is not notable for Wikipedia. Tagged for sources since 2009. Even though there are entries on other wikis as well, the sourcing isn't better on any of those, in fact, most of them are unsourced. If there are sources, they are mostly unreliable databases like metal archives, discogs and musicbrainz. During a google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability, only the usual unreliable sites.
This seemed good at first, but under the article it says "source: Wikipedia", so there goes reliability. So, in conclusion, this demo is not notable. Too bad since CC are great.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 project of
Hritdith Sudev, that I have just listed at AfD. I list this separately, because it is conceivable though in my opinion unlikely, that it might be notable, if promotional material were removed
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
@
Kokopelli7309: Is there anything in particular which is causing doubt or needs additional citation? For example, Reuters cites that he was named AFKM CEO and came from Air Canada - even if not in-depth, those are fairly objective facts. I've added a couple other sources, which should helpfully help, too. What's missing to close this discussion and keep the page up?
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Ben.lipsey Wikipedia has various policies on which subjects need articles, the most relevant is the
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG), that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Click the links for further detail. The idea is to write articles based on independent sources, not information published by individuals or their employers. So what is needed is at least another two sources like Paris Match above. Also you should disclose your conflict of interest,
Special:Diff/1019448972, when contributing to discussions.
TSventon (
talk)
15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as per references found by TSventon. Delete Being the CEO of a major company does not automatically confer notability.
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is neither policy nor guideline. I cannot find any references that meets the criteria for notability.
HighKing++ 21:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I added more sources, including in depth articles that I found such as Skift, Simple Flying, and from major (French) publications like Le Monde, Le Point, Les Echos, and Europe 1. Hopefully this adds some more independently-verified sources. (For the record I work at AFKL so there is an [unpaid] COI, which I have disclosed on my user page, but all these articles are/were publicly available and extensively researched.)
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Ben.lipsey: Those references are cack and you shouldn't edit an article when you have a COI during AFD. Three references are routine announcements of the new position, the same news that was in the article already and the other one is puff piece, no more than a profile. No one is saying there aren't articles about him. It is the quality and where they are suitable to prove
WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep: OK not sure I understand then, still getting used to this. There was a request for more sources and I added a few more. Skift, Simple Flying, and the French newspaper articles are all in depth and quite extensive (and from what I can tell, they were also published in print).
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
From an external viewpoint, you seem to be here to fudge the Afd. You have declared a COI, so have the good grace to stay away, while the article is being discussed. scope_creepTalk16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
For the record I’m not trying to fudge anything. It was suggested by two other users to come and contribute to this discussion, and I was only trying to respond to others who said the sources were not in-depth/independent enough - that’s it, nothing more. But I’ll stop here.
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The Paris Match is a good reference, the 2nd one is profiley type thing, it is like a mini CV listing, the third one I can't see, but assuming AGF, it is likely to be about his financial performance, in a trade paper that has a duty to report on financial news. scope_creepTalk11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Per Wikipedia notability criteria, there is no policy based argument that says that if a person is in charge of a large company, they are automatically notable. scope_creepTalk14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For comparison the Paris Match reference is around 1050 words, the Les Echos reference is around 650 and the FT references is around 1150. I believe that they are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The FT and Les Echos are business papers but that does not mean that they are not reliable sources or can't provide evidence of notability. The FT article covers Smith's performance in 2019, especially in union negotiations, but also mentions profit targets and fleet renewal. It may be possible to access it by searching for the headline rather than clicking on the link.
TSventon (
talk)
14:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For me, although there are a lot of similarities between the LesEchos and ParisMatch articles which suggests that the company produced a profile pack for the press, having reviewed closely I'm happy that there is also a sufficient quantity and quality of independent commentary on Smith in both and also in the FT article. I've changed my !vote to Keep. Thank you
TSventon for finding and providing those refs.
HighKing++ 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article could use a lot of work, but a quick search for his name yields significant coverage. I'd lean keep if the page can be updated with some better sources. --
Nemov (
talk)
18:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete with the proliferation of more and more chief x officer titles, we do not need a corresponding proliferation of articles on non-notable businessmen.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
MrsSnoozyTurtle: Not wanting to badger, but can I ask why the above sources don't convince you? There are lots more sources out there, so I'd be willing to direct you to them. If you have reasons for your !vote with regard to
WP:GNG, I would be more than happy to hear them.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for engaging, scope creep. I acknowledge that not all of the sources I linked above contribute to him meeting GNG. But, as I said, there is much more coverage of him available.
This one, for example, offers an analysis of his resignation and is certainly secondary in nature.
This piece talks about his role in the club's future development. These two sources alone seem to lift him above the bar for GNG. The more relevant question is whether he is only notable for
WP:ONEEVENT. I think the answer is "no" since his career as a high-level sports executive before his resignation is documented well enough.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
In addition to my remarks regarding WP:ONEVENT: kicker, Germany's leading sports paper, featured a large-scale interview with him in their print edition of 12 October 2020. (The publication of the interview is previewed
here.) I don't have access to this publication at the moment but their article, albeit not independent, will surely help to reliably confirm lots of facts about his work before his resignation.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Most of these are routine in the context of him in the poistion, not him, specifically. Several are the annoucement of him resigning. The last one for example, in the first list
[4]] is again related to the death threats. The
SPORT1 is another annocement of him leaving. Looking at the 2nd Google Books list. The first at
[5] looks like a series of profiles. Not really suitable for BLP, possibly external link. The 2nd one looks like an e-book with huge writing. It is not in-depth. The third one in the Italian language, is effectively a passing mention in relation to something else. The fourth one, The aim was to “further sharpen the external image”, as Marketing Director Alexander Jobst explained (quoted in the N.N., 2014, p. 10). is not in-depth. So I don't think it is particularly useful in an AFD discussion, just to provide a search listing and somehow make it feel it worthy of a BLP, without actually examining them in detail. They're not good sources. The guy is a marketing manager and these are all mostly unsuitable to prove
WP:V and
WP:BIO. Very poor all-in-all. scope_creepTalk22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there are a number of sources available, a consensus is emerging that none of them are the kind that can be used to establish notability. However, given discussion to date relisting to see if firmer consensus one way or another can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a
single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like
this constitutes press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the
Gaon Digital Chart at 83 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability
requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an
alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster.
Ashleyyoursmile!15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single.
✗plicit06:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a
single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like
this constitute press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the
Gaon Digital Chart at 86 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability
requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an
alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster.
Ashleyyoursmile!15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single.
✗plicit06:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Orphaned promotional article on non-notable company. Subject fails
WP:GNG.
WP:BEFORE checks show no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The majority of content is a history of coffee in Mexico, unrelated to the company. PROD contested by author.
Jr8825 •
Talk15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per nom.
Lorenru The article can be improved and I am volunteering to do it. I've found relevant sources to add and improve the content. I'll take 10 days from this date to finish it. (
Lorenru)
22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable future film, fails
WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be determined.
Donaldd23 (
talk)
15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Move to draftspace It seems one editor is trying to update the article, unfortunately without any citations. Consider moving to draftspace so that the editor would be able to write the article and add some citations. Upon which, one can see if it still passes
WP:NFF-- DaxServer (
talk)
08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Don't Delete - THe person is a notable personality and acted in number of Punjabi and Hind Movies. But THere is less online content available about the person may be because he is underrated. Many personalities on the same level are already recognized as notable on English wikipedia. SO i think there may be chances of improving the article with more trusted references but deleting it wouldn't be fair. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jagmit Singh Brar (
talk •
contribs)
15:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no secondary sources cited at all (and newspaper accounts 50 years later are
WP:PRIMARY, see for example
here). Bring some actual secondary sources that discuss this and provide in depth coverage then make an article. As it stands now there are literally 0 sources demonstrating any type of coverage in secondary sources. nableezy -
21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. No case for deletion was made or, for that matter, exists. The attack was mentioned in all Israeli press at that time
example1example2example3example4example5 and has not been forgotten since. There are tens of article like this, just for this massacre. It's part of a sad history of violence. The nomination refers to the lack of references in the article but per
WP:NEXIST (an important part of the notability guideline) this does not matter at all. It are the sources "out there" that count.
gidonb (
talk)
00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
These are not primary but secondary sources from that time. I will look for contemporaneous sources later. The labor lodging location where people were massacred is in between two
moshavs (sometimes also containing the workers for both) creating some confusion below and in the intro.
gidonb (
talk)
11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually these were and remained journalistic reports, independent, in-depth, reliable, verifiable, secondary, and plentiful.
gidonb (
talk)
02:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant. Everyone should disagree with "points" under their opinion that are not supported by policy, science, and the facts. Plus there is absolutely no need to tag something that is under discussion in AfD in addition to an AfD, then edit war about it. It's an overkill and
WP:POINT.
gidonb (
talk)
09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Read
this and
this for why 50 year old contemporary news accounts are primary sources. And it should be obvious why those being the only sources cited does not satisfy the requirement for
WP:LASTING coverage. nableezy -
09:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Of the given sources for the article, all external links, all old newspaper reports, one is a perma dead link, the others do not support the material in the article by location or description (eg Palestinian Fedayeen in the article versus Egypytian infiltrators in the papers). Need to find some proper sourcing if this is to be kept.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist to give the "keep" !voters the opportunity to show how this event had a lasting impact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very sad, but there are a lot of murders worldwide every year and the encyclopedia does not need an article on each one. No indication that this tragic event is of any lasting encyclopedic significance, though obviously life-changing for the victim and perpetrator and their families.
PamD14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The closing admin (and @
Þjarkur:) should note the curious edit history of this AfD, where a very new editor has removed the !vote of another very new editor, and an IP has since edited other editors' !votes and signatures. Not a pretty sight. Too complicated to try to unpick, short of rolling back all recent edits.
PamD09:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MURDER and
WP:PERSISTENCE. The amount of coverage a case receives initially does not necessarily determine its notability – it's continued coverage that matters here, and I see no news on it past January, when the verdict was made. (Also, @
Glittersnap: keep in mind that while you created the article, you
don't own it.)Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs)18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: To add onto what PamD mentioned, I definitely suspect sockpuppetry of some kind with these three brand-new accounts and have opened
an investigation, and the page history is just a mess now. Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs) 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC) The article creator and their three socks have been blocked indefinitely. Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs)19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not meet
WP:EVENT, ie. no lasting major consequences, affect to a large geographical area, nor significant non-routine coverage over a period of time.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable language learning software. The article cites only the company's own website as source, and a search nets a product review in PCMag, various blog sites and the like, and that's about it; couldn't come up with a single RS sigcov references. Fails
WP:GNG /
WP:PROD. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
epidemiological:(Find sources:Google (
books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL)
I myself created the page, now nominating it for deletion as in the German Wiki, I couldn't find verifiable sources to his interesting facts of life, only to his losses during the both World Wars. My apologies if I did a mess trying to contribute
CoryGlee (
talk)
10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Struck as G7 probably does not apply when other users object to author-requested deletion (and will surely not apply if any of them makes a substantail edit). I am unconvinced that Hans is independently notable from his mother (e.g. does this rise to
Christopher Tolkien (son of
J. R. R. Tolkien, known for work on his father works), but this requires deeper parsing of the German sources.--Eostrix (
🦉 hoothoot🦉)02:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Kollwitz was notable as an author as a teenager. His epidemiological writings were published as well. We have a well referenced article on the German Wiki.
[7]No Swan So Fine (
talk)
12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I don’t think this is the most clear cut case but looking at the German article and the subject’s role as editor of works relating to his mother, with abundant references, I struggle to see how he wouldn’t be a GNG pass.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Non-notable businessman. Not separately notable from
Jacqueline Kennedy, who this individual was briefly in a relationship with. All sources discuss this individual in relationship to her, aside from the paid-for obituary, which does not establish notability.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing found outside of relationship. Subject has a minor mention in Jacqueline's article. I looked at the incoming links page, I am not sure it a redirect there is good choice or not. So Delete with no opinion on a redirect.
Jeepday (
talk)
15:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be notable as an author or copywriter and coverage is limited to self published and other non reliable sources. No significant, in depth coverage of his books and I cannot find evidence that his award is a notable one.
Deleted at AfD in 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Slaunwhite and although that was an entirely different version and since this was created in good faith in 2009, figured AfD v. PROD makes sense.
StarM14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, but the sourcing is not getting him over
WP:GNG. Five of the ten footnotes are just his own work metaverifying its own existence, which is not how you make a writer notable — you get a writer over
WP:AUTHOR by showing that his books have been the subjects of media coverage, such as book reviews or news articles about them winning notable literary awards, not just by citing their existence to themselves. But once you chop the five footnotes where the subject was the author of the source, you're left with a self-published press release from his own organization, an award self-cited to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than media coverage to establish the notability of said award,
user-generated reader reviews on Amazon, and a self-published press release from one of his publishers, none of which are support for notability either. There's just one footnote here that counts for anything, by being a real book review published in a real newspaper — but it still takes a hell of a lot more than just one of those to get a person over the bar. I also strongly suspect some form of
conflict of interest editing, since the article was created by an
WP:SPA whose only edits to any other article but this have involved creating new wikilinks to this article.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. If there is a need to include the term, it could be inserted into
Dreadlocks (if an actual source could be found), and without the list of albums.
LizardJr8 (
talk)
13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:NCRIC. The cricketer hasn't played any domestic or international match at highest level. Can't find any significant coverage. Earlier, the article was also tagged as citations needed but not being improved for a long time. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh Fails
WP:CRIN as ICC Trophy appearances weren't in a final. In terms of GNG I'm not seeing anything really that would constitute significant coverage, unless source 1 in the article is so, but then it would still only be one source as the others aren't significant coverage (one isn't even about him). Redirect a suitable
WP:ATD and nominator may want to consider using this for some of the others in the previous bundle.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Quite a normal surname list that now is sourced with a fourth entry added. "Do I make Wikipedia better if this page is deleted?" is a fundamental question one needs to ask oneself before nominating for deletion. In this case the answer is "no" as the page also serves as a
WP:SIA. SamSailor20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 undecided on this. It may pass
WP:GEOLAND as named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. Missouri Historical Society wrote about it, although not much, which could make a very weak case for keeping. It depends on exactly how you think the guideline should be interpreted.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
No, it didn't. That's what Hog Farm, I, and others refer to by the shorthand "Ramsay" in these Missouri discussions. It's the Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection, held by the society, and derived from earlier sources by a local professor of English. The cards are at most a handful of sentences long, plus a source citation. In this case the source that Ramsay cites is
hdl:10355/82581 and its sources, in turn, are an oral history from one Bert Williams, local person, and a map of the Fredericktown Quadrangle.
Uncle G (
talk)
08:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status. Fails
WP:GNG as nothing significant in coverage. I also didn't find the matches of the tour in different specialist stats websites. So, without any reliable sources in the article, its also difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable tour, not seeing any real coverage of it in an online search. Can't see a suitable redirect for it either.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status and fails
WP:GNG. The article is fully unsourced and so nothing significant in coverage. Thus it is difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable cricket tour, not seeing any real coverage in a internet search. Can't see a suitable redirect to redirect to either.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak keep - Coverage is mostly routine, but a fair amount of it is in very reputable publications. It's certainly a cut above most of the business spam that we usually see here at AfD, although it appears to struggle to cross the NCORP hurdle. signed, Rosguilltalk00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - responding to ping. I just looked them up and they are the fifth largest unicorn of April 2021 [
[8]]. Along with the coverage cited above, they meet the standards of notability.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)17:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
My !vote is re-direct as I've already done once. Article is not sourced at all, and it is basically
WP:ADMASQ and a quick check strongly suggests that this article fails to meet
WP:NCORP, and
WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe it was generous to consider
WP:ATD and re-direct to
Richard Milazzo, but that has been reverted by another editor, so now it is time to seek consensus on whether to delete vs re-direct.
Graywalls (
talk)
08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Lopifalko Yes, thank you, but does not the notability of those published by a press demonstrate that the press is itself notable, and that fact should be taken into consideration.
Valueyou (
talk)
09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank again. I read it and it concerns corporations. Irrelevant here. Edgewise Press is a small nonprofit art press with a record of notable authors attached to it.
Valueyou (
talk)
14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-profits aren't exempt from N:CORP/N:ORG. Is there a conflict of interest here we should be aware of?
StarM14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
By the way, I say I was generous to merge and re-direct instead, because the target of re-direct seems to be of borderline notability and
WP:ANYBIO is not as difficult to pass as NORG.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Star MississippiGraywallsLopifalkoVexationsJustlettersandnumbers Appreciate all generosity. The Notability (organizations and companies) page is confusing to me. The top of the N:CORP/N:ORG page states "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions..." Edgewise Press is a non-profit educational institution. Len Fulton describes Edgewise Press as an “unfunded nonprofit” in the International Directory of Little Magazines & Small Presses Volume 37 2001, p. 155. Also, I think all would agree that
Ross Bleckner and
Peter Halley are exceptionally notable contemporary artists, and if they publish their writings with Edgewise Press, that should weigh on the Edgewise Press notability factor. Common sense to me.
Valueyou (
talk)
15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Valueyou, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's use of the term "notability" is somewhat idiosyncratic and unhelpful. Use common sense is, unfortunately, not a core Wikipedia policy. What (most) participants in deletion discussions mean when they use that word is something entirely different than what you mean when you propose that Halley is a very important artist, his writing attracts significant critical attention by scholars and that the dissemination of those writings is in itself worthy of note. Here, at AfD, notable means that there exists a lot of (written) material that discusses the topic in-depth. I think of "notable" as short for: "Given that we cannot write what we know, but need to base everything on published sources, do we have sufficient material to write the article with?" If the answer to that is no, we reach consensus that the article cannot be sustained and ought to be deleted.
Vexations (
talk)
22:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
that's your interpretation of it. What that means is something like an actual university. Not some silly little groups organized as a not-for-profit organization and decides to call itself educational oriented. You should have another look at
WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not copywriting. Things like celebrity endorsement or the notability of the person writing/talking about it do not factor into notability.
Graywalls (
talk)
16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Richard Milazzo I moved the art educational information there and undid revision 1021998731 by
Graywalls to reinstate list of nonprofit art educational books - not a product catalog - btw - i object to
Graywalls ghosting and reversing almost my every edit since i made a mild critique of the erase mania practiced by
Graywalls. i am here to add value within my field of expertise.
Graywalls likes to "write stuff and I erase stuff on Wikipedia" but mostly erase stuff and make groundless accusations of coincidence.
Valueyou (
talk)
08:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect is what I did in the first place even though you reverted it only to vote "redirect" again. It was your reversion that made it necessary to start this consensus building discussion.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Page should be deleted as it fails
WP:GNG, hard to find any good secondary sources about the business (that aren't on the similarly named American business, not this Australian business)
Doctorkaufman (
talk)
07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 / weak keep erring on the side of caution. I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of women's basketball coaches at all, but noticed this page when patrolling. I just wanted to point out that the
American women's basketball coaches category is vast for a subject I wouldn't expect so many articles on, and many other pages I sampled are about people with a similar career to the nominated article. It's either full of other articles that need to be deleted, or this article fits in there just fine.
EditorInTheRye (
talk)
07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
’’’Comment / ‘’’ When will the decision be made on the inclusion of Coach Hankerson entry?
User:Mitchamz(
Mitchamz)
Comment / Publish Immediatedly Are you kidding me? Hilda M. Hankerson is one of the most Notable and Decorated Women HS Girls Coaches in history. Her teams are ranked both nationally and within the State of Ga. If style, syntax and clean up are the issue then do that but notablity is definitely not an issue. USA Today and ESPN are quality sources.
MitchamArticle Support11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Mitchamz, I have no issues with the style or anything. I know really well that AFD is not cleanup. This reputed source
[9] from USATODAY which you referred is just a fan poll. It talks nothing about this person. And this one from ESPN
[10] is about a competition rather than this person.? How can we consider these to establish GNG? As the creator of this article, you might really have an idea about her. But what about others? If you provide a reliable source which actually talks about her, I can consider withdrawal of this nom. Regards
Kichu🐘 Need any help?16:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Thats what Im also saying. USA today announced their coach of the year in a public poll. ESPN is talking about something else and only gives a mere mention about the subject. These two alone does not give sigvov to establish GNG.
Kichu🐘 Need any help?17:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coaching a team to four championships and being recognized as a veteran woman's basketball coach is notable. The biggest issue is inline citation and writing style. I've already made a serious of changes to improve things, though there's a lot more work required. --
Dnllnd (
talk)
12:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. She has just as much coverage as many articles similar to hers or more. When will discussion be closed on this subject? --
Mitchamz (
talk)
10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In particular, participants are encouraged to base arguments for notability on the existing notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment looks like there is coverage in some reliable sources that isn't already mentioned. I found two articles that I think would help demonstrate the subject meeting
WP:GNG:
"Westlake's Hankerson wins 400th game"; February 15, 2011 South Metro Neighbor (Forest Park, GA) (and other newspapers)
"Hankerson's long wait paying off tremendously, Westlake seeks fourth consecutive state title against Carrollton", The Atlanta Voice (Atlanta, Georgia) 12 Mar 2021, Page 13 Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
12:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
KEEP (Mitchamz cannot !vote more than once, and now he's spamming the shit out of this discussion.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)) - Follows GNG. She recieved continual sustained coverage from reputable sources such as ESPN, USA Today, USA Basketball and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for coaching a National Championship, 4 State Championships and 9 regional championship teams.
Mitchamz (
talk)
08:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
She is the principal subject of the cited sources and do not merely mention her name in passing. The USA Basketball article is specifically about her. [1]Mitchamz (
talk) 13:09, 3 May 2021 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A sock nominated this - I would have closed it as custom. But, it appears a draft exists, so I'm going to delete this article.
Missvain (
talk)
23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
This article was already declined at the draftspace. See
[11]. The creator then had a discussion in my talk page regarding this
[12] and told me that they are discarding from creating the article. But it has been recreated now. The school have no coverage from reliable sources thus failing GNG as well NORG
Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
12:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Kashmorwiki I really don't know how this was created again. I put the deletion tag on the draft then click publish. I didn't further create another draft. So I guess you are free to delete this. Also how did this article move to the main space? (Seeing it doesn't have the draft tag anymore.
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
08:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
As I've told I did not intend to publish this mainspace and have no idea how it got accepted. If the moderators feel like this cannot remain an article, it's okay to delete it or I can keep improving this article so that one day it's acceptable.
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Update: Found new Source. I managed to get an old publication of Newstime about the school (
Image) which talks about the school. Now since I have got a number of independent reliable sources. Does this now qualify for an article?
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
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, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I don’t really know what to add anymore. Before there were some sources issues but then I added a photo of the school which was mentioned in a magazine called Newstime (which was owned by The Times of India and was quite famous in Hyderabad and so is a reliable source) so I don’t know what else to do. This is why I removed the AfD
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
18:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete All I could find is a few brief, passing, trivial mentions in school directories. Nothing that would pass
WP:NORG or
WP:GNG though. Plus, what I can tell all the references in the article are primary or otherwise not usable for notability. So, there doesn't seem to be a guideline based reason to keep the article. That said, I appreciate that the article creator put the time into it and hopefully it being deleted (if that's what happens) doesn't dissuade from creating more articles. Hopefully just more notable ones next time ;) --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
My apologies if I was unclear. G4 is for quickly removing articles that have previously been deleted as part of a formal deletion discussion. The link you're providing is to this page. We would need a link to a prior discussion to act upon. I don't see anything obvious in the history.
Kuru(talk)20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
no to speedy We need a full discussion on this. The reason behind the proposed speedy is unclear and circular, which may be an error or something more. So let's let the discussion run its course.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, as it was only deleted via PROD. However, this makes the page ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
PRODing will have no sense here so AfD. Just a Golf Club, perhaps created to establish some notability for Myanmar military personal (see [14]). It has polemic news mentions but fails clearly
WP:GNG.
CommanderWaterford (
talk)
08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The page already has good detailed sources which demonstrate international coverage such as the New York Times. And it's easy to find more coverage such as National Geographic. The place is clearly not just another golf club but attracts attention because of its unusual and incongruous existence in a war zone, which gives it quite a M*A*S*H ambience. It clearly passes
WP:GNG.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
09:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge into some suitable Kachin-related article (eg
Kachin Independence Organisation). As a golf course it has no interest, currently just 6 holes. It's only claim to fame is it's connection to Kachin Independence.
WP:N says that, even if a subject passes GNG, "editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" and given the limited amount that needs to be said about the course (a paragraph or perhaps two), I suggest merging into another Kachin-related article. Currently it only links from
Sumlut Gun Maw, "an officer of the Kachin Independence Army."
Nigej (
talk)
12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Most of the coverage I can find on him is prep sports coverage, which
WP:YOUNGATH specifically discusses. The college coverage is all similar to
[15], brief and not significant, and his award is in a youth competition.
SportingFlyerT·C17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Wikipedia isn't a directory. Totally agree that the one linked article could just be merged to
Itahari though. Since it clearly needs the content. Maybe some of the other entries can be merged also. Since the standards of inclusion for city articles are lower then for lists like this one. There's zero reason to have a stand alone article though. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. This is not sourced to any coverage of her work as a journalist at all, but solely to a photogallery that existed in the context of her happening to be the twin sister of an actress -- but notability is
not inherited, so Jill's fame doesn't hand Jacqueline a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie. The article is also badly outdated, indicating that she "currently" hosts a show she stopped hosting a decade ago, and even that show hasn't been properly sourced as notable either. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jill Hennessy. Jacqueline has had a few roles in notable films, though she often plays the body double/twin/replacement for her more famous sister. I would've thought that serving as the narrator of Love It or List It would generate some interest, but no such luck. I believe preserving the page history is important here.
KidAd •
SPEAK05:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (both of these, 'Common phrases...' and 'Learn...'; I forget now which is the redir and which the target) — per nom, WP isn't a language course. And redirect would be pointless, because who in their right mind is going to search for something like this? --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Reluctant Delete there is a notable song, ¨who i smoke¨, but hes not the main singer on the song, and no information that i can find. Im from the area, but hes not notable enough. he only had 1-2 ¨ḧit¨ songs, and both aren´t really known outside of Florida.
New3400 (
talk)
16:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television talk show), not citing any
reliable sources to pass
WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not handed a free notability pass just because they exist -- the notability test requires them to be the subject of coverage in media sources independent of their own
self-published websites in order to establish their significance. But the only other source here is a former host's IMDb profle, which isn't enough, and I can't find any other sources of value.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Well the website doesn't exist and I can't find much about the program. G4TechTV isn't even a network anymore either, so we can't find much about a former program on a dead network...
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 I'm getting nothing other than it was the basis for the film and that it was a Pushcart and a Best American Short Stories selection. I'm not getting enough more for the film to justify an article on it either.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not sure if the Pushcart is notable enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone. I know it's certainly well thought of and would at least give partial notability. There aren't really any AfDs to draw upon, as most of the time when it's brought up, it's brought up about people who list that they were nominated rather than the ones who won. The ones for the people who win are generally kept, but the Pushcart Prize has never been brought up in a situation where that award would be what kept the article in and of itself. I'm honestly leaning towards a merge and redirect to the author's article, which is on the smaller side. I do think that this should be covered to some degree, but what is currently in the article could more or less be covered in a single section. I'll hold off because I want to check a few more things.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I've merged the pertinent content and honestly... didn't really lose a thing since there really is only about a section's worth of content in this article.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)12:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Yes, Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's written like Wiktionary already and Wiktionary has no entry for it (only for 'demonopolize'). Perhaps also mention this in
Monopoly#Breaking up monopolies, using content from the the refs in Demonopolization. ⠀Trimton⠀20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have to suspect that Durham, the only source, describes this as a lumber camp rather than as a town, but in any case the only trace of something like it is
this photograph of an Ulco logging camp, which may or may not even be of Durham's location. Furham's directions aren't terribly helpful, as seventeen miles is so far east of Ft. Bragg that Willits is lot closer; at any rate, my searching of the topos produced nothing. I single year with a post office isn't going to cut it for notability, and that's all we have.
Mangoe (
talk)
01:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Also prodded by @
Geschichte. Durham describes it as "Ulco post office" under the entry for Fort Bragg. It was original research to misrepresent this as a settlement.
Reywas92Talk01:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
In the process of procrastinating on accounting homework, so will look for coverage. So far got
brief announcement that P.O. was opened, and that's about it on newspapers.com except for repeated statements in a 1930s announcement that a polling place inspector was from Ulco. Searching elsewhere brings up even less - mainly just the lumber company and a bunch of scanner errors. With no significant coverage to be found, this has to be a delete.
Hog FarmTalk01:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
So with the source above, I was able to find Churchman Creek on the topos. Neither the 1920 nor 1943 Glenblair 1:62500 USGS topos show any form of development along Churchman Creek. If there was ever any sort of permanent inhabitation here, it made little mark of its existence.
Hog FarmTalk02:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
ULCO was a telegraph code ("cable address") for the
Union Lumber Company that was headquartered in Fort Bragg (on 6th and Channel, according to the telegraph directory). An Ulco logging camp could be anywhere, as the company had a fair amount of forest in the county. Gudde's place names book does not have Ulco; nor does the 1938 California Names: Over Two Thousand Five Hundred Place Names, Individual Names, Words and Phrases in Common Use in the Golden State, Spelled, Pronounced, Defined and Explained by Harry Laurenz Wells. Elsewhere I can confirm from a 1932 USPS directory that there was an Ulco post office. There's practically nothing to say about it. The
Union Lumber Company history should probably say that the company had its own post office. This is not notable and the article at hand is false.
Uncle G (
talk)
09:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Gscholar gives
h-index in low single digits, nothing indicates passing
WP:PROF on any other grounds. The article is rather promotional. The photo appears to be a copyvio.
Nsk92 (
talk)
01:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing meeting any of the NPROF criteria; additionally, it lists him as a "physician" in the infobox, which is not supported by the article...
JoelleJay (
talk)
22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Citability in GScholar is quite low, with h-index of around 5. Nothing else indicates passing
WP:PROF on other grounds. The article is full of unsourced
WP:OR and is highly promotional, a borderline G11 case.
Nsk92 (
talk)
00:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not pass
WP:GNG and article is full of
WP:OR. Sure, there is evidence that some models were made in this size, but no reliable sources discuss the significance of this particular size model train.
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I believe this article should be kept for two reasons. 1 You have no proof that some of the articles content is OR 2 Maybe try looking around for more sources. Just because an article is lacking a few sources that doesn’t mean the entire thing should be nuked. Instead if some of the content is found to be OR then surely the text could be rewritten and cited to a source.
Slender (
talk)
16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
1. I don't have to prove anything.
WP:ONUS is on the person who added the content. 2. I already did a search and only came up with a few brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. 3. Do you have a policy-based reason to keep?--
Rusf10 (
talk)
17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
comment My impression is that almost nobody uses this name: they either call it "FS160" or "fiNescale". And I don't get a lot of hits for either of those, but at least I get something. Given the length of any of these precision modelling groups, though, it's not unreasonable to merge each of them into its corresponding hobbyist gauge.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep Look at the results of a Google Books search for "'2mm scale' railway -wikipedia" -- mentioned all over the place. They don't say much about it simply because there isn't much to say: "2mm scale" says it all; a scale of 2mm/ft, implied finescale (use of a "Xmm scale" format rather than "N" or other named scale. It's a British thing, so unsurprisingly few mentions outside of British hobby press.
Matthew Brown (Morven) (
T:
C)
08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep While it is less popular than
N scale, I have seen plenty of examples of 2mm scale modelling at exhibitions around the UK; it is the little brother of
Protofour. I can see that some editors have added new citations but a few more will still be helpful.
Geof Sheppard (
talk)
16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep: We are refactored and cited well past the nom. at 1021666328 and required notability is established. There remains some uncited stuff but most will be citable if I or elseone leverages 9780951837313 or a derivation.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
19:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Nothing in the article suggests it will pass
WP:NMUSIC, my search did not find anything else. I glanced at the band members with pages, they should probably have their notability checked as well.
Jeepday (
talk)
14:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTNEWS. After all these months, it's clear this is a non-notable crime. The sole victim survived his gunshot injury, and the crime was motivated by a personal dispute, not terrorism of any sort.
Love of Corey (
talk)
22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable voice actress who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The claim to have won awards seems spurious as I couldn’t find reliable sources substantiating them. Celestina007 (
talk)
05:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:ENTERTAINER. The article as it stands is a bit rough but if fleshed out with all of her major voice acting working she would certainly meet the criteria.
PvOberstein (
talk)
Keep per
WP:ENTERTAINER I understand there is not much information on this individual but believe the page is fitting and can be expanded upon in the future.
Hawkilloo (
talk)
Delete Fails notability per
WP:GNGand per
WP:ENTERTAINER standards, by some margin. I guess those award nominations were the reason why this couldn't be speedied, fair enough, but they certainly aren't enough to justify an article. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The article as currently written is weak and needs additional sourcing and justifiable expansion. Having said that, there is no doubt that this individual has distinguished herself in her niche. The frequency and ubiquity of her work suggests ample
WP:GNG and it would be a disservice to the community to simply eliminate the article rather than attempt to improve it.
Carmelhighlander09 (
talk)
07:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. This is an unsourced article for which I can find no sources. If anyone doubts the insignificance of this pond, just look at the picture in the article, the average backyard swimming pool is probably bigger than this. Article was DEPRODed with comment "Although the article is still missing sources, significant coverage shurely (sic) exists in Austrian sources, especially because it is near a castle." I do not understand why its proximity to a castle would add to its notability.
Rusf10 (
talk)
21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Tiny body of water with what is essentially a drainage ditch as its primary water flow source. This doesn't even seem to really have a formal name. About as
WP:MILL as the pond in the cow pasture next to my parent's house.
Hog FarmTalk04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Several sites list this as "One of the earliest shareware games". A proper source for that would be good, but at least there are enough mentions of this game to make it notable. --
Bensin (
talk)
21:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete unless proper sources are found (then ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). I failed to find a single source that is reliable and contains SIGCOV. Note that there is a new piece of software named the same which is mentioned by a few academic works (
[1]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here02:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - The game certainly existed, but I am finding no real coverage of it in reliable sources. The few sources that do mention it seem to be user-generated or non-reliable sources. The only real piece of information in a reliable source was
this article from
Eurogamer, but it only has a single sentence discussing it. If anyone can suggest a potential Redirect target, I would probably be fine with that, as well.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. If this is indeed the first shareware game, this should be mentioned with a source at
Shareware#Games. There is far from enough sourcing to justify a separate article.
IceWelder [
✉]
00:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify: No one said it's the first, but rather "One of the earliest shareware games". As for sources, since this game likely had its peak around its release in 1984, there is a good chance that more sources or reviews can be found in print rather than online, and it would be sad to see this article go because of that. I don't think anyone doubts the game's existence or that it was wide spread. --
Bensin (
talk)
11:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:GNG. Probably also fails
WP:NASTRO, the spirit if not the letter. A couple of scientific papers discuss this and a small number of other star systems, but mainly in the context of showing that they don't have a previously-suggested exoplanet. Not having an exoplanet isn't yet a cause for notability ... maybe one day. Otherwise a dim red dwarf with zero popular coverage.
Lithopsian (
talk)
13:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete: I only saw two papers that have any substantial discussion: one was the discovery paper and the other rejects the finding. There isn't a list of rejected exoplanet candidates, so no redirect.
Praemonitus (
talk)
14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete There are plenty of things that are notable for not existing, but this exoplanet is not one of them. Alternatively, we could redirect it to
List of exoplanets discovered in 2014, where it is mentioned, but BD-21 784 doesn't strike me as a plausible search term.
Tercer (
talk)
16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I think you have misunderstood my position. The only substantial discussions I found about the star were about the non-existent planet. If you disregard those, the star itself is completely non-notable.
Praemonitus (
talk)
01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, aside from the non-existent exoplanet mentioned, it looks like some of the papers cited in this article just have trivial mentions of the star. And some aren't even about BD-21 784, like Cinadon36 said. Unfortunately these aren't enough to pass
WP:NASTRO.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
02:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
References 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the article don't appear to mention BD-21 784 at all. Or anything else that it's known as, for that matter. (Gliese 160.2, Gliese 9144, LHS 1628 or HIP 19165) Even if they did mention it, a simple mention isn't enough to meet
WP:NASTRO, an object has to have significant commentary about it to do so.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
02:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For ref. 6 you likely use wrong link. Template {{Cite Gaia EDR3}} do create multiple links, and one marked "Gaia EDR3 record for this source" is leading to exact entry. Reference 8 lists BD-21 784 properly as alias GJ 160.2. Reference 9 had a typo in arxiv link (you should have noticed it yourself). Fixed now. Finally, reference 10 lists star properly under alias GJ 160.2
Trurle (
talk)
02:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree I may not have looked thoroughly enough at the references, and I apologize for that. I am however still concerned about the notability of this star. The one reference that talks about BD-21 784 outside of it being an entry in a table or database (which again, does not demonstrate notability) is reference 10. The mention is 2 paragraphs which talk about how it might have a planet, and I doubt that 2 paragarphs qualify as "significant commentary" per
WP:NASTRO.
HoneycrispApples (
talk)
04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak Keep: So, I found
this. Pretty much looks like his own CV uploaded online, thought it was interesting but could also lead us in a direction.
Soccerwire has an article saying that he has played professionally in Venezuela BUT that could mean anything.
worldfootball.net has it that he played in six
Copa Libertadores matches in 1995.
Ceroacero has a match lineup with a Luis Mendoza of Caracas FC. Also, this
RSSSF states that "Luis Carlos Mendoza" played for Caracas FC against
Deportivo Táchira and
Botafogo. Also,
this article is interesting. Essentially,
Bernardo Añor scored for Caracas and set a record for being the son of another former Caracas player who scored for the club. The article also lists this also being done by Luis Mendoza "Mendocita" in 1986 and his sons, Luis Enrique and Luis Carlos while listing this Carlos as being with the club from 1987 to 1995. So I am pretty confident that this article for sure passes NFOOTY. He has plenty of appearances at a level that I would think leads to notability, just needs sources and revisions. Also
this nugget of old html. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I would say so. The gradadigital source says that Luis Mendoza is the son of this Luis Carlos Mendoza... and that older Mendoza was with Caracas FC in 1986. They 100% father/son. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Mendoza was one of the first Venezuelan footballers to enter in the Hall of Fame, he played in eight
Copas Libertadores, three
Copas América and three World Cup classifications,[1] and this comes from someone that isn't quite interested in sports. I have added the "Expand" tag and linked the article to other languages in Wikidata. The page is currently in a deplorable state, but the subject meets the notability standards to have an article. --
NoonIcarus (
talk)
12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: Wrong Mendoza. Your article and source for Venezuela national caps is for the Mendoza born June 21, 1945. The one in this discussion is on the one born in 1970. --
ArsenalFan700 (
talk)
13:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that since the previous discussion closed as no consensus and since more than 4 years have passed, I am okay to start a second discussion on Henderson. In the last 4 years, it does not appear that any further coverage has developed and Henderson still appears to fail
WP:GNG.
I am of the belief that none of the sources currently cited show significant coverage addressing Henderson directly and in depth. The
Futsal4all source is not sufficient. Outside of the article, I have found a
Telegraph source,
a Perth Now picture and
Women Soccer. All of these mentions are completely trivial and there is no depth at all.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
You claim that playing in the W-League provides a presumption of notability and I'm curious as to where that presumption comes from. For example
Rachael Smith appeared in the same league and there was clear consensus to delete per GNG failure. Same with
Ashlee Faul,
Lauren Chilvers and
Jodie Bain. How is this case any different? GNG was why
Sammie Wood,
Stella Rigon and
Angela Fimmano were kept so if a similar amount of sourcing could be provided for Henderson then maybe we can keep this article too but I'd much rather work on evidence of notability rather than presumptions in an AfD. For what it's worth, there are many articles on GNG-failing male footballers that get deleted every week despite passing NFOOTBALL.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
CommanderWaterford: You are capable of bringing to light the essay you think is relevant if you want, but no need to belittle me in the process. I am well aware of this essay and will highlight for you This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. --
SuperJew (
talk)
22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
SuperJew. Can I just say that some editors' zeal for AfD'ing women footballers on WP can be better spent elsewhere? Especially in this case where it had happened once already and where the footballer in question already retired from playing when the first AfD discussion occurred, so it's unlikely there would be additional coverage in the interim. Honestly it feels all of our time could be better spent doing some actual improvements rather than this over and over again...
Seany91 (
talk)
12:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Also, if we are to disregard GNG and NFOOTBALL for female footballers, what would be an alternative guideline? Or do we just keep all female footballers as long as we can prove that they exist and played at least one game somewhere at some point? If the current guidelines are a problem, then that's fine to state that, but, as far as I can see, nobody has come up with a viable alternative.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Spiderone: Neither you, nor any of the other deletionists, have answered the counter: can you provide three sources discussing
Jais Malsarani directly and in detail? (And the point is to show that there is a double-standard. If we agree on that, I'd like to see your zeal for mass AfD'ing such men footballers too and I'm sure that the "Keep" arguments there will be relevant to such women footballer AfD's such as this one). --
SuperJew (
talk)
12:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Malsarani is completely non-notable from a GNG perspective but meets NFOOTBALL as an international player. Wikipedia community consensus is that all international players are considered notable regardless of GNG. Please note that this applies to female footballers such as
Victoria Balomenos,
Linda Oe and
Tessy Bamberg-Schitter as well so it's not in fact a sexist double standard at all. Henderson only has youth caps so this same consensus does not apply. Any male footballer that passes NFOOTBALL but has no caps and clearly fails GNG can and, in most cases, will be deleted as even a cursory glance at recent AfDs will show.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Please, there's no difference notability-wise between playing 5 minutes in an international match between Vanuatu and Fiji and between playing 5 minutes in a Premier League match or in a W-League match. --
SuperJew (
talk)
19:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. GNG has not been demonstrated, and keeping an article that also doesn't even meet NFOOTY only perpetuates harmful stereotypes that women are only capable of notability if we lower our standards.
JoelleJay (
talk)
04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Spiderone, we'll note that his article was deleted due to doubt cast over his appearance for Vanuatu - the actual
WP:GNG met by him is the same amount - no new sources were found or disappeared. I can find you plenty of other examples of what we previously thought the case was for Jais Malsarani - for example
King Moe (great name btw!). Therefore still the main argument stays: a player can play 1 minute for a Pacific nation team and you'd argue for their keeping regardless of if any sources covering them at all, but for a woman playing in Australia's top league, you require a whole heap of sources to prove notability. --
SuperJew (
talk)
18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
SuperJew - this presumption of notability for playing international football applies to women as well as men, so is not a sexist double standard. For example,
Oloa Tofaeono is a woman with 1 cap for American Samoa. A search reveals no significant coverage of her either, just passing mentions in match reports as with King Moe. If Henderson has played international football then she would be presumed notable but she hasn't therefore we must look for evidence of notability rather than a presumption...
Spiderone(Talk to Spider)18:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Spiderone: That's part of the issue here... it's a mix of gender issue and domestic v international issue. But something is wrong when
a sub who came on for the last 3 minutes of the match where the 191st ranked team lost 8-1 to the 161st ranked team (rankings slightly anachronistic as of today) in front of
140 people is inherently more notable than
a squad player in a top-10 ranking country's top league in front of
crowds ranging between 300-714 (at minimum twice the crowd and that's not including TV watchers). It's honestly quite a shock that said "international player" gets a free pass, while it is a battle to try and keep the top league squad player. Bottom line btw, I'm not trying to say "delete the 'international player'" either. I would be happy for both to stay - as this is an online encyclopedia, I don't see the problem with some articles being only a couple of paragraphs as that is what is known about them, while others are longer. And I don't see what is burning for a few editors to push many articles to PROD and AfD. --
SuperJew (
talk)
21:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm sneaking in before this is re-closed, but I did spend some time on a source search for the DRV just to see if a mistake was made but unfortunately I could not find any articles which demonstrated she passes
WP:GNG.
SportingFlyerT·C17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - Passing
WP:NFOOTBALL does not mean that a subject is automatically notable, it only means that the subject is supposedly likely to have the
significant coverage to pass
WP:GNG. Male, femlale, international, professional or amateur - does't matter. The subject still has to have significant coverage which Henderson unfortunately does not.
Alvaldi (
talk)
22:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - I note that the assessment table above simply ignores the half-dozen or so sources that aren't available online. With the known
WP:BIAS that exist with women footballers, it's hard to objectively apply the same standards that are used for males. That being said, we have one source that's borderline, and years of play at the highest level of the sport. And lots of peripheral media mentions. If this was a male player, it could go both ways, but to counter bias, we shouldn't be quick to delete articles for women players that have survived here already for years, and do have sources. Also, I fixed a broken reference in the article.
Nfitz (
talk)
23:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - GNG is applied equally to both genders. We have no idea what the Hills Gazette sources contain and therefore can't consider them for GNG. Mere mentions of her don't make her pass GNG, significant coverage does. An article being here for years/having sources are not reasons to keep.
Dougal18 (
talk)
10:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The Hills Avon Valley Gazette is a newspaper for a local region of WA about 40km east of Perth. I can't find those articles online, but I'd expect a professional sportsperson to have received coverage from places other than the place they came from.
SportingFlyerT·C10:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Can't wait until this same standard is applied to the academy boys scraping by NFOOTY with a few appearances off the bench in, say, USL League One...
Seany91 (
talk)
08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
...and yet female footballers (and women in general) continue to be disproportionately & negatively impacted by WP notability criteria, so take that how you want.
Seany91 (
talk)
17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why the focus here is on the missing Hills Avon Valley Gazette references. The missing reference that jumps out is the June 21 2010 reference from
The West Australian, one of the oldest and largest newspapers in Australia. As for GNG applying equal to "both" genders (and I don't understand the need for a binary reference here) - that's only true if the media reported equally on all genders. I hope no one here believes that they do!
Nfitz (
talk)
17:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure what "having it both ways" means. GNG is the issue.
WP:YOUNGATH tells us that teenage athletes have to have very substantial coverage in order to be notable. If there are no GNG-qualifying sources from her professional career, YOUNGATH means we don't keep on the grounds that her local paper covered her amateur youth sports career.
SportingFlyerT·C13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still having some good conversation here. Let's do one more relist and hopefully it'll be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk)
20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: I mean if that league isnt fully pro then she fails the relevance, and she also hasnt done anything in 4 years.
Muur (
talk)
22:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The league she is playing in has no bearing on her notability. A player playing in an amateur league can be notable while a player in a professional league can be non-notable.
Alvaldi (
talk)
09:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 did some digging and found newspaper coverage in Newspapers.com - @
JayzBox: if you don't have a subscription to this site, you can request this
here. It's pretty handy, although you do have to sometimes wade through a ton of false positives when there are relatively common terms. (Like Monster, which brought up a ton of random things until I started limiting the search fields more and more.)
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)12:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
ReaderofthePack:, thank you for your response and for suggesting me to use
Wikipedia:Newspapers.com (of which I wasn't aware existed). My perspective has greatly changed regarding this article (I've decided to withdraw). I see myself using Newspapers.com in a nearby future if the information I'm looking can't be found in either Google Books (via Scholar), or Google News. Regards.
JayzBox (
talk)
23:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Google Books is good, but it feels like their offerings have gotten a little weaker lately, as more and more things seem to be hidden behind paywalls. This might be due to publishers fighting against the preview option, which isn't a new phenomenon with GB unfortunately.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)03:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I’ve definitely noticed that, but I can’t complain since if I were in their shoes I would’ve completely understand and most likely done about the same. Local libraries really come in handy since they always have a variety of subjects, with the perk being they’re free to view.
JayzBox (
talk)
16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 The sources supplied in the article are either primary otherwise unreliable, or passing mentions. I cannot find any RSes to support the subject's notability. Possibly
WP:TOOSOON.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
19:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Using
WP:NLIST,
Martins Osodi is notable as a musician more than an entrepreneur, most Nigerian blogs appear to be primary because of their low blogging standards, additionally, more Nigerian notable people are not on wikipedia and that is why, as a part of improving the Wikipedia community we keep contribute and bringing notable people’s knowledge to the public. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.217.75.93 (
talk) 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete - As the musician YungBilo he is only present in the usual streaming services, and a couple of the notoriously unreliable Nigerian "media" websites that only reprint press releases and don't even moderate the uproarious language of how famous and amazing the musician is. (e.g.
[3]). As the businessman Martins Osodi he is only visible in his own LinkedIn account and a few basic industry directory entries for his company. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
TALK|
CONTRIBS) 02:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested draftify, moved back to main space by
User:Lilianasri (see
Draft:Saad Al-Nasser for original article). His
11 mins of football to date were against an Uzbek team, the Uzbek league is not listed at
WP:FPL as 'fully professional', therefore Al-Nasser does not yet meet
WP:NFOOTBALL. Only passing mentions found in an Arabic search;
Alyaum gives a passing mention of his debut,
Al-Jazirah mentions him in a squad list and another passing mention in
Dawri Plus. There are a few other small mentions of him but I couldn't see anything that indicates
WP:GNG.
Delete main space article and keep the draft, per Spiderones reasoning that makes good sense as they may pass GNG/NFOOTY in the near future
JW 1961Talk19:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 first demo album by a now famous and legendary death metal band. Unfortunately it is not notable for Wikipedia. Tagged for sources since 2009. Even though there are entries on other wikis as well, the sourcing isn't better on any of those, in fact, most of them are unsourced. If there are sources, they are mostly unreliable databases like metal archives, discogs and musicbrainz. During a google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability, only the usual unreliable sites.
This seemed good at first, but under the article it says "source: Wikipedia", so there goes reliability. So, in conclusion, this demo is not notable. Too bad since CC are great.
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 project of
Hritdith Sudev, that I have just listed at AfD. I list this separately, because it is conceivable though in my opinion unlikely, that it might be notable, if promotional material were removed
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
@
Kokopelli7309: Is there anything in particular which is causing doubt or needs additional citation? For example, Reuters cites that he was named AFKM CEO and came from Air Canada - even if not in-depth, those are fairly objective facts. I've added a couple other sources, which should helpfully help, too. What's missing to close this discussion and keep the page up?
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
14:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Ben.lipsey Wikipedia has various policies on which subjects need articles, the most relevant is the
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG), that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Click the links for further detail. The idea is to write articles based on independent sources, not information published by individuals or their employers. So what is needed is at least another two sources like Paris Match above. Also you should disclose your conflict of interest,
Special:Diff/1019448972, when contributing to discussions.
TSventon (
talk)
15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as per references found by TSventon. Delete Being the CEO of a major company does not automatically confer notability.
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is neither policy nor guideline. I cannot find any references that meets the criteria for notability.
HighKing++ 21:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I added more sources, including in depth articles that I found such as Skift, Simple Flying, and from major (French) publications like Le Monde, Le Point, Les Echos, and Europe 1. Hopefully this adds some more independently-verified sources. (For the record I work at AFKL so there is an [unpaid] COI, which I have disclosed on my user page, but all these articles are/were publicly available and extensively researched.)
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Ben.lipsey: Those references are cack and you shouldn't edit an article when you have a COI during AFD. Three references are routine announcements of the new position, the same news that was in the article already and the other one is puff piece, no more than a profile. No one is saying there aren't articles about him. It is the quality and where they are suitable to prove
WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Scope creep: OK not sure I understand then, still getting used to this. There was a request for more sources and I added a few more. Skift, Simple Flying, and the French newspaper articles are all in depth and quite extensive (and from what I can tell, they were also published in print).
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
From an external viewpoint, you seem to be here to fudge the Afd. You have declared a COI, so have the good grace to stay away, while the article is being discussed. scope_creepTalk16:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
For the record I’m not trying to fudge anything. It was suggested by two other users to come and contribute to this discussion, and I was only trying to respond to others who said the sources were not in-depth/independent enough - that’s it, nothing more. But I’ll stop here.
Ben.lipsey (
talk)
08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The Paris Match is a good reference, the 2nd one is profiley type thing, it is like a mini CV listing, the third one I can't see, but assuming AGF, it is likely to be about his financial performance, in a trade paper that has a duty to report on financial news. scope_creepTalk11:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Per Wikipedia notability criteria, there is no policy based argument that says that if a person is in charge of a large company, they are automatically notable. scope_creepTalk14:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For comparison the Paris Match reference is around 1050 words, the Les Echos reference is around 650 and the FT references is around 1150. I believe that they are all "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The FT and Les Echos are business papers but that does not mean that they are not reliable sources or can't provide evidence of notability. The FT article covers Smith's performance in 2019, especially in union negotiations, but also mentions profit targets and fleet renewal. It may be possible to access it by searching for the headline rather than clicking on the link.
TSventon (
talk)
14:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
For me, although there are a lot of similarities between the LesEchos and ParisMatch articles which suggests that the company produced a profile pack for the press, having reviewed closely I'm happy that there is also a sufficient quantity and quality of independent commentary on Smith in both and also in the FT article. I've changed my !vote to Keep. Thank you
TSventon for finding and providing those refs.
HighKing++ 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article could use a lot of work, but a quick search for his name yields significant coverage. I'd lean keep if the page can be updated with some better sources. --
Nemov (
talk)
18:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete with the proliferation of more and more chief x officer titles, we do not need a corresponding proliferation of articles on non-notable businessmen.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)reply
@
MrsSnoozyTurtle: Not wanting to badger, but can I ask why the above sources don't convince you? There are lots more sources out there, so I'd be willing to direct you to them. If you have reasons for your !vote with regard to
WP:GNG, I would be more than happy to hear them.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for engaging, scope creep. I acknowledge that not all of the sources I linked above contribute to him meeting GNG. But, as I said, there is much more coverage of him available.
This one, for example, offers an analysis of his resignation and is certainly secondary in nature.
This piece talks about his role in the club's future development. These two sources alone seem to lift him above the bar for GNG. The more relevant question is whether he is only notable for
WP:ONEEVENT. I think the answer is "no" since his career as a high-level sports executive before his resignation is documented well enough.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
In addition to my remarks regarding WP:ONEVENT: kicker, Germany's leading sports paper, featured a large-scale interview with him in their print edition of 12 October 2020. (The publication of the interview is previewed
here.) I don't have access to this publication at the moment but their article, albeit not independent, will surely help to reliably confirm lots of facts about his work before his resignation.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Most of these are routine in the context of him in the poistion, not him, specifically. Several are the annoucement of him resigning. The last one for example, in the first list
[4]] is again related to the death threats. The
SPORT1 is another annocement of him leaving. Looking at the 2nd Google Books list. The first at
[5] looks like a series of profiles. Not really suitable for BLP, possibly external link. The 2nd one looks like an e-book with huge writing. It is not in-depth. The third one in the Italian language, is effectively a passing mention in relation to something else. The fourth one, The aim was to “further sharpen the external image”, as Marketing Director Alexander Jobst explained (quoted in the N.N., 2014, p. 10). is not in-depth. So I don't think it is particularly useful in an AFD discussion, just to provide a search listing and somehow make it feel it worthy of a BLP, without actually examining them in detail. They're not good sources. The guy is a marketing manager and these are all mostly unsuitable to prove
WP:V and
WP:BIO. Very poor all-in-all. scope_creepTalk22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While there are a number of sources available, a consensus is emerging that none of them are the kind that can be used to establish notability. However, given discussion to date relisting to see if firmer consensus one way or another can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a
single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like
this constitutes press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the
Gaon Digital Chart at 83 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability
requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an
alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster.
Ashleyyoursmile!15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single.
✗plicit06:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:NSONGS. The song has not been released independently as a
single and it does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent. It has been only covered in the context of album reviews which does not establish notability. Sources like
this constitute press release, and more like routine coverage on the album. The recording has appeared on the
Gaon Digital Chart at 86 but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability
requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an
alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the parent album article Monster.
Ashleyyoursmile!15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Monster (EP). This will never grow beyond its stub form and the EP article hasn't even cracked 10kb worth of content to justify a separate page for this non-single.
✗plicit06:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, all the coverage from this songs comes from album reviews, chating may indicate the song is notable, not that is notable. Clearly fails WP:NSONGS .
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk)
07:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Orphaned promotional article on non-notable company. Subject fails
WP:GNG.
WP:BEFORE checks show no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The majority of content is a history of coffee in Mexico, unrelated to the company. PROD contested by author.
Jr8825 •
Talk15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per nom.
Lorenru The article can be improved and I am volunteering to do it. I've found relevant sources to add and improve the content. I'll take 10 days from this date to finish it. (
Lorenru)
22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable future film, fails
WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until release and then notability can be determined.
Donaldd23 (
talk)
15:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Move to draftspace It seems one editor is trying to update the article, unfortunately without any citations. Consider moving to draftspace so that the editor would be able to write the article and add some citations. Upon which, one can see if it still passes
WP:NFF-- DaxServer (
talk)
08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Don't Delete - THe person is a notable personality and acted in number of Punjabi and Hind Movies. But THere is less online content available about the person may be because he is underrated. Many personalities on the same level are already recognized as notable on English wikipedia. SO i think there may be chances of improving the article with more trusted references but deleting it wouldn't be fair. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jagmit Singh Brar (
talk •
contribs)
15:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - no secondary sources cited at all (and newspaper accounts 50 years later are
WP:PRIMARY, see for example
here). Bring some actual secondary sources that discuss this and provide in depth coverage then make an article. As it stands now there are literally 0 sources demonstrating any type of coverage in secondary sources. nableezy -
21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. No case for deletion was made or, for that matter, exists. The attack was mentioned in all Israeli press at that time
example1example2example3example4example5 and has not been forgotten since. There are tens of article like this, just for this massacre. It's part of a sad history of violence. The nomination refers to the lack of references in the article but per
WP:NEXIST (an important part of the notability guideline) this does not matter at all. It are the sources "out there" that count.
gidonb (
talk)
00:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
These are not primary but secondary sources from that time. I will look for contemporaneous sources later. The labor lodging location where people were massacred is in between two
moshavs (sometimes also containing the workers for both) creating some confusion below and in the intro.
gidonb (
talk)
11:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Actually these were and remained journalistic reports, independent, in-depth, reliable, verifiable, secondary, and plentiful.
gidonb (
talk)
02:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant. Everyone should disagree with "points" under their opinion that are not supported by policy, science, and the facts. Plus there is absolutely no need to tag something that is under discussion in AfD in addition to an AfD, then edit war about it. It's an overkill and
WP:POINT.
gidonb (
talk)
09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Read
this and
this for why 50 year old contemporary news accounts are primary sources. And it should be obvious why those being the only sources cited does not satisfy the requirement for
WP:LASTING coverage. nableezy -
09:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Of the given sources for the article, all external links, all old newspaper reports, one is a perma dead link, the others do not support the material in the article by location or description (eg Palestinian Fedayeen in the article versus Egypytian infiltrators in the papers). Need to find some proper sourcing if this is to be kept.
Selfstudier (
talk)
09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist to give the "keep" !voters the opportunity to show how this event had a lasting impact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very sad, but there are a lot of murders worldwide every year and the encyclopedia does not need an article on each one. No indication that this tragic event is of any lasting encyclopedic significance, though obviously life-changing for the victim and perpetrator and their families.
PamD14:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The closing admin (and @
Þjarkur:) should note the curious edit history of this AfD, where a very new editor has removed the !vote of another very new editor, and an IP has since edited other editors' !votes and signatures. Not a pretty sight. Too complicated to try to unpick, short of rolling back all recent edits.
PamD09:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:MURDER and
WP:PERSISTENCE. The amount of coverage a case receives initially does not necessarily determine its notability – it's continued coverage that matters here, and I see no news on it past January, when the verdict was made. (Also, @
Glittersnap: keep in mind that while you created the article, you
don't own it.)Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs)18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: To add onto what PamD mentioned, I definitely suspect sockpuppetry of some kind with these three brand-new accounts and have opened
an investigation, and the page history is just a mess now. Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs) 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC) The article creator and their three socks have been blocked indefinitely. Bsoyka(
talk ·
contribs)19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not meet
WP:EVENT, ie. no lasting major consequences, affect to a large geographical area, nor significant non-routine coverage over a period of time.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
02:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable language learning software. The article cites only the company's own website as source, and a search nets a product review in PCMag, various blog sites and the like, and that's about it; couldn't come up with a single RS sigcov references. Fails
WP:GNG /
WP:PROD. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
epidemiological:(Find sources:Google (
books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL)
I myself created the page, now nominating it for deletion as in the German Wiki, I couldn't find verifiable sources to his interesting facts of life, only to his losses during the both World Wars. My apologies if I did a mess trying to contribute
CoryGlee (
talk)
10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Struck as G7 probably does not apply when other users object to author-requested deletion (and will surely not apply if any of them makes a substantail edit). I am unconvinced that Hans is independently notable from his mother (e.g. does this rise to
Christopher Tolkien (son of
J. R. R. Tolkien, known for work on his father works), but this requires deeper parsing of the German sources.--Eostrix (
🦉 hoothoot🦉)02:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Kollwitz was notable as an author as a teenager. His epidemiological writings were published as well. We have a well referenced article on the German Wiki.
[7]No Swan So Fine (
talk)
12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep I don’t think this is the most clear cut case but looking at the German article and the subject’s role as editor of works relating to his mother, with abundant references, I struggle to see how he wouldn’t be a GNG pass.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Non-notable businessman. Not separately notable from
Jacqueline Kennedy, who this individual was briefly in a relationship with. All sources discuss this individual in relationship to her, aside from the paid-for obituary, which does not establish notability.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing found outside of relationship. Subject has a minor mention in Jacqueline's article. I looked at the incoming links page, I am not sure it a redirect there is good choice or not. So Delete with no opinion on a redirect.
Jeepday (
talk)
15:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be notable as an author or copywriter and coverage is limited to self published and other non reliable sources. No significant, in depth coverage of his books and I cannot find evidence that his award is a notable one.
Deleted at AfD in 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Slaunwhite and although that was an entirely different version and since this was created in good faith in 2009, figured AfD v. PROD makes sense.
StarM14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him inclusion in Wikipedia just because he exists, but the sourcing is not getting him over
WP:GNG. Five of the ten footnotes are just his own work metaverifying its own existence, which is not how you make a writer notable — you get a writer over
WP:AUTHOR by showing that his books have been the subjects of media coverage, such as book reviews or news articles about them winning notable literary awards, not just by citing their existence to themselves. But once you chop the five footnotes where the subject was the author of the source, you're left with a self-published press release from his own organization, an award self-cited to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than media coverage to establish the notability of said award,
user-generated reader reviews on Amazon, and a self-published press release from one of his publishers, none of which are support for notability either. There's just one footnote here that counts for anything, by being a real book review published in a real newspaper — but it still takes a hell of a lot more than just one of those to get a person over the bar. I also strongly suspect some form of
conflict of interest editing, since the article was created by an
WP:SPA whose only edits to any other article but this have involved creating new wikilinks to this article.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. If there is a need to include the term, it could be inserted into
Dreadlocks (if an actual source could be found), and without the list of albums.
LizardJr8 (
talk)
13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:NCRIC. The cricketer hasn't played any domestic or international match at highest level. Can't find any significant coverage. Earlier, the article was also tagged as citations needed but not being improved for a long time. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
1982 ICC Trophy squads#Bangladesh Fails
WP:CRIN as ICC Trophy appearances weren't in a final. In terms of GNG I'm not seeing anything really that would constitute significant coverage, unless source 1 in the article is so, but then it would still only be one source as the others aren't significant coverage (one isn't even about him). Redirect a suitable
WP:ATD and nominator may want to consider using this for some of the others in the previous bundle.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
12:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Quite a normal surname list that now is sourced with a fourth entry added. "Do I make Wikipedia better if this page is deleted?" is a fundamental question one needs to ask oneself before nominating for deletion. In this case the answer is "no" as the page also serves as a
WP:SIA. SamSailor20:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 undecided on this. It may pass
WP:GEOLAND as named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. Missouri Historical Society wrote about it, although not much, which could make a very weak case for keeping. It depends on exactly how you think the guideline should be interpreted.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
No, it didn't. That's what Hog Farm, I, and others refer to by the shorthand "Ramsay" in these Missouri discussions. It's the Ramsay Place-Name Card Collection, held by the society, and derived from earlier sources by a local professor of English. The cards are at most a handful of sentences long, plus a source citation. In this case the source that Ramsay cites is
hdl:10355/82581 and its sources, in turn, are an oral history from one Bert Williams, local person, and a map of the Fredericktown Quadrangle.
Uncle G (
talk)
08:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status. Fails
WP:GNG as nothing significant in coverage. I also didn't find the matches of the tour in different specialist stats websites. So, without any reliable sources in the article, its also difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable tour, not seeing any real coverage of it in an online search. Can't see a suitable redirect for it either.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
15:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Very minor tour, not received first-class or List A status and fails
WP:GNG. The article is fully unsourced and so nothing significant in coverage. Thus it is difficult to confirm that the tour really existed. —
A.A Prinon Conversation10:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable cricket tour, not seeing any real coverage in a internet search. Can't see a suitable redirect to redirect to either.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk)
15:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Weak keep - Coverage is mostly routine, but a fair amount of it is in very reputable publications. It's certainly a cut above most of the business spam that we usually see here at AfD, although it appears to struggle to cross the NCORP hurdle. signed, Rosguilltalk00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - responding to ping. I just looked them up and they are the fifth largest unicorn of April 2021 [
[8]]. Along with the coverage cited above, they meet the standards of notability.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)17:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
My !vote is re-direct as I've already done once. Article is not sourced at all, and it is basically
WP:ADMASQ and a quick check strongly suggests that this article fails to meet
WP:NCORP, and
WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe it was generous to consider
WP:ATD and re-direct to
Richard Milazzo, but that has been reverted by another editor, so now it is time to seek consensus on whether to delete vs re-direct.
Graywalls (
talk)
08:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Lopifalko Yes, thank you, but does not the notability of those published by a press demonstrate that the press is itself notable, and that fact should be taken into consideration.
Valueyou (
talk)
09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank again. I read it and it concerns corporations. Irrelevant here. Edgewise Press is a small nonprofit art press with a record of notable authors attached to it.
Valueyou (
talk)
14:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-profits aren't exempt from N:CORP/N:ORG. Is there a conflict of interest here we should be aware of?
StarM14:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
By the way, I say I was generous to merge and re-direct instead, because the target of re-direct seems to be of borderline notability and
WP:ANYBIO is not as difficult to pass as NORG.
Graywalls (
talk)
14:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Star MississippiGraywallsLopifalkoVexationsJustlettersandnumbers Appreciate all generosity. The Notability (organizations and companies) page is confusing to me. The top of the N:CORP/N:ORG page states "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions..." Edgewise Press is a non-profit educational institution. Len Fulton describes Edgewise Press as an “unfunded nonprofit” in the International Directory of Little Magazines & Small Presses Volume 37 2001, p. 155. Also, I think all would agree that
Ross Bleckner and
Peter Halley are exceptionally notable contemporary artists, and if they publish their writings with Edgewise Press, that should weigh on the Edgewise Press notability factor. Common sense to me.
Valueyou (
talk)
15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Valueyou, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's use of the term "notability" is somewhat idiosyncratic and unhelpful. Use common sense is, unfortunately, not a core Wikipedia policy. What (most) participants in deletion discussions mean when they use that word is something entirely different than what you mean when you propose that Halley is a very important artist, his writing attracts significant critical attention by scholars and that the dissemination of those writings is in itself worthy of note. Here, at AfD, notable means that there exists a lot of (written) material that discusses the topic in-depth. I think of "notable" as short for: "Given that we cannot write what we know, but need to base everything on published sources, do we have sufficient material to write the article with?" If the answer to that is no, we reach consensus that the article cannot be sustained and ought to be deleted.
Vexations (
talk)
22:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
that's your interpretation of it. What that means is something like an actual university. Not some silly little groups organized as a not-for-profit organization and decides to call itself educational oriented. You should have another look at
WP:INHERITORG. Wikipedia is not copywriting. Things like celebrity endorsement or the notability of the person writing/talking about it do not factor into notability.
Graywalls (
talk)
16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Richard Milazzo I moved the art educational information there and undid revision 1021998731 by
Graywalls to reinstate list of nonprofit art educational books - not a product catalog - btw - i object to
Graywalls ghosting and reversing almost my every edit since i made a mild critique of the erase mania practiced by
Graywalls. i am here to add value within my field of expertise.
Graywalls likes to "write stuff and I erase stuff on Wikipedia" but mostly erase stuff and make groundless accusations of coincidence.
Valueyou (
talk)
08:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect is what I did in the first place even though you reverted it only to vote "redirect" again. It was your reversion that made it necessary to start this consensus building discussion.
Graywalls (
talk)
00:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Page should be deleted as it fails
WP:GNG, hard to find any good secondary sources about the business (that aren't on the similarly named American business, not this Australian business)
Doctorkaufman (
talk)
07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 / weak keep erring on the side of caution. I'm not knowledgeable about the subject of women's basketball coaches at all, but noticed this page when patrolling. I just wanted to point out that the
American women's basketball coaches category is vast for a subject I wouldn't expect so many articles on, and many other pages I sampled are about people with a similar career to the nominated article. It's either full of other articles that need to be deleted, or this article fits in there just fine.
EditorInTheRye (
talk)
07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
’’’Comment / ‘’’ When will the decision be made on the inclusion of Coach Hankerson entry?
User:Mitchamz(
Mitchamz)
Comment / Publish Immediatedly Are you kidding me? Hilda M. Hankerson is one of the most Notable and Decorated Women HS Girls Coaches in history. Her teams are ranked both nationally and within the State of Ga. If style, syntax and clean up are the issue then do that but notablity is definitely not an issue. USA Today and ESPN are quality sources.
MitchamArticle Support11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Mitchamz, I have no issues with the style or anything. I know really well that AFD is not cleanup. This reputed source
[9] from USATODAY which you referred is just a fan poll. It talks nothing about this person. And this one from ESPN
[10] is about a competition rather than this person.? How can we consider these to establish GNG? As the creator of this article, you might really have an idea about her. But what about others? If you provide a reliable source which actually talks about her, I can consider withdrawal of this nom. Regards
Kichu🐘 Need any help?16:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Thats what Im also saying. USA today announced their coach of the year in a public poll. ESPN is talking about something else and only gives a mere mention about the subject. These two alone does not give sigvov to establish GNG.
Kichu🐘 Need any help?17:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Coaching a team to four championships and being recognized as a veteran woman's basketball coach is notable. The biggest issue is inline citation and writing style. I've already made a serious of changes to improve things, though there's a lot more work required. --
Dnllnd (
talk)
12:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. She has just as much coverage as many articles similar to hers or more. When will discussion be closed on this subject? --
Mitchamz (
talk)
10:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In particular, participants are encouraged to base arguments for notability on the existing notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk05:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment looks like there is coverage in some reliable sources that isn't already mentioned. I found two articles that I think would help demonstrate the subject meeting
WP:GNG:
"Westlake's Hankerson wins 400th game"; February 15, 2011 South Metro Neighbor (Forest Park, GA) (and other newspapers)
"Hankerson's long wait paying off tremendously, Westlake seeks fourth consecutive state title against Carrollton", The Atlanta Voice (Atlanta, Georgia) 12 Mar 2021, Page 13 Regards,
BennyOnTheLoose (
talk)
16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~
Aseleste (
t,
e |
c,
l)
12:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
KEEP (Mitchamz cannot !vote more than once, and now he's spamming the shit out of this discussion.
SportsGuy789 (
talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)) - Follows GNG. She recieved continual sustained coverage from reputable sources such as ESPN, USA Today, USA Basketball and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for coaching a National Championship, 4 State Championships and 9 regional championship teams.
Mitchamz (
talk)
08:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)reply
She is the principal subject of the cited sources and do not merely mention her name in passing. The USA Basketball article is specifically about her. [1]Mitchamz (
talk) 13:09, 3 May 2021 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A sock nominated this - I would have closed it as custom. But, it appears a draft exists, so I'm going to delete this article.
Missvain (
talk)
23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
This article was already declined at the draftspace. See
[11]. The creator then had a discussion in my talk page regarding this
[12] and told me that they are discarding from creating the article. But it has been recreated now. The school have no coverage from reliable sources thus failing GNG as well NORG
Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
12:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Kashmorwiki I really don't know how this was created again. I put the deletion tag on the draft then click publish. I didn't further create another draft. So I guess you are free to delete this. Also how did this article move to the main space? (Seeing it doesn't have the draft tag anymore.
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
08:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
As I've told I did not intend to publish this mainspace and have no idea how it got accepted. If the moderators feel like this cannot remain an article, it's okay to delete it or I can keep improving this article so that one day it's acceptable.
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
12:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Update: Found new Source. I managed to get an old publication of Newstime about the school (
Image) which talks about the school. Now since I have got a number of independent reliable sources. Does this now qualify for an article?
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
10:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)reply
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, 23 April 2021 (UTC)reply
I don’t really know what to add anymore. Before there were some sources issues but then I added a photo of the school which was mentioned in a magazine called Newstime (which was owned by The Times of India and was quite famous in Hyderabad and so is a reliable source) so I don’t know what else to do. This is why I removed the AfD
Rasalghul1711 (
talk)
18:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete All I could find is a few brief, passing, trivial mentions in school directories. Nothing that would pass
WP:NORG or
WP:GNG though. Plus, what I can tell all the references in the article are primary or otherwise not usable for notability. So, there doesn't seem to be a guideline based reason to keep the article. That said, I appreciate that the article creator put the time into it and hopefully it being deleted (if that's what happens) doesn't dissuade from creating more articles. Hopefully just more notable ones next time ;) --
Adamant1 (
talk)
16:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
My apologies if I was unclear. G4 is for quickly removing articles that have previously been deleted as part of a formal deletion discussion. The link you're providing is to this page. We would need a link to a prior discussion to act upon. I don't see anything obvious in the history.
Kuru(talk)20:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)reply
no to speedy We need a full discussion on this. The reason behind the proposed speedy is unclear and circular, which may be an error or something more. So let's let the discussion run its course.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
01:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, as it was only deleted via PROD. However, this makes the page ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
PRODing will have no sense here so AfD. Just a Golf Club, perhaps created to establish some notability for Myanmar military personal (see [14]). It has polemic news mentions but fails clearly
WP:GNG.
CommanderWaterford (
talk)
08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep The page already has good detailed sources which demonstrate international coverage such as the New York Times. And it's easy to find more coverage such as National Geographic. The place is clearly not just another golf club but attracts attention because of its unusual and incongruous existence in a war zone, which gives it quite a M*A*S*H ambience. It clearly passes
WP:GNG.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
09:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge into some suitable Kachin-related article (eg
Kachin Independence Organisation). As a golf course it has no interest, currently just 6 holes. It's only claim to fame is it's connection to Kachin Independence.
WP:N says that, even if a subject passes GNG, "editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" and given the limited amount that needs to be said about the course (a paragraph or perhaps two), I suggest merging into another Kachin-related article. Currently it only links from
Sumlut Gun Maw, "an officer of the Kachin Independence Army."
Nigej (
talk)
12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Most of the coverage I can find on him is prep sports coverage, which
WP:YOUNGATH specifically discusses. The college coverage is all similar to
[15], brief and not significant, and his award is in a youth competition.
SportingFlyerT·C17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Wikipedia isn't a directory. Totally agree that the one linked article could just be merged to
Itahari though. Since it clearly needs the content. Maybe some of the other entries can be merged also. Since the standards of inclusion for city articles are lower then for lists like this one. There's zero reason to have a stand alone article though. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a journalist, not
reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. This is not sourced to any coverage of her work as a journalist at all, but solely to a photogallery that existed in the context of her happening to be the twin sister of an actress -- but notability is
not inherited, so Jill's fame doesn't hand Jacqueline a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie. The article is also badly outdated, indicating that she "currently" hosts a show she stopped hosting a decade ago, and even that show hasn't been properly sourced as notable either. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jill Hennessy. Jacqueline has had a few roles in notable films, though she often plays the body double/twin/replacement for her more famous sister. I would've thought that serving as the narrator of Love It or List It would generate some interest, but no such luck. I believe preserving the page history is important here.
KidAd •
SPEAK05:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (both of these, 'Common phrases...' and 'Learn...'; I forget now which is the redir and which the target) — per nom, WP isn't a language course. And redirect would be pointless, because who in their right mind is going to search for something like this? --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Reluctant Delete there is a notable song, ¨who i smoke¨, but hes not the main singer on the song, and no information that i can find. Im from the area, but hes not notable enough. he only had 1-2 ¨ḧit¨ songs, and both aren´t really known outside of Florida.
New3400 (
talk)
16:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television talk show), not citing any
reliable sources to pass
WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not handed a free notability pass just because they exist -- the notability test requires them to be the subject of coverage in media sources independent of their own
self-published websites in order to establish their significance. But the only other source here is a former host's IMDb profle, which isn't enough, and I can't find any other sources of value.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Well the website doesn't exist and I can't find much about the program. G4TechTV isn't even a network anymore either, so we can't find much about a former program on a dead network...
Oaktree b (
talk)
19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 I'm getting nothing other than it was the basis for the film and that it was a Pushcart and a Best American Short Stories selection. I'm not getting enough more for the film to justify an article on it either.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not sure if the Pushcart is notable enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone. I know it's certainly well thought of and would at least give partial notability. There aren't really any AfDs to draw upon, as most of the time when it's brought up, it's brought up about people who list that they were nominated rather than the ones who won. The ones for the people who win are generally kept, but the Pushcart Prize has never been brought up in a situation where that award would be what kept the article in and of itself. I'm honestly leaning towards a merge and redirect to the author's article, which is on the smaller side. I do think that this should be covered to some degree, but what is currently in the article could more or less be covered in a single section. I'll hold off because I want to check a few more things.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)20:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
I've merged the pertinent content and honestly... didn't really lose a thing since there really is only about a section's worth of content in this article.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)12:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Yes, Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's written like Wiktionary already and Wiktionary has no entry for it (only for 'demonopolize'). Perhaps also mention this in
Monopoly#Breaking up monopolies, using content from the the refs in Demonopolization. ⠀Trimton⠀20:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have to suspect that Durham, the only source, describes this as a lumber camp rather than as a town, but in any case the only trace of something like it is
this photograph of an Ulco logging camp, which may or may not even be of Durham's location. Furham's directions aren't terribly helpful, as seventeen miles is so far east of Ft. Bragg that Willits is lot closer; at any rate, my searching of the topos produced nothing. I single year with a post office isn't going to cut it for notability, and that's all we have.
Mangoe (
talk)
01:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Also prodded by @
Geschichte. Durham describes it as "Ulco post office" under the entry for Fort Bragg. It was original research to misrepresent this as a settlement.
Reywas92Talk01:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
In the process of procrastinating on accounting homework, so will look for coverage. So far got
brief announcement that P.O. was opened, and that's about it on newspapers.com except for repeated statements in a 1930s announcement that a polling place inspector was from Ulco. Searching elsewhere brings up even less - mainly just the lumber company and a bunch of scanner errors. With no significant coverage to be found, this has to be a delete.
Hog FarmTalk01:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
So with the source above, I was able to find Churchman Creek on the topos. Neither the 1920 nor 1943 Glenblair 1:62500 USGS topos show any form of development along Churchman Creek. If there was ever any sort of permanent inhabitation here, it made little mark of its existence.
Hog FarmTalk02:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
ULCO was a telegraph code ("cable address") for the
Union Lumber Company that was headquartered in Fort Bragg (on 6th and Channel, according to the telegraph directory). An Ulco logging camp could be anywhere, as the company had a fair amount of forest in the county. Gudde's place names book does not have Ulco; nor does the 1938 California Names: Over Two Thousand Five Hundred Place Names, Individual Names, Words and Phrases in Common Use in the Golden State, Spelled, Pronounced, Defined and Explained by Harry Laurenz Wells. Elsewhere I can confirm from a 1932 USPS directory that there was an Ulco post office. There's practically nothing to say about it. The
Union Lumber Company history should probably say that the company had its own post office. This is not notable and the article at hand is false.
Uncle G (
talk)
09:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Gscholar gives
h-index in low single digits, nothing indicates passing
WP:PROF on any other grounds. The article is rather promotional. The photo appears to be a copyvio.
Nsk92 (
talk)
01:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nothing meeting any of the NPROF criteria; additionally, it lists him as a "physician" in the infobox, which is not supported by the article...
JoelleJay (
talk)
22:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Citability in GScholar is quite low, with h-index of around 5. Nothing else indicates passing
WP:PROF on other grounds. The article is full of unsourced
WP:OR and is highly promotional, a borderline G11 case.
Nsk92 (
talk)
00:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not pass
WP:GNG and article is full of
WP:OR. Sure, there is evidence that some models were made in this size, but no reliable sources discuss the significance of this particular size model train.
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I believe this article should be kept for two reasons. 1 You have no proof that some of the articles content is OR 2 Maybe try looking around for more sources. Just because an article is lacking a few sources that doesn’t mean the entire thing should be nuked. Instead if some of the content is found to be OR then surely the text could be rewritten and cited to a source.
Slender (
talk)
16:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
1. I don't have to prove anything.
WP:ONUS is on the person who added the content. 2. I already did a search and only came up with a few brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. 3. Do you have a policy-based reason to keep?--
Rusf10 (
talk)
17:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
comment My impression is that almost nobody uses this name: they either call it "FS160" or "fiNescale". And I don't get a lot of hits for either of those, but at least I get something. Given the length of any of these precision modelling groups, though, it's not unreasonable to merge each of them into its corresponding hobbyist gauge.
Mangoe (
talk)
18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep Look at the results of a Google Books search for "'2mm scale' railway -wikipedia" -- mentioned all over the place. They don't say much about it simply because there isn't much to say: "2mm scale" says it all; a scale of 2mm/ft, implied finescale (use of a "Xmm scale" format rather than "N" or other named scale. It's a British thing, so unsurprisingly few mentions outside of British hobby press.
Matthew Brown (Morven) (
T:
C)
08:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep While it is less popular than
N scale, I have seen plenty of examples of 2mm scale modelling at exhibitions around the UK; it is the little brother of
Protofour. I can see that some editors have added new citations but a few more will still be helpful.
Geof Sheppard (
talk)
16:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
keep: We are refactored and cited well past the nom. at 1021666328 and required notability is established. There remains some uncited stuff but most will be citable if I or elseone leverages 9780951837313 or a derivation.
Djm-leighpark (
talk)
19:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.